*Reads same list*

*Realizes that Ninty and MS have the same amount of grime on their boots*

*Leaves to drink Captain Morgan with the fabulous d21lewis*

If it released earlier some of it's features wouldn't have been included (blu-ray in particular) and it might have been more likely for faults to occur like X360, PS2 and PS1.

If it released at a lower price it again would not have had features.

If it released with the hardware making profit then either the above could not happen, or it would lose even more features.

Last year the Wii was commonly selling for the same or more than the PS3 through ebaying gits.

And the Wii has been consistantly outselling the PS3 by just over 2:1, despite whatever price-cuts came and went for the PS3.

Saying "Sony should have launched with better titles" is not exactly a revelation, I could say the same of any system.

I have to agree with placidcasual, if the release date was wrong, it was too early, not too late. One *BIG* advantage with consoles over PC gaming, is getting off the upgrade treadmill.

I've said before that I don't really see any reason to buy Xbox360 over Xbox - there's nothing new other than more polygons on screen. And there's no technical reason why the Live service wouldn't have continued to be improved for the original Xbox.

I think even now looking at the spec difference between the machines, the PS3 can be seen as half a generation ahead of the 360. In the first couple of years of the 360, the PS2 was massively outselling it anyway - it took nearly 2 years for the first week that the 360 outsold the PS2, and even now there's hardly anything in it.

It the PS3 had launched another year later, potentially the consoles would not even be considered as same generation. Then people wouldn't be comparing the install base so much, and instead watching the take-up speed of the consoles versus one another. And if you do that, VGChartz own graphs show a clear lead for the PS3.

The European launch yes... but not the other region launches.

ANd it was only in EUrope because they had masses of stock to sell, unlike PS2 which was undersupplied early on.

The launch PS3 should have been the current 40 gig model at $399.
The 360 was only going to have a few month lead until Sony delayed the PS3 launch.
Sony should not have under-estimated Nintendo.

I disagree with your point that price is the only reason the Wii outsold the PS3, the new inovtive controller and Wii Sports are also very big contributing reasons.

I can honestly say that the Wii would have been impervious to bombing no matter what Sony would have done. However, if the Ps3 really was cheaper I definitely think the Playstation 3 would be much better off, tied with Wii if not better.  I can't believe Sony was upended by waggle! lol

Whoops, forgot to answer the questions:

1. Still the Wii.  The PS3 had nothing going for it at the time of launch other than its name.  Nintendo had its name, a new controller, and even a bundled game to show it off.
2. Hard question-- would any of those 360 exclusives been multiplatform or PS3 exclusives?  Who knows.

While an excessively high price point did prove to be a mistake due to stiff competition, it was a gamble Sony took in order to include a Blu-ray player in every PS3. A gamble that paid off. If not for the PS3s (somewhat limited) success, the HD format wars would STILL be going on. In the end it was worth it for Sony as a whole if not for the PS brand.

Sony's biggest failing was ignoring it's own massive PS2 base and launching a system targetted directly at MS's base - the core gamer. This allowed Nintendo to walk in with innovative controls and mass market price point and steal the larger PS2 base (or at least a large chunk of it).

If Sony had launched a weaker, more affordable PS3 with mass market games like Singstar, Buzz and Rachet and Clank (as well as Resistance) right off the bat they would be in a much stronger position than they are now. Who cares if the 360 has better graphics? MS did last generation too for all the good it did them.

Sony's biggest mistake is that they didn't have hefty exclusives on launch. Everything else is debateable

Q1: The PS3 would sell better. Brand name accounts for a lot.

Q2: No. Again, the PS3 has the brand name.