By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Alternate history: What if PS3 launched without Cell or Blu-Ray at $399?

I'd say keep BD and have a cheaper non BC version instead. Without BD, games would all be HD DVD now, and MS was a big part of the organization on that side of the format war. I couldn't ever see SNY allowing that to happen. Would that push SNY to go all digital sooner like MS is trying? Something more user friendly than cell probably would've helped, but I think SNY could've gotten away with it more so than they did.

A $399 base PS3, without BC at launch, would've had 360 around 20-25 mil behind where it was, by 6 years in, with PS3 scooping up those sales. While cell may have been a pain, as long as PS3 sales were strong enough in comparison early on, it would've pushed devs to put a lot more effort in much sooner. 360 being in the position it was, gave devs breathing room they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Quite a few people I knew who had PS2's, had 360's earlier on. It was the console to get, and many others jumped in because of that. Some of them ended up grabbing a PS3 once it went slim and became cheaper, whether they added it to the 360 or transitioned fully to it. Getting a solid start to sales at the beginning of the gen is fairly important to long term sales, in general.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 09 March 2020

Around the Network

I don't think it is a complete win for PS3.

PS3 losing Blu Ray means it loses a selling point and if both the 360 and PS3 went with HD-DVD or whatever, then the 360 still wins on that front. The 360 launched a year ahead and garnered a good reputation from the OG Xbox and the Halo series. It still would have sold quite well, especially after Halo 3 launch. The PS3 would not have the perceived "advantage" of the cell either and being so similar to the 360, when the 360 already launched a year ahead isn't exactly a good thing. The 360 still has the Kinect which outsold the Move quite easily, so again 360 has advantages even late gen.

However, bad PR for the 360 would be a lot more pronounced, especially the RROD issues. So it depends if the PS3's new architecture would also create new HW problems to match the bad PR for the 360.



twintail said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
I think they would have sold a lot better, probably been their third straight 100 million seller. I can't imagine it making any difference on the games. Well, at least DVD vs BluRay. Who knows in regards to Cell.

But no Cell in PS3 would have made this gen more interesting. Does Sony still remaster so much stuff or is there PS3 BC eventually in PS4?

If the architecture could easily have been utilized by the PS4, I imagine you would have PS3 BC out of the gate Whether this means less remasters is debatable since a remaster would, theoretically, be better looking and more content complete. Like, I think TloU Remaster would still be a thing because it essentially acts as a 'GoTY edition'.

In fact, I imagine a similar thing will happen with PS5 (and XSX maybe?). There will be remasters but they will basically be the complete edition of the game, so FF15 with all content or KH3 with all content in a single package etc. While the content itself is not exclusive to next gen, that particular release will be. 

Just my thoughts 

I could be wrong but I believe remasters will be rare next gen, first, because of backwards compatibility, second, because its said the BC will improve the visuals and performance, hence no need to pay again full price for remasters when ps4 games will be like 5 dollars.

Still doesn't mean the game would be 4K HDR, hardware cant do that, but most games are already enhanced for the pro, so at least the most important games would look great on ps5 without need for remasters. The only games I can think of that really needs a remaster is GTA5 and Driveclub, they look bad once I got used to the pro enhanced games.

In fact I'm already happy with current gen games enhanced on the pro such as Horizon, god of war, I wouldn't buy a remaster at all, unlike the ps3 games that really really needed remaster because of lack of AA and low resolutions and very low framerates below 30fps. PS3 games Ill buy as many remasters as they can make, I'd pay full price for a mass effect trilogy remaster and a max payne 3 remaster, also Deadspace trilogy remaster and Darkness.



Farsala said:
I don't think it is a complete win for PS3.

PS3 losing Blu Ray means it loses a selling point and if both the 360 and PS3 went with HD-DVD or whatever, then the 360 still wins on that front. The 360 launched a year ahead and garnered a good reputation from the OG Xbox and the Halo series. It still would have sold quite well, especially after Halo 3 launch. The PS3 would not have the perceived "advantage" of the cell either and being so similar to the 360, when the 360 already launched a year ahead isn't exactly a good thing. The 360 still has the Kinect which outsold the Move quite easily, so again 360 has advantages even late gen.

However, bad PR for the 360 would be a lot more pronounced, especially the RROD issues. So it depends if the PS3's new architecture would also create new HW problems to match the bad PR for the 360.

360 had everything done right, I doubt they could do it again.

I remember the games, Oblivion, Table tennis, Fight night, Gears of war, Halo 3, Forza 3, rainbow six vegas, dead rising, Test drive unlimited, call of duty 2, saints row, FEAR, Ghost recon - advanced warfighter, Hitman blood money, call of duty 3, the godfather, Battlefield 2, phantasy star, Prey, need for speed, project ghotam 3, condemned and many more. All of these games before the ps3 even came to Europe.

If you really liked videogames at all, you had to have a 360 back in 2005/2006, I'd have waited a couple months for ps3, but that was a huge library of games already available in HD graphics with a fantastic controller that had vibration, I paid 360pounds in UK, the ps3 was supposed to be 500pounds without controller vibration. And it was backwards compatible with a lot of games.

As much as I loved ps2, I had to go 360. I ended up buying a ps3 when uncharted came out.

The fact that in the end the ps3 still outsold the 360 is mind boggling to me as a real gamer who enjoys games. It makes no sense. Its as if people bought into the brand instead of the best library. More so when the xbox 360 played a lot of Xbox games such as Baldurs gate, Black, Batman begins, Burnout 3, colin mcrae4, commandos 2, Constantine, crimson skies, doom 3, Fable, Far cry instincts, GTA trilogy, Halo games, Jade empire, Max payne 1 and 2, Medal of honor, Ninja gaiden, Panzer dragon, Prince of Persia, red faction 2, return to castle Wolfenstein, Shenmue 2, silent hill 2, soul calibur 2, star wars games, and many many more.

PS - I do not believe Microsoft will ever again have that library advantage, sony will not let them. And I wont fall for the talks about several teams and games coming, I remember how they fooled me with the Xbox X because a couple games were cancelled. 

You would have had to be crazy to chose ps3 over 360 at least for the first 3 years. Specially if you play online, xbox live was way better than psn back in 2006.



Then Sony may have been learning from a PS3-like mistake this gen rather than the previous one.



Around the Network

At the very least, I think it would have resulted in a close race between the PS3 & 360 in the U.S., and the PS3 enjoying an even larger sales advantage over the 360 in Europe (Japan probably would have remained about the same). Instead of a near-tie in global sales, I think we might have seen something closer to a 100M/70M split in Sony's favor.



Not sure it would have changed things much, other than giving Sony a little more of a decisive lead over MS. Nintendo still would have been the overall winner. A lot of the 360's sales in the beginning were driven by Xbox Live, which was a novelty back then, and then by Kinect in the second half of the generation, and I'm assuming PSN would still have its bare-bones structure compared to Live, along with the attendant issues that led to the infamous 2011 security breach and shutdown. The Sony Corporation as a whole was a complete basket case that a few more PS3 sales wouldn't have fixed. Sony's issues at the time were structural.



That eliminates two of PS3's biggest issues right there. Price and difficulty to program for. As the owner of both, it baffled me how large a lot of PS3 games were (in GB) compared to their Xbox 360 counterparts. Did any games really benefit from Blu Ray or the Cell?

Hindsight is 20/20 and, at the time, the PS3 looked like an unstoppable beast. It still sold well but I imagine, given a chance to do it all over again, Sony would have made some huge changes and saved a lot of money. Maybe even outsold the Wii.



Twitter: @d21lewis

PS3 surely would have passed 360 alot sooner if it had been cheaper on release and price matched with 360 throughout the gen. With an easier to develop for chipset than Cell, 3rd party devs wouldn't have struggled with ports quite as much as they did, which would have resulted in less poor performance ports on PS3 than we got. I think PS3 would have passed 100m for sure.



victor83fernandes said:
Farsala said:
I don't think it is a complete win for PS3.

PS3 losing Blu Ray means it loses a selling point and if both the 360 and PS3 went with HD-DVD or whatever, then the 360 still wins on that front. The 360 launched a year ahead and garnered a good reputation from the OG Xbox and the Halo series. It still would have sold quite well, especially after Halo 3 launch. The PS3 would not have the perceived "advantage" of the cell either and being so similar to the 360, when the 360 already launched a year ahead isn't exactly a good thing. The 360 still has the Kinect which outsold the Move quite easily, so again 360 has advantages even late gen.

However, bad PR for the 360 would be a lot more pronounced, especially the RROD issues. So it depends if the PS3's new architecture would also create new HW problems to match the bad PR for the 360.

360 had everything done right, I doubt they could do it again.

I remember the games, Oblivion, Table tennis, Fight night, Gears of war, Halo 3, Forza 3, rainbow six vegas, dead rising, Test drive unlimited, call of duty 2, saints row, FEAR, Ghost recon - advanced warfighter, Hitman blood money, call of duty 3, the godfather, Battlefield 2, phantasy star, Prey, need for speed, project ghotam 3, condemned and many more. All of these games before the ps3 even came to Europe.

If you really liked videogames at all, you had to have a 360 back in 2005/2006, I'd have waited a couple months for ps3, but that was a huge library of games already available in HD graphics with a fantastic controller that had vibration, I paid 360pounds in UK, the ps3 was supposed to be 500pounds without controller vibration. And it was backwards compatible with a lot of games.

As much as I loved ps2, I had to go 360. I ended up buying a ps3 when uncharted came out.

The fact that in the end the ps3 still outsold the 360 is mind boggling to me as a real gamer who enjoys games. It makes no sense. Its as if people bought into the brand instead of the best library. More so when the xbox 360 played a lot of Xbox games such as Baldurs gate, Black, Batman begins, Burnout 3, colin mcrae4, commandos 2, Constantine, crimson skies, doom 3, Fable, Far cry instincts, GTA trilogy, Halo games, Jade empire, Max payne 1 and 2, Medal of honor, Ninja gaiden, Panzer dragon, Prince of Persia, red faction 2, return to castle Wolfenstein, Shenmue 2, silent hill 2, soul calibur 2, star wars games, and many many more.

PS - I do not believe Microsoft will ever again have that library advantage, sony will not let them. And I wont fall for the talks about several teams and games coming, I remember how they fooled me with the Xbox X because a couple games were cancelled. 

You would have had to be crazy to chose ps3 over 360 at least for the first 3 years. Specially if you play online, xbox live was way better than psn back in 2006.

Even at a higher price, the PS3 had some good selling points. HDMI and Wi-Fi at a time when XB360 offered neither out of the box. Free online (which I still believe was only free to combat the success of XBL Gold) offering the "meat" of what XBL had to offer, a decent web browser, Linux support, etc.

I agree XB 360 had the better library for a few years, the better price (again, offering the important stuff people wanted in a console) and a better online service. Plus the 360 just kept offering features the PS3 hardware got later or never got at all (ie: External HDD support).

That damn RRoD, lack of quality exclusives later in the gen, and gamers just being loyal to Sony in more parts of the world was just too much to overcome. Still, going from hardware that sold like 24m to 80m + is something to be proud of.

That was a hell of a war. Wonder if we'll ever see another like it?



Twitter: @d21lewis