You're the one who blindly stumbled into this thread, you didn't even read the topic, it says "assuming" so you assume.  For example if I said assume both your parents were men would you play with your wii as much.  Your reply would't be "WEL TAT INPOSSIBLE BABIES ARE BORN WIT A MAN AND A WOMEN AND A BOTTLE OF LIQUOR" it would be a yes or a no.  The magical assume.

 1. The high price point of the PS3 allowed MS to float it's high prices another year, and allowed Nintendo to charge $250 for a $200 system. Had the PS3 launched at $400, both Nintendo and MS would have had lower prices to compete as well - and with MS's better software lineup this year, it may have even benefitted from this more than the PS3 could.

2. The majority of PS3s in the XMas months went to people who were going to buy them anyway - witness the absurdly high prices on eBay. The lower price would not have done anything to deal with the console shortage, and by the time Sony could meet demand, they would have been in the slow-selling winter and spring, without much of a lineup to entice new gamers.

 3. I don't think it would have done much to the Wii, as it was the novel gameplay that lured most people in. Sony couldn't really duplicate that. All they would have done is cut into Nintendo's profit margin as they would have had to launch the Wii at a lesser price, but that doesn't do anything to help Sony with market share. OTOH, with the RROD issues surfacing this summer, the early price drop on the 360 might have put a big dent into MS. Again, not doing much for market share, but it would have let Sony kick their biggest competitor in the nuts.

4. The only way that Sony could have launched for $400 would have been to either swallow an unprecedented $300-400 for each console sold, or it would have had to remove features from the system. Neither one would have been a benefit.

 In the end, I think the PS3, at a lower price, likely could have finished it's first year around 10 million - better than it is right now, but not enough to overtake MS or Wii. It could have been enough of a difference for PR though, and kept the stench of "loser" off the system, which would benefit it's long term success.

 Microsoft is doing a fine job of destroying itself, thank you very much. For all of 2007, Sony's total market share is about 40%, Nintendo's share is 40%, and Microsoft is trundling along slightly above 20%.

The PS3 was launched at a price tag to differentiate itself from the PS2. Now that the PS2's lifespan is drawing to a close, the PS3 will pick up the slack - in fact, the PS3 is already practically equalling sales of the 360, and this is before the blockbuster games come out. 

If sony had made a console weaker than 30 but stronger than wii, without blueray but still with six axiz and priced at $299.99 plus easy to develop for, it would be a very close 3 way race, with sony/nintendo virtaully tied and 360 trailing slightly, doomed for a strong 3rd place imo.

That's exactly what I did.  I assumed the PS3 launched at $400.  I also assumed that in order for Sony to be able to afford this, they had to use less expensive hardware in the PS3.  I could have chosen to assume that they used the same hardware and simply took an additional $200 loss on each unit, but I assumed they wouldn't be that suicidal.  Should I have assumed otherwise?

Your problem isn't with my assumptions, your problem is that my post assumes that we're in the real world, not some fantasy world where the Cell and Blu-ray are cheap to produce and Sony is still #1 in console sales.  Sorry, but I've got better things to fantasize about.

shoulda...coulda...woulda. This thread is silly; WAY too many factors to try to bring together to make such a prediction.

Precisely. If we are going to untether our assumptions from reality, why assume $400? Why not $200? Or $1? Why not raise the price of the Wii and 360 while we're at it, and maybe have Mario star in an animated porno.

A disingenuous and factually untrue post. Sony and Nintendo each have multiple consoles on the market which bump their numbers up. Since MS is out of this market, it's misleading to try and fold these numbers into a debate on current home console sales.If we look ONLY at the current generation of home consoles (which is the focus of this thread)...

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&start=39082&end=39418

 the PS3 and 360 have tracked very closely, with a brief uptick for Sony thanks to the EU launch, and a smaller bump for the 360 with Halo3. All along, the Wii has been selling 50-100% higher than either console, so the more accurate statistic would be roughly 50% Nintendo and 25% Sony and MS.

Now, if we examine the sales of the GBS,  PSP, and PS2 ...

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=DS&reg1=All&cons2=PSP&reg2=All&cons3=PS2&reg3=All&start=39082&end=39418 

 we'll find that the DS alone sells roughly what the PS2 and PSP combined put out. So even if we look at total sales for all consoles - past gen, current gen, home and portable, Nintendo still leads Sony by a considerable margin (while the GBA, GC and XBox are still technically on the market, their sales don't do much to affect the overall numbers).

And I think it's flatly wrong to say that the PS3's price was determined by the PS2 still being on the market. While the PS2 has sold some for Sony this past year, it's not nearly significant enough to warrant a $600 price tag that was guaranteed to put it in a hole for a year or two. The simple fact is that was as cheap as Sony could afford to sell the console for, as it was losing nearly $200 on each one sold. Were they able to sell it for less, they would have (a $400-500 PS3 wouldn't have been competing with a PS2 anyway).

Unfortunately we don't live in the land of make believe.

These kind of threads are stupid.

I'm not sure if anybody else has stated this, and I don't care.

If the PS3 launched at $400, then (1) it would have outsold the 360 all year, (2) it would have gotten better development efforts, and (3) it would have still ended up in third after the year/generation ended.