tak13 said:
Oh the same mistake... PS3 was a late bloomer, didn't have the legs many people think... PS3 was released at the whopping 599$ , as expected it sold very bad at that price, its price fell to 499$ ( 2007 ) after one year and little improvement in sales, then 399$ again after one year ( 2008 ) and it started selling somewhat well! Sony released ps3 slim ( which ditched the expensive components of the previous model ) in 2009 and ps3 sales exploded... That situation is what let ps2 to keep selling extremely well , but it collapsed the year that sony launched ps3 slim. PS2 was costing 99$ when ps3 was released at 599$! Even with the initial ps2 price, their price difference is huge! For reference PS2 had the same launch price with ps1 and ps4 only 100$ more. Of course |
The first Playstation sold 30 million, 30% of its lifetime sales, after the PS2 was out.
The PS2 sould 40 million out of 155 million after the PS3 launched - a lesser ~25% of its lifetime sales.
Maybe you should retify your argument to say it was actually the PS2 that was too expensive at launch, perhaps?
The PS1 also sold 67 million after March 1998, two and a half to over three years it had been released everywhere.
Was the PS1 also too expensive at launch?
Of course it's likely the PS3 would have sold better if it was cheap from the beginning but then it would be even cheaper later on its lifetime, with a larger marketshare and mindshare, maybe even more exclusive games, and thus sold more on its late years. Besides, you seem to argue with the notion the PS2 - not the Wii, not the X360, not the DS, not the PSP - was somehow cannibalizing sales of its successor because it was more expensive.
By the way, the PS3 could be found at $499 at launch, and there was already a 40 GB $399 SKU by November 2007. Its year-on-year sales increased even without a pricecut before the $299 slim launched, dropping slighly only in the wake of a X360 pricecut late on 2008.
