RolStoppable said:
Sony's investment in Blu-ray as the successor to the DVD format played a much bigger role for the PS3 than brand loyalty. Winning the format war for movies and TV shows is why Sony stayed in despite the incredibly big losses. Of course, Blu-ray was also part of the reason why the PS3 got into trouble to begin with. The other big part was the Cell processor which, just like Blu-ray, was about establishing future profits from non-gaming ventures. Sony cut the price of the PS3 from $600 to $400 in a matter of eight months in the USA, in Europe the price was cut within seven months, from €600 to €400. It's safe to assume that you mean only the Xbox 360 when you refer to $200 cheaper competition, but Microsoft's box was actually only $50 cheaper after Sony's PS3 price cuts in 2007. The one fact that you want me to admit is something that I will shrug off because the Xbox One continued to receive good support for the games that matter. How many AAA third party games skipped the Xbox One? Can probably be counted on one or two hands. Regarding first party support, the Xbox One isn't going to be relevant for Scarlett, because all Microsoft has to do is show what their studio acquisitions and old studios are working on. They can change the perception of Xbox's first party with a single presentation, plus gamers know that the third party games will be there by default. Lastly, we have the points about Switch. It is priced like a home console, and yes, the people who made those bad predictions were oblivious to the fact that Switch succeeded both the 3DS and Wii U. I have no idea why you are trying to excuse their bad reasoning when in the very next sentence you explain that Switch isn't a handheld, so the reasoning for the concerns about the price didn't really make sense. Wii U's lackluster late support remains a relevant point because Switch is clearly selling to a lot of people who use the system as a home console, hence why Switch's tie ratio is notably higher than that of a handheld console. Whatever happened with Wii U didn't bother potential buyers of Switch and that line of reasoning will apply to Scarlett as well. You even highlighted good support as reason for Switch's success, so why should an improved first party of Microsoft in combination with virtually all the important third party games for Scarlett lead to the same or worse results than the Xbox One? Logic dictates better sales. |
So, Blu-ray was the reason that Sony supported the PS3 so well throughout the gen? Because it was competing against a format that was completely abandoned just 1 year and 3 months after the PS3's launch? Yea, that totally makes sense. 
No, Sony stayed in because PS is a big part of who they are. It's one of their major branches.
For the price cut, we're talking about entry prices here, so I have no idea where you got the $600 to $400 drop. I was wrong about one thing, though. There was a period when the PS3 was only $120 more than the 360. The 360 launched at $299. The PS3 launched at $499, a $200 difference. The first real price cut the PS3 saw was to $399, a year later, not 7 months. Xbox had already dropped the price early in 2007 to $279, so a $120 difference, not $50. The following year, 2008, we saw no PS3 price cut, but Xbox introduced the Arcade for $199 in Sept. That's back to a $200 difference.The next price cut for the PS3 was 11 months later, $299 with the introduction of the Slim, in Aug of 2019. That finally dropped the price difference to just $100 after nearly 3 years on the market. Again, first time a console survived such a huge price difference, especially one that started at $200, then shrank to $120, only to grow back to $200 for another year. The prices pretty much correspond to € 1:1, though the month of the price cut may change by a month or so.
Ah, so you are of the mind that exclusives don't really matter to the HD twins, but I'm sure you know and will admit that exclusives are a big selling point for Nintendo. No point in arguing with such willful ignorance and hypocrisy. I will just say that, like many of the points you have made, you are just dead wrong. We are talking about exclusives that have been selling 5M-10M+. But, sure, they don't really matter cause 3rd party support is sorta the same. 
Now, for the Switch. Yea, it's priced like a home console that came out over a decade ago. We're never getting another home console launching at $299, unless it's extremely underpowered. The next gen consoles are most likely launching at $499. Those predictors weren't oblivious to those facts, those were the reasons they didn't see it succeeding. The Wii U hadn't done well at $299. And the 3DS didn't do well at $249. Of course, what happened was that Nintendo hit that sweet spot of power and mobility, console gaming on the go. People found $299 to be a fair price for it. It's helps that it is getting decent 3rd party support and that Nintendo is working on it exclusively, so no more effort split between two platforms, just the one. It's also what Sony is doing for home consoles, albiet with better 3rd party support, and why they continue to see such success with the PS4.
And, yes, the Switch is a handheld. And it has a port that turns it into a home console. Again, you can't ignore the handheld part, just because you think it helps your argument. Now, if Xbox had a successful line of HHs, and the Scarlet was going to be a hybrid, then you may have an argument. As is, it's apples to oranges. And who says MS will have better 1st party support? Sure, they have more studios, but that means absolutley nothing if the games don't appeal to gamers and/or come out mediocre. I see nothing from Xbox, or MS's big focus on streaming, that gives me confidence that they will handle those studios any better than they did Rare or Lionhead. It's quality over quantity that wins gamers, and Sony has both in spades.
Last edited by thismeintiel - on 03 November 2019
