PS1 and PS2 weren't weak consoles. 

oh yeah they were.

Well when you troll on that site, you tend to get 1-bubblers PM you. That's just how it works.

Weird how the gap is 1.7 now...wasn't it 1.3 by the end of last year? I was under the impression the gap had gotten smaller? It should have since PS3 was outselling the 360 each month...weird.

Everything in that PM is true though...

Dude that is seriously crazy.

I love Sony as much as the other two companies - but even the slightest criticism of them brings the crazies out. It's remarkable, I don't know why their fanbase has become like this. It wasn't like this 10 - 15 years ago.

I don't know if they realise it's a cumulative effect. You can LOVE Metallica, but if you go to a concert and get spat on by fans for saying "Megadeth are an OK band", it may not make you hate Metallica, but every time it's gonna make you like them a little bit less.

Did anything in that PM have anything to do with him stating that 70 mill was shipped not sold though?

Maybe it's there between the lines somewhere.

Woops sorry mate. Quoted the wrong post. Also I think last year the gap was >2mil

It was kinda relevant since he talked sales and charts.

But for real though, a 1.7 gap isn't really that much and its not something to brag about when you had a year head start. I guess that's why Microsoft doesn't brag about it, why do you man-bear-pig?

He talked about award nominations/wins, he talked about titles in the top 20 in different regions and exclusives in each.

I must have missed the shipped/sold reference.

It was as relevant as having a discussion about modern day Germany and bringing up economic policies of The Weimar Republic.

As I've said elsewhere - head start is almost irrelevant in this field.

The MegaDrive Genesis had a healthy head start over the SNES. Ditto the Saturn over the PS1, or the Dreamcast over the PS2. Even the 3DO had a decent head start over the PS1.

Was the reason the PS2 absolutely slaughtered the competition due to its-

a)head start?

Or

b) was it down to a factor of brand recognition/software - hardware backwards compatibility (which neither competitor offered), DVD playback (which neither competitor offered out of the box), MASSIVE library of exclusives and multiplats?

If you picked b) - you're correct.

In a technology industry, the late starter can

* Offer improved hardware at cheaper launch cost than their competitors (because technology/hardware components become cheaper)

* Analyse where the already on market competitors have made their profits and losses - and plan accordingly.

* Offer true innovation over their competitors known quantities

- this isn't to say Sony didn't do ALL of those things - in many cases they did. It's just to show that - historically - it's usually the late starter that wins the race in this console (and indeed most other device) game. Notable exceptions - the PS1 vs N64 (I think the limitations of the cartridges/hardware had a lot to do with this) , and the PS2 vs. XBX/GC (see reasons above). You can maybe claim "head start" for the first year or two, but after 5 years - it's a moot point. Your "old"  5 year old tech should be looking a hell of a lot more attractive than your competitors "ancient" 6 year old tech.

So the two notable times when the early starter has won - the early starter has been Sony. Fancy that! I'd be hard pressed to find a Sony fan who thinks PSX/PS2's success was due almost entirely to their early start, and not to their library/features.

This is why Apple, who were late to the MP3 player market - followed the above three points to dominate. Then did it again in the mobile phone market.

I don't know hoe this thread was derailed so entirely from a discussion on Sony's economic situation/ratings - to a "360 had a head start" discussion - but there you have it. Whatever Straw Man works I guess.