Their sales likely would of dried up by now.

Also, the scenario you describe... really the PS3 isn't really even the PS3 anymore.

It's a really dumb question. Obviously the 360 would have never really took off and the PS3 would be FAR ahead.

Same here, I was like fuck the PS3 in 2006, but bought one in 2009 and realized it gave me more than the 360 ever did. I saved so much money as well. No need for battery packs, online payments, Wi-fi and more back then.

No. Sony would still have a huge first party and they wouldn't taken the financial hit. Even I would've bought the PS3 before the 360, but Microsofts product was made similarly to how Sony would've made theres so the decision was easy for me to jump ship to the 360. 

They both would of still tanked nonetheless regardless of the lower or higher price point. Software moves hardware - 3DS is a fine example - and at the time, both consoles had no compelling software (2006 for Sony).

then countless threads and posts of "wow, look, my $ps3-game looks more amazing than anything on your xbox!" had never been...
@op: the cell was planned long before ps3 was released so you have to roll back time even more. and the ps2-architecture (mips as cpu) was just outdated - they had to find a way for a massive performance-leap which they found with cell that is still very powerful - they were only betrayed by nvidia and too stingy with ram which blocked (and still blocks) the whole system.

PS3 is already ahead of 360 inspite of releasing a year later in Japan, US and 1.5 yrs late in other regions.

At same price with blu-ray and HDD. Upgrading HDD on PS3 is so easier. It is no brainier.

PS3 offering and value of money is by far the best. On 360 many people have probably spend 300$ just to play online which I still find ridiculous.

360 would be begging for 50 m sales.

This, not as low as 24 million

yeah I definitely think Microsoft would have grown with stronger initial online and Halo.  Like I said around 40 or 50 million seems right.