It's true, it's too early. Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray as well, and consumers for the most part don't care about the new HD disc formats...Blu-Ray's mainly surviving because of PS3 buyers and a few early adopters of HD discs.

BenKenobi88 said: It's true, it's too early. Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray as well, and consumers for the most part don't care about the new HD disc formats...Blu-Ray's mainly surviving because of PS3 buyers and a few early adopters of HD discs.

Yeah same with HD-DVD. People do own the HD players, but it pales in comparison to the install base for DVD players.

HD-DVD does do surprisingly well for being a format on its own though...perhaps having the name "DVD" in there helps for consumers that are techno-dumb and just want the HD theater stuff!

360 having a 1 year lead over the PS3 is the most important event in the PS3-360 race, if they had both come out same time, PS3 would have been in a lot better shape. No reason to think of what could have been, what happened happened...

They certainly had a plan, it was just a really bad one.


I put the blame squarely on the $600. No system has ever found success at this price point, however powerful. I wouldn't buy one right now if it looked 5 times as good.


Historically, the most powerful system has never won, or never that I'm aware of. Hmm, maybe the SNES, but that was really kind of a tie.

Would a year's delay on the PS3 have helped? Hindsight is 20/20, and it's true that it's hard to imagine them being much worse off than they are now. The usual argument against it is that the 360 would have gained an insurmountable lead, but as it turns out it really hasn't gained much ground this year. Delaying the PS3 might have even made more people hesitate to buy a 360, because at least then they'd still have the whole mystery/hype factor surrounding the PS3 instead of showing their cards and revealing an unimpressive hand. They probably could have stayed fully behind the PS2 for 2007, because it's obviously still got some life left in it.

But of course, it's not so simple. As somebody mentioned, they had to get the machine out in time to save BluRay. 3rd party developers also probably wouldn't have been happy with the delay, and might have just gone with the 360 so they could pay the bills. And launching with 5 AAA titles wouldn't be as good an idea as it sounds - the userbase wouldn't exist to properly support even one of them, and they would be competing directly with each other.

I guess it doesn't matter much now, anyway.

yeah it should have been delayed to decrease production cost and have a better line up

sharky said: And made it a lot more powerful in that time. Enough to be significantly more powerful than 360.   Launching in the year that they did didn't gain them anything. Sales are miserable in that time, so it's not as if you can say well, they held back 360 from gaining even more. Probably Wii did that more than Ps3 if anything.   I dont see Sony losing much of anything if they had waited another year on PS3. As it stands they are in big trouble...

No. More power would not help. It is games that the PS3 needs. Not more power that could increase that crazy $600 tag even more.

Here's my issue with the "More Power" theory. It follows a somewhat belief in "Moore's Law" which appears to be slowing down in relevance recently, but anyway.

Moore's Law states that power of chips (using transistors as his example) will double every 24 months, or cost will halve by then. Intel is already testing 45 NM chips for example(Sourced VIA Wiki).

Now then, consoles are becoming more and more like computers with TV's as monitors, and if your sole benchmark is power, within 24 months, you are, in no uncertain terms, obsolete. Erased, Extinct. The power you provide at this cost will be approx. half of what can be provided in the future.

Power is still good. Without power, one cannot play games. But a launch with pure power would still not have helped. A launch with fantastic games out that are well made... that would have helped. Power can and will be overcome, a game like Chrono Trigger, Metal Gear, Zelda, or Halo is much harder.

PS3 needed, need, and will need GAMEs
to make people understand WHY the system is so EXPENSIVE

and dont mention blue ray technology !
if it is true that it participate to the price (erf ..)
it is true that :
few people are interested by HD for the moment
AND
GAMERs don't care about Blue RAY (can we not replace BlueRay by DVDs ?)

all is about GAME now (and always in fact)

PS3 doesn't have anymore "hype"
PS3 is even, sometime, hated
Wii have lot of hype and some innovating game
Xbox360 is not bad and possess good game

==> focus on TRUE PS3/Xbox360/Wii exclusivity that are coming for the end of the year !

It´s a shame people ALWAYS fall into the "we´re the best,we can do whatever we want" trap when they reach a high level of success....it happened to Nintendo during the transition from the SNES to the N64,and it´s happening to Sony now..."we´re Nintendo,people follow us,CD?bah,no need for them"...."we´re Sony,people follow us,we could sell the 1st 5 million PS3s without any games easily,it´s a Playstation,nuff said".....if they were able to not let the success take over their heads so much.....anyway,I expect the PS4 to be a much better thought out product.