Pretty much Microsoft being first to come out with a  new console last gen. Also, the Wii ( at least until 2009/2010)

Bolded 1: It is.

Bolded 2: It does. Once upon a time, Microsoft actually made *gasp* commendable hardware.

But I think you missed the point, it had superior multiplatform games over it's competitors by a larger margin than current/next gen and didn't do much to deter the PS2.

4 things killed the ps3 in the first few years, its extremely High price of 599, lack of quality games, multiplatform games not as good as 360 versions, and that was due to the cell processor being hard to code for. on top of those issues was the lack of certain features the 360 had like crossgame chat, and one thing that i always hated about the launch systems, the way they looked. The ps3 really started turning things around when the slim came out.

All of those systems were deliberately released prematurely with the intention of getting a headstart on their competition. Didn't help them at all.

And considering that the 360 sold less than the original Xbox (a system with two competitors) in their respective first 9 months on the market, I don't think anything changed there either.

I didnt say it was the only. Just the biggest. It ran unopposed for a year. This coming off the heels of their other system and the midst of the PS2 era. Only system with HD gaming. When it took off it took off though. The 360 was a viable threat to the PS brand. 

Off topic what is up with typing from a phone on this site? May be just me idk

the price was simply too high had it launched with a 360 like price point of £280 it would have been unstoppable

my 1st 360 was £210 + £35 memory card

my 1st P.S.3 was £399 it was almost twice the price for me, I even had to lie to wife about the price

that's where it all went wrong

Sonys ego arrogance and this thread lol. Sony had RES1, R&C, motor storm, and Heavenly Sword for like 3 yrs meaning the system had no exclusive games on top of having late crappy ports.

edit: and a price i still wouldnt pay.

You cant say that, because if it launched at £280 instead of £425 then Sony would have lost so much more money. It would have crippled the company.

Would have had to be a totally different machine to be £280.

Essentially, the PS3's biggest drawback was that it was the PS3.

Oddly enough, there's a good chance it could've been more cost-effective if Sony stuck with the original architecture proposals the PS3 had around E3 2005 with the more unified version of the Cell, the drawback being it wouldve been even more obscure to develop for. But since Microsoft jumped the gun with the launch of the 360, I guess they had to go back to the drawing board.

SCEUK have certainly had their head in the sand either way though. No system should ever take 5 and a half years to drop below £200. I wonder if I would even have a PS3 at all today had it not been for the 60GB model discontinuation rush.

It also released for $599.... no console should be that price ever again.