If it was a less powerful but still HD PS3 with Move but probably no blu-ray for $399 (probably still losing as much as the actual PS3 did at $599).

I'd say Wii would have gotten out of the gate quicker thanks to Wii Sports and a lower price point but PS3 would have caught up thanks to receiving upgraded Wii ports and downgraded, Move enabled 360 ports, making it the one system that rules them all.

Once it pulled into pole position, then all develop would have shifted to PS3 meaning 360 games would be identical despite it's superior power (like Xbox getting PS2 ports) and Wii would have downgraded PS3 games but not nearly so bad as the downgrade ports it had this gen, although Move is superior tech to wiimotes so the loss would not only be in graphics but motion sensitivity too, really helping PS3 be the obvious choice for all gamers.

PS3 would have been the dominate system like the PS2 before it, although 360 and Wii would have preformed better than Xbox/Gamecube.

In what world is the PSEye an HD camera?  It's 640x480 at its best resolution.  480p is not HD, to qualify for HD it would have to be capable of 720p.

It's pretty funny OP still believe PS4 will be a game console

No way to know, not just about the price but the games. Of course a better price would result in a better first year, but man the PS3 had a horrid first year and a half

To be honest, a PS3 as powerful as the 360 lanching at least 9 months earlier would've made Sony first place i think.

Move was not an option back then, but if they had that then it might've sold more than the PS2. Alas, Sony doesnt excel on good executive and strategic decisions.

I am going to say something contentious, and I know what you are thinking. What a shock. I think the console would have actually done much worse. The console would have actually found itself in a worse starting position which if it had been that way might have seen Sony out of the market. Quietly out a back door, because nobody, and I mean nobody would have given a shit that they were gone. We are talking about a worst of both worlds scenario. On one hand the console would have looked like a cheap rip off of a Wii, and on the other hand it would look like a blatant lie to even imply that it had some kind of parity with the 360.

What you would have had was core and hardcore gamers flocking to the 360. The only truly dedicated machine. While the Casual gamers would have still bought into the mystique that was the Wii. Leaving Sony with no market at all to tap into. The machine being described in this thread is one that isn't trying to excel at anything, and that is believe it or not is a huge damned problem. The PS3 we got tried to be over the top hardware. Yeah it had some draw backs, but early adopters at least bought into that vision. With no vision there aren't any sales. There isn't any thing to buy into, or to become passionate about.

At best gamers would feel betrayed by the way Sony seemed to be trying to dial in another victory. At worst the console would have just been outright ignored by the rank and file on both ends. I would like for people in this thread to be just a little bit honest with themselves. Would you have really bought such a console. If motion was your thing you would have bought the Wii with its pedigree of games, and if you were a traditionalists would you have been satisfied with just half the graphical glory of the 360. There wouldn't be a debate today, because there isn't anyone on these forums who would have settled for such a console.

You forget what it was like back in '06.    Wii stirred the imagination with what motion would add to games.   Wii Sports was a great example but too limited for the core.   The core wanted sword-fighting - something Wii didn't truly deliver until Zelda:SS - 6 years later.   PS3 would have delivered it immediately with Heavenly Sword.    Move would have delivered the motion controls gamers where looking for, and the experiences they were looking for where Wii provided wrist flicking casual fare.  

Developers were all betting on PS3 being king again and so the development support was there to deliver deep, rich and fully online experiences with well integrated motion/aiming that really worked the way everyone wanted them too.   

PS3 couldn't possibly look like a Wii rip-off when it launched first (by days) and did it better, with better graphics (it could easily have been more powerful than Wii and closer to 360 at that price).    Wii would have looked like a poor-mans' PS3.

Very few would actually care 360 had better graphics, the same that no one cared Xbox and GC were superior to PS2.   The most graphically powerful machine has never, ever won a console (or handheld) generation.   Striving to be the biggest, badest machine on the block was the stupidest thing Sony did.   Looking at history would say that was a huge mistake.

Everyone loved the PS2.   The reason the PS3 floundered was because Sony slapped a great big F--- YOU on the box with a system that abandoned the PS2's casual base and focused on stealing 360's (small!) marketshare instead.   Ridiculous price.  None of the casual friendly titles from the PS2's library.  

The PS3 was not a true successor to the PS2.   The PS2 was the EVERYONE system.   PS3 was clearly only for the hardest of the hard core when it launched but the hardest core gamers were still better served by the 360 which had better games, better online, better graphics (since it was the lead development platform) and no games being delayed which plagued PS3 early on.

Sony should have stuck to what worked.   Launch earlier with a less powerful system and focus on the market that made them king, not the market which put Xbox at a very, very distance 2nd place.

Is pretty not funy when you don't make any sense. The OP was about PS3 I believe.

Thats just the thing, between Microsoft and Sony, Sony does the multimedia schtik but doesn't take the focus off the games. Sony has spoken about this before. They know what the primary objective is in keeping the console a gaming console.

It outsold the Xbox 360's first year. If you actually check year for year the PS3 made more over its respective time being a year behind.