awesome quote tree :D

SO true sony hurt themselves more than anyone else.

LOL, yes, the MS execs are quivering under their desks waiting for the end of days in a week. Despite all the market gain, profits, and momentum for next gen, it all hinges on sales bars on VGChartz.

They launch a year later because MS decided to push for the next generation earlier. MS also offered a console which provided access to most third party games for a lower price. MS did a lot of things right for them to gain equal footing in the console market. Sony's $500/$600 price tags mattered, but the strategies MS employed were more damaging.

I don't since I game on both companies platforms. Nintendo for their 1st party and MS for multi-platform.

To be honest, Spurge. Nintendo basicly handed their purple lunchbox to Sony and let them eat it. As much as I'm fond of the design, competitor wise, Nintendo shot themselves in the knee...

I must say, when I saw the $600 price tag, coupled with Kaz saying "get a second job"(wich made me changed my mind about getting one at th time). It gave Microsoft open the flood gates about "getting the Wii and an 360 for the price of a PS3". That was just brilliant on Microsofts part, use Sony's blunderness to their advantage. (Again with the joke) Sony shot themselves in the right foot, leaving them open for Microsoft to shoot them an arrow on their left knee. X'D

We will have to disagree. Sony could not afford a $400 PS3 at launch. Judging from the sales of most of their launch titles, there is no way they would have made anywhere near enough to cover the losses. They didn't even start making a profit on the system until well into the generation. That would be like someone saying a $200 launch Xbox 360 would have gave them an insurmountable lead. It is pure conjecture and has no basis. As, I said before, the year headstart was part of MS's strategy, Sony could not do anything about that.

Incorrect. I didn't reinforce any of your opinions; I just showed how hollow that if only argument you are using is. The 360 released earlier, at a lower price point. It is an equivalent system that has, lets say, 90% of the same games. This, along with many of the big name 3rd party games running better on the system. It also had a much better online infrastructure. It offered a whole new experience (online) to what the PS2 had. None of this was in Sony's control.

As you said before, we will just disagree. No point in pursuing this any longer as neither of us are going to convince the other.

You keep arguing price as if that is the only reason for everything that has happened. It is not. I have done nothing to aid that point, I just pointed out how hollow of an argument that is. Since you want to bring up the cost of the systems, lets bring up another possibility.

If MS was not around, PS3 would have been fine releasing at that price. They may not even have had to release the PS3 as it was. Why did Sony need to push tech onto the PS3? They feared MS and wanted an advantage on their console.  Therefore MS forced their hand and it resulted in the problems the PS3 had when it was released. So, MS is the main reason that Sony had all these problems.

We can discuss this all day with different reasons and possibilities, but as I said it really won't make a difference.

You claimed that Sony problems came mainly from themselves. You clearly attempted to argue that the year headstart and the cost as the main points. Sony had no control on when and how MS launched. MS entering the console market, very likely, had an effect on the cost of the PS3. I argued both these points and yet you keep trying to bring up costs without adding anything of substance to the discussion. I'll just leave it at that. Have a good day.