I say it should have released in like 2008 with a cheaper system and a lot of good games.

Blu-ray would most likely have lost... however, Sony would keep their money and PS3 would come out this year with mega hype and everything over Wii and X360... which would be both on better positions... (games-wise for the Wii and sales-wise for the X360 even thought most likely it would have lost GTA, FFXIII and Assassin's Creed)

Mmmm.

Umm I just got a thinking moment lol
What if this was like the dreamcast and ps2 all over again,the ps3 hardware made it expensive,now it went down in price,over the years the ps2 userbase would be growing and growing with everything it had,while the 360 would be getting a couple of sales,as it gets close to 2009 sony releases the PS3($299) everybody is talking about it,it has blu ray,wifi and all the other crap sales sky rocket the 360 and possible wii get Owned 360 sales stop and Microsoft is forced out of the gaming Industry will the wii is still here cuss of profit

Good post.

I'd say they would have been the best bet. Or even if they made the PS3 technology equal to the 360 but with no Blu-ray for $299 it would be at least destroying the 360, if not the wii.

i guess this post makes sense but then again i never had a ps2. I had an xbox and automatically picked up a 360 at launch. I guess i understand the 3rd party not caring about the graphics on 360. But while those ps2 graphic like games came out so would have the 1st party xbox 360 games (which dont even have that great of graphics btw compared to 1st party sony games). Also online plays a major part in this too. Ps2 did not have a good online system and it definitely would not have competed with xbox live. Hell Halo could have been bigger than it already it is with the superior graphics over ps2 games and online feature. Hardcore gamers would have also switched over to the xbox 360 when they saw the graphics. Who do you think was buying the xbox 360 the 1st couple of years? All of the hardcore gamers were and if the PS3 did not come out then most of the hardcore gamers would have stuck with the xbox 360. I actually think Sony made the right call of releasing the PS3. Sony released so many quality games on the ps3 that can't be done on the ps2 which is the reason why i bought the PS3 in the 1st place. Ohh i also bought it for blu ray :)

I think Sony controls something like 90% of the Blu Ray fabrication facilities. Well that looks good until you realise that as far as I can tell they are over-capitalised on the facilities as they haven't yet as far as im aware made any money off that side of Blu Ray. You can tell they are behind schedule not because of what they say, but by the fact that the Sony facilities are under-utilised.

I think one thing missing from the original post is that when the 360 was launching online gaming was starting to take off on consoles and it's hard to imagine Sony being able to put up much of a response to Xbox Live using the PS2.

Another is about the support the 360 has gotten. Sure a lot of it is thanks the the PS3 but a fair amount is also because of the PC and many of the biggest games for the 360 probably still would have been made regardless.

Ones that really stands out are Modern Warfare 1 and 2. Call of Duty 2 for example wasn't even released on a Sony console and was still a sales success so those games probably would have still came out and possibly as 360 console exclusives.

Also games like Gears of War might have had an even bigger impact since the PS3 wouldn't have been waiting in the wings and more gamers might have been attracted to the 360 because of it and other HD games.

This wouldn't have worked at all, just remember how the NES (more dominant than any PlayStation) started losing market share to the Sega Genesis. At some point better graphics, bigger games and more features start to draw in the hardcore. Many mainstream gamers (not casual, that's the new Wii market) pick up new systems because they are impressed when they see their friends (core gamers) playing them. I know that I got at least 10 people to buy the 360 and sign up to Live, and at least 3 people to buy a PS3 after they saw them at my house.

The 360 was getting 3rd party exclusives with or without the PS3, because it offered more opportunities than the PS2. HD TVs and broadband internet were also taking off, and the PS2 could never do much with either of these. Sony not releasing a new PlayStation would ensure that both MS and Nintendo would take away their customers.

A better idea would have been to release a PS3 with a DVD Drive instead of Blue-ray, a lower spec GPU and leave out things that are not necessary (card readers, wi-fi, bluetooth) for $299. If they had done this I can guarantee that they would have slit Microsoft's throat in sales, profit and 3rd party support.

Let Blue-Ray stand on it's own two feet, and not make gamers pay for it.

Yes, you're right.
Microsft has to thanks God that the PS3 came out! =)

What new market is "casual gamers"? "Casual gamers" have to be in the core market (in order for them to exist), which makes "casual gamers" the audience PS2/GC/XB had. New market, as the name tells you, is a completely different story that becomes the core market in the future.

This is also the reason why core games, like SMG and Carnival Games, sell in relatively low numbers opposed to new audience or bridge games, like NSMB Wii and Wii Fit.

Also notice that these "casual games", as defined by the developer, do not sell on any platform in general.

The NES vs. Megadrive had more to do with new games that Sega made for their consoles, such as Sonic, than the generation change itself. Which happens to be a completely different situation from the change from 6th gen to seventh, where the idea is making the same games for a new platform with updated graphics.

Other than that, i agree Sony had been better off without BD and the PS3 CPU (not GPU).