| CGI-Quality said: As a sequel, you should do better than your predecessor, not worse. The PS1 did good, better than the rest. The PS2 came along and did even better. The PS3 fell flat on its face until Sony decided to get their shit in gear. It's the 360 that is entirely irrelevant to the PS2, not the PS3. Microsoft had nothing to prove after the original Xbox, but Sony certainly did. What happened in the beginning of the 7th gen was a failure to capitilize on their past glory, and that is what I've meant all along. They were able to claw a sizeable lead based on their own homework and Sony's missteps. What we have here is a PS3 comeback because of a lot of things Sony had to do to turn things around. That's the only reason why it's worth bringing up, as I see it. |
Again, what are you talking about? None is this is relevant to the post you quoted of mine. When people are saying they are surprised the PS3 outsold the 360 since it had such a "bad start" supposedly, they are not comparing it to the PS2. Why? Because the 360 did even worse than the PS2.
Did the PS3 start worse than the PS2? Yes. Did the 360 start worse than PS2? Yes. But who cares. Did the PS3 start better than the 360? Yes. That's all that matters in this discussion.
