Nice post.

I don't 100% agree with it. But you had many valid points.

One point I would like to make is I think you are underestimating Software. Remeber the software Sony and Nintendo write is not just Media Center Live PSN, etc. They also write the SDK which developers use to write/code their games. If one SDK is much easier to use, then it costs companies less to make a game. And can anyone name a developer that doesn't like saving money?

But overall very valid points, Sony started off in very bad position "Price", but I think everyone has to agree that they are doing a great job and getting it down.

elnino334 said: twesterm said: rocketpig said: Until the 360 released, the two most unreliable consoles in history (to my knowledge, at least) were the PS1 and PS2. Dam, beat me to it.   Also is not like the blu-ray player is going to start costing pennies just because the laser shrunk. All things equal that is where the big difference is if you ask me.

Yep. While the price will continue to plummet for Blu-ray drives, it will be quite some time before they hit the $20 price point of the 360 DVD drive.

If he was underestimating the importance of software, I think the interesting point he raises is how much people underestimate the other side of things.

Granted this observation is made with 20/20 hindsight, with the XBox 360 problems and all. But the previous XBox was more or less a fine unit in terms of reliability.

I will say that from reading some previous articles about the XBox 360 and how they overlook certain issues that later came to bite them in the ass, Microsoft clearly could've benefited from more hardware experience that might have allowed them to better manage risk:reward in terms of releasing a console as early as possible while still managing the design/production process to ensure quality.

It is interesting that Sony wanted to keep all the internals in house with the Cell processor, which supports the argument that Sony might be able to better reduce manufacturing costs over time. But things turned out a bit differently due to other pressures- it ended up needing a GPU from another company, and Sony sold off the Cell operations anyway.

If it wasn't for brand loyalty, sony would have been destroyed this generation. The mistakes they've made have lost them their place in people's minds as the naturally dominant console maker.

Next generation, they'll have to make do with a far less significant branding advantage.

rocketpig said: Mr. Mafoo, I think overall you're on the right track but you're forgetting two very important things: Until the 360 released, the two most unreliable consoles in history (to my knowledge, at least) were the PS1 and PS2. While Sony seems to have gotten it right with the PS3, it hasn't always been that way (though every other Sony product I have owned over the years has been super-reliable).

Definately a good point about PSX and PS2. I see you have been extremely lucky with your Sony products, since every Sony product i've owned have broke. That's why i'm not buying Sony anymore. Too bad the company is so big that you can't avoid it in CE. Latest that broke was my cameras CCD. @OP: While Sony competes with companies that are good in what they do, they usually aren't exactly winning. I mean, i could compete with 100 meters olympic finalists, but i doubt i would finish first. Sony's strength is traditionally good marketing, brand familiarity and branding. Mostly Sony is known as familiar brand, which sells crap for cheap.

rocketpig said: Mr. Mafoo, I think overall you're on the right track but you're forgetting two very important things: Until the 360 released, the two most unreliable consoles in history (to my knowledge, at least) were the PS1 and PS2. While Sony seems to have gotten it right with the PS3, it hasn't always been that way (though every other Sony product I have owned over the years has been super-reliable).

I think the most unreliable console ever made would have been the original NES I know me and many friends had tons of problems with that system. I am sure there is actually no way to find out although I wish companies had to report repair #'s. Also great post many good points in it.

True, the original NES was also a piece of crap.

MrMafoo said: At everything I stated, Sony is in a totally different league as MS. It’s like a pro football team competing against High School team. This is all new to MS, and something Sony has been excelling at for decades. The cost of the PS3 will reach $100 long before the cost of the 360 will. The reliability of the PS3 will outperform the 360 for its entire lifetime. It currently has more features: Built in Wi-Fi, built in HD Movie Player, Bluetooth, upgradeable HD, HDMI (now all 360’s sold have it). It’s quieter, and looks more like a piece of home theater equipment (although that’s subjective). If the competition was to make the best software, MS would win. But at the end of the day, what these companies expect you to buy, is a piece of hardware. MS, today anyway, cannot remotely compete with Sony when it comes to consumer electronics. They can make something great that they deliver on day one. But the qualities needed to make that a successful product over the life of its usefulness, MS has not yet figured out.

Two things - first, if MS is a high school team, they'd be investigated because there's no way on God's green earth that a prep school could hang with a horrible college team, much less a pro team. Right now, it's the first half of the basketball game, and Sony is doing little more than trading baskets. I could see if Sony came out in Nov. 2006 and just pummelled MS like Ninny did. They did little more than make a few free throws. Near the end of the first quarter, they were getting buried and finally woke up. They started a brief run, but soon MS answered and now, it's still a 40-point lead for MS.

The second part is - what makes a console a success. Who said the 360 wasn't useful? I watch digital downloads a lot on it. I can also chat with my buddies on MSN Messenger without having to go back to my PC. If they had a Web browser, I'd never need to get on my PC unless I need to use Photoshop. And I enjoyed having the option of no having to buy a hard drive, not having to buy a next-gen HD player AND not having to buy a wifi adapter unless I wanted to. Guess what - for $199, I can get a 360 and a few bucks more and I can be gaming in the next-gen. No so with the PS3. And really, all a person is getting is the potential of an awesome system in the future.

In the end, the 360 is losing to the PS3 by just 20K to 30K a week. At that rate, it would be take 4 to 5 years to not only catch the 360, but hopes the 360 just stops selling altogether.

In the end, it's your opinion and not mine, but the numbers don't lie ... 

Functionality and price; check. Quality; this gen, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule!
Of course, when I agree with price being a factor, I'm talking about most bang for the buck. The PS3 does have very many built-in features which makes it very good value for money with the new prices they have!

bdbdbd said: rocketpig said: Mr. Mafoo, I think overall you're on the right track but you're forgetting two very important things: Until the 360 released, the two most unreliable consoles in history (to my knowledge, at least) were the PS1 and PS2. While Sony seems to have gotten it right with the PS3, it hasn't always been that way (though every other Sony product I have owned over the years has been super-reliable).   Definately a good point about PSX and PS2. I see you have been extremely lucky with your Sony products, since every Sony product i've owned have broke. That's why i'm not buying Sony anymore. Too bad the company is so big that you can't avoid it in CE. Latest that broke was my cameras CCD. @OP: While Sony competes with companies that are good in what they do, they usually aren't exactly winning. I mean, i could compete with 100 meters olympic finalists, but i doubt i would finish first. Sony's strength is traditionally good marketing, brand familiarity and branding. Mostly Sony is known as familiar brand, which sells crap for cheap.

Well, I had good luck with Walkmans back in the day and my Sony receiver lasted ~7 years before crapping out right as I was planning to replace it anyway. No big loss there.

Once I think about it, I haven't owned all that many Sony products. Probably only 5 or 6 once I add it up. Still, they have a pretty good track record for me personally. My PSX and PS2 kept on truckin' til the end, though the PS2 was on its last leg when it was replaced.