By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
zeldaring on 01 August 2023
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
CGI-Quality said:

Weak hardware wasn't the One's biggest problem, though. The PS3 was "bad hardware", but that too wasn't its biggest issue. Price/messaging/lack of early marketing (all mismanagement by the higher ups) caused a far bigger mess (like the X1), but they overcame that by pumping out high quality, exclusive experiences, eventually getting the price in check, and flipping their messaging on its head. I'm not saying being notably weaker than the PS4 didn't hurt at all, but I'd wager stronger software would have done more for lifetime sales.

The 360's early days were the Crème de la crème of console software and that was the biggest reason it was so desired then. This was despite its initial fail rate. I had several of them go bad and still couldn't live without one. It was simply that good! Constant, strong software overcame shortcomings and Xbox LIVE was top of its class — largely unchallenged by PSN. They lost the plot with the Xbox One and the hardware was a smaller piece of the how. 

Where we fully agree is with the Don Mattrick stuff. 

While the PS3 hardware took more effort to get the performance out of it, I would not say it was "Bad Hardware" as we saw during the later part of that hardware cycle impressive graphical accomplishments by multiple developers.  The thing is the 360 gained a lot of ground on Sony during that era because MS had a year head start and developers in the beginning of the cycle were having issues coding to the PS3.  I believe one of the biggest selling point for a console is what your friends are playing on.  With the year headstart and Sony struggle, a lot of 360 consoles were in people hands which made MS very competitive even still Sony was able to maintain their marketshare advantage.

Even with that example, it was the hardware that was holding back a lot of games which allowed MS to make much gains against Sony before developers turned the corner.  The same was for the Xbox one.  Weak hardware caused developers to struggle to get decent performance out of the hardware and the hardware was more expensive then MS main competitor.  Its one thing to over come having weaker hardware and still go up against the market leader.  Its another to have weaker hardware and cost more than the market leader and have any real success.

Do not get me wrong, Sony played a masterclass game in the PS4.  They took full advantage of MS misstep and their studios were able to perform with high quality AAA content.  When you look at the total picture, all games played better on the PS4.  3rd Party content, first party content and at a cheaper price.  While having the most powerful hardware does not ensure you a win, having a very weak hardware at a higher price definitely ensure you a big loss.

Exactly just look at North America sales in the region where brand matters the least. 360 beat the ps3 by a huge margin. ps3 really was able to beat 360 WW cause of brand power in europe/WW more then  games. it's like Nintendo brand power in japan with its handhelds. Factor in most people are buying those consoles for multiplatform games and Sony machines was just so much better it wasn't even close. first COD was 720 on xbox one vs 1080p ps4, and that was what really kept 360 in the fight, having COD much better on it's platform.