It isn't right now either
PS360 are both 2nd place right now and the PS3 will finish as that - The VGC Numbers are wrong.
The PS3 did catch up with the 360 weeks ago(70 Million) and will overtake it completely next year.The 360 didn't even had the strong Back Friday VGC is showing either.Sony had the same amoung of sales...Its missing here a few 100k.
1 year advantage,the easier system do develop for and tons of money spent for exclusives at the beginning of this Gen couldn't help it.
Next Gen it will be completely different(hopefully - god put some brain in Sonys Management so they don't screw up again)

You didn't even glance over the OP? How would have they released the ps3 as is for $399? They've just started making profit recently.

I think this thread is pretty.... stupid. You take away Blu'ray and Cell processor, 2 of it's main selling points and expect it to do better? How is that even possible?!? Let's take away the motion controls for the Wii while were at it so the PS3 CAN BE NUMBER 1 LIKE IT SHOULD BE!?!?!?!

If the ps3 came out a that price at that time it would be a vastly different machine and if it did come out a that price as it is today even if it sold better the money they would lost would be staggering.

there was a recent "what if" thread about if Wii hadn't had motion controls.  There was also one on if the Gamecube had had Wii tech in it.  Look try to have fun with these scenarios it's obvious that they're just for fun.

Would like like me to make a link to this thread in the OP of the little alternate history "hub" thread I have?

Personally I have the belief had sony been more realistic they would have won even with the xbox head start. Actually one former xbox higher up said 360 probably wouldn't be here if sony had not made those mistakes. I think that might be exaggerating but there is no way microsoft would have got anywhere near the footing they did today. The failure rate stories will no doubt have hurt them and it is likely people would never have put up with it had sony entered the market more competitively.

sure that's kind of what I was going off of anyway.

umm what. I was answering the op question. If sony released the ps3 a year earlier they would be losing even more money per console sold than what they did. and as the price was cheaper they would have sold more consoles earlier which means losing more money as in the beginning they were losing alot of money per console sold.

that happened to many people. the very high price point of ps3 forced people to settle for an xbox 360 instead. i remember i got a 360 first cause i just couldnt afford a ps3.

This is a bit of a silly scenario, it could have swung either way but I think that it was Bluray saved the PS3 for its first year. If Sony made all these mistakes even after a year of the 360 launch, imagine the mistakes they would have made if it was released a year earlier.

Even with the reduced price (due to no bluray and no cell) , it would not match up to the 360, especially in terms of online play and graphical performance.

Even though time has proven that the least powerful console wins, in Sonys case, not only would it have been less powerful, but the software situation would have been dire.  

Take all the multiplatform games for instance. Would you pay $50 for a game that looks like a 360 game, or somwhere between the xbox / Xbox 360 (which is what PS3 games would have looked like if it was released a year early).

The only reason to own launch games such like Motorstorm was the graphics. It would have honestly been a PS2.5 type scenario. Even advantages of having no cell such as backwards compatibility from day 1 wouldn't help the PS3's sales. 

And on a side note OP, never have i read a more deluded hypothesis than yours.