Even if it's doing the worst out of the big 3, i still wouldn't concider it a failure. It's sold 6.73 million already (wouldn't be surprised if it's over 7 million once the Dec. 8 weeks sales are updated) and it's been selling a good 300,000+ the last few weeks. Even if it's last, its still going strong, and the good games coming out in 2008 will only help. Plus theres a couple good games coming out in the next 2-3 days. (Unreal Tournament and the Orange Box) which will only help.

When are you guys getting Unreal Tournament III, 360 Fans??

The last 10 or so whichever posts made good points lol. The PS3 is not a failure among the 3 consoles, it only didnt do that great when considered to its series, that some people thought it was going to dominate the market entirely. Normally, the PS3 is doing fine, but yes, coming off of a HUGE 200 MILLION console franchise.. Thats where the people can start throwing the word failure around, though for me thats wayy too harsh of a word as the other Playstation series took off only in later years too (just as the 360 has pulled up more in its second year- its a very obvious trend lol ;P and many other consoles are considered 'successful with this kind of position.. so yeah.. failure is just out of the question). And at first before i heard much, Yeah, i thought it was going to dominate. but then i heard all the things it was going to have and i knew it was going to cost more than most expected (and then in other countries.. jeez those poor guys lol), Thats where i kinda backed up a bit, i still thought the PS3 was going to do well, but there was no practical way it could at the cost of price, but im not complaining haha i bought mine at launch still! Personally i think had the PS3 been the one out first though im sure its sales would have been dramatically higher despite the price heh, but then we might not have had a price drop for years and well all know we couldnt live with that.

who says the xbox360 sold good, hum?

 and ps3< xbox360 sold? HOHOHOHO

pc m8 pc

The difference in this case was that Microsoft didn't NEED to get off to a rock solid start. They launched the 360 into a void, there was no competition. They didn't have enough stock, the launc lineup was mediocre, and the Xbox 360 didn't exactly fly out of the gate. The reason why this isn't remarked on is because it wasn't a problem, the 360 had time to build up a sizeable user base, and they managed 6 million by the time the PS3 came out. Not an incredibly large amount, but not exactly meager.

Meanwhile, the PS3 launched one year later than the Xbox360. It is not enough to simply follow the curve of the Xbox for it. Imagine you're a publisher, about to finance a game. You have to project what the user base of the consoles are going to be like a year down the track when your game is released. Since the PS3 released, it hasn't gained ground on the Xbox, it's actually lost ground. Over a year has passed and the Xbox360 has actually extended its lead over the PS3. As a game publisher, you'll look at that, you'll look at the software sales of the Xbox360 and compare it to the software sales of the PS3, and the decision isn't difficult. In one year, the Xbox360 is most likely to have the larger install base, and you're most likely to make more money off it (especially if you're a western publisher). Conclusion, either make an Xbox360 exclusive, or multi platform but put the most resources into the Xbox version.

Of course, this means the Xbox is likely to see more games, and as such, more customers, feeding the circle. And the longer the PS3 loses ground on the Xbox360, the less likely it looks like overtaking the Xbox360, and the less publishers are going to decide to release exclusives for the PS3.

If the second console is to win, it needs a strong launch followed by prolonged periods of brisk sales. Even if it takes 2 years to overtake the leading console, publishers will look at the future, see that this console is going to overtake, and start backing it. But if your console flounders out of the gate, and loses ground on the competition, like the PS3 has, then you're going to lose developer support, and lose the games, and lose the customers.

Sony need it cheaper than it is to really take sales. Even though its = X360 right now, they have to surpass them = is not enough.

yeah i gotta agree with leo-j's last post

Sony is doing better than M$ since their price point was a lot higher. The main problem is that PS2 was massive and PS3 isnt also the fact of if Sony follows 360 numbers they will always remain a year behind 360.

 They cant reduce the price anymore than it is now. They are already losing a bundle on every PS3 sold, they cant take the hit of losing anymore. I dont expect another pricedrop until next Christmas, and by then, it'll be too late for them to make up the amount to stay in the race.

It's not like the 360 is some shining beacon of success. It's a couple million ahead of where the original Xbox was at this point in it's life in America, it's about even with the original Xbox in others, and it's completely irrelevent in Japan.

The PS3 is performing more like the Gamecube. It's tracking a little behind the Gamecube in America and Japan and a bit ahead of the Gamecube in others. PS3 fans hate to hear this, but I think it's a safe bet that the PS3 will continue to perform like the Gamecube. Price cuts never helped the Gamecube that much and it was cheaper than its competition. I doubt that MGS or FF will save the PS3 any more than Zelda, Super Mario Sunshine, or Smash Bros. saved the Gamecube.