Why did the less expensive and more powerful Nintendo Gamecube not compete well against the PS2?

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of third party development (for 2009 and beyond) that is targeting the mainstream audience will be focusing on the Wii; without this development any effort to target this market will be futile.

Maybe it isn't likely, but it certainly is possible that the PS3 will compete against the Wii. The Wii was a fad 2 years ago, remember?

@slimeattack - We try not to mention the Wii in discussions such as this. If you mention the Wii "they" will come into this thread. That being said, I quitely believe/hope that the PS3 can take the top spot as well.

I agree the price was a major problem.

Even my PS3 owning friend who will hear no wrong said of Sony, did a double take at the sticker price.

It was an expensive launch day for him. The console + spare controller + HDMI cable + RFOM and MOTORSTORM set him back 575 GBP (1150 USD). Still he seemed happy with it particularly as he still has access to his PS2 games through BC.

The price issue has been resolved mostly. Its still pricey for a gaming console but good value if you like HD films too.

A more problematic issue is the CELL chip. Wait Wait I'm not about to bash the CELL. I am however about to bash Sony.

They knew that the CELL would be complicated to develop for and the learning curve would be steep. So why I why did they not court and get developers onside early in the game.

The initial tools were lacking and as a result it has taken nearly 3 years since first DEV KIT release for the developers to finally begin to get some realistic performance increases from it.

Its like selling a Ferrari with a 30 mph limiting device strapped to the engine.

I think the problem for Sony is now to differentiate the PS3 from the XBox 360.
I know that fanboys scream that various games look better on their system but lets face facts. To the casual user the graphics look identical.

Sony have done well to claw back ground in the last 6 months, but it could be a lot harder in the next quarter. MS will cut prices further and Sony need to retaliate with a gaming line up that shows all people, not just the technically proficient fanboy that the PS3 can provide a quantum leap in gaming over the competition.

Of course it was, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.  You don't go from making a 100 million selling behemoth to thinking "Second place seems like a good place to be." They just mis-read the market and thought people would flock to their technological colossus and it didn't happen because the Wii was cheaper and more fun at launch, and the 360 already had a huge library of good games.

Realistically, what was the likelyhood of Nintendo or Microsoft comming back to compete against the PS2 in mid 2003?

The way the market works is that there are (essentially) two feedback loops (or you could say two sides to the same feedback loop) that make it nearly impossible to change the outcome after the market has choosen a dominant console; essentially, third party support follows console sales and consumers follow the system that has the strongest support.

To be honest, Sony didn't really lose the exclusivity of GTA. The creators of gta wanted to put the game on multiplatform to make more money and sell more copies. PS3 still has Final Fantasy XIII, final fantasy versus xiii ( the two games sony is holding onto as exclusive) and its not like microsoft can ever get god of war 3 due to the fact the game is made by sony. The price is a problem but they are working on it. The can cut the price now because they will lose more money. Sony lost almost 3.30 billion dollars from the ps3. Because of that they couldn't keep devil may cry 4 or soul calibur iv exclusive. Sony still has a chance to shape things up. So its not over and you'll see what their plans are at E3 2008.

Double the entry price of the PS2. That about says everything.

In choosing to minimize per unit losses, rather than starting with a design that could be manufactured cheaper, Sony completely alienated its installed user base.

The lack of must buy titles upon debut is absolutely nothing new for virtually any console. At best, if a console is fortunate, it will have that one killer app people will be willing to buy the console for, under the basic assumption that the price remains consumer friendly.

Beyond that, the initial run of new console games are traditionally uninspiring by year two standards. Developers are largely able to get away with this by the simple virtue of "showing up to the season opener" which means there will be a debut audience present and willing to buy what's initially available. Rarely do most of these games merit purchase under their own virtues.

So, nothing new there for the PS3, but unfortunately a typical mediocre initial lineup becomes all the more blaring and offensive when used as a reason to sell a $500-600 console.

Make it cheaper (PS1 $299 PS2 $299 PS3 $499-599) or don't debut until it can be released with an solid initial line up of killer apps, something no console has ever done. Hold off on the debut, and both publishers and investors get cagey as they need to see a return on the initial R&D investment sooner than later.

Sony essentially painted themselves into a corner with the PS3, largely in the interest of pushing the B-RD format.

Whether that victory was worth the losses or whether this will be a Pyrrhic victory for Sony remains to be seen.

Well I wil admit I am a big PS3 fan. Not a fanboy, but I do like sony products. I own a ps3 and wii, and a shit load of games. I for one have been a little put off by the ps3. For me it does what I got it for though. I have a nice high def tv and the blu-ray mattered. I don't have time to play everygame that comes out (or that I buy even), so I have more than enough titles. I think was pisses me off was how the ps3 started. That first christmas in the US was a failure. They didnt make enough and they didnt have any huge title to sell it. Terrible marketing. People should be fired.

I think it is better now, but I still think the 360 has done an overall better job in the marketing, price, and gaming department. Is the ps3 a better piece of technology? sure. Does it matter that much though how nice the system is when another console kicks your ass in software. And don't get me started in ffxiii. I hate square. Talk about a company that can't meet deadlines. That company is a big piece of shit and thier games just keep getting longer and longer and less interesting. It will help sales when it comes out in 2020, but i think square is declining with thier shitty lazy game development and the fact they cant meet any deadlines.

do people really think the ps3 and 360 compete directly with the wii anyway? i doubt it, i actually think the wii and ps3 benefit from each other....put it this way

when ps3 came out production costs were roughly $860 a piece(don't believe me, look it up), but now they've dropped below $400 so selling the ps3 is actually viable and also the blu ray has won as next gen format the ps3 will take off