mrstickball said: What I don't get is how 'ahead of it's time' is the Playstation 3 vs. the Xbox 360 when the PS3 came out a year later and cost $200 more for the base price....What could the 360 of had with such a high price tag?

A harddrive and free online multiplayer.

Really, a lot of Sony R&D went into the PS3 regarding Blu-Ray and the Cell processor. Maybe Sony really gave Ken a bit too much power to realize his hardware ambitions than was good for Sony as a company regarding some of the core technology. But they did and Sony cannot turn back time (they will have to deal with this awesome tech now ), we PS3 users will enjoy the long term benefits.

Sony has no other oppertunity than to finish what Ken started.

MikeB said: mrstickball said: What I don't get is how 'ahead of it's time' is the Playstation 3 vs. the Xbox 360 when the PS3 came out a year later and cost $200 more for the base price....What could the 360 of had with such a high price tag? A harddrive and free online multiplayer. Really, a lot of Sony R&D went into the PS3 regarding Blu-Ray and the Cell processor. Maybe Sony really gave Ken a bit too much power to realize his hardware ambitions than was good for Sony as a company regarding some of the core technology. But they did and Sony cannot turn back time (they will have to deal with this awesome tech now ), we PS3 users will enjoy the long term benefits. Sony has no other oppertunity than to finish what Ken started.

 

The $399 360 had no harddrive?  I thought it did.

mrstickball said: What I don't get is how 'ahead of it's time' is the Playstation 3 vs. the Xbox 360 when the PS3 came out a year later and cost $200 more for the base price....What could the 360 of had with such a high price tag?

 

My guess is it would have an HD-DVD drive and more RAM probably around 640MB instead of 512MB.

Which is the chief reason why I feel the PS3 was poorly designed. When you launch a year after your competitor with a 50% ($200) higher price point, there should not be a debate on which console possess more power over two years after the fact. Not only that, Sony failed to meet it's initial sales projections, so they were planning on selling "much more."

For all of our back and forth, I have yet to see any solid reasoning for the PS3 to suddenly sell at PS2 levels to reach yours or Crazzyman's sales projections. I said way back in 2006, that price will always be an albatross around Sony's neck and that has bore out over the past couple of years. The fact that the PS3 will reach mass market pricing last is what will keep it from reaching your outlandish sales goals.

As I've said before, the consumers that pushed the PS1 and PS2 to their astronomical sales totals are buying Wii's and 360's as we speak. These casual consumers are single console owners for the most part. By the times these consumers look to buy new hardware the successors of the Wii, 360, and PS3 will be on their minds.

appolose said: MikeB said: mrstickball said: What I don't get is how 'ahead of it's time' is the Playstation 3 vs. the Xbox 360 when the PS3 came out a year later and cost $200 more for the base price....What could the 360 of had with such a high price tag? A harddrive and free online multiplayer. Really, a lot of Sony R&D went into the PS3 regarding Blu-Ray and the Cell processor. Maybe Sony really gave Ken a bit too much power to realize his hardware ambitions than was good for Sony as a company regarding some of the core technology. But they did and Sony cannot turn back time (they will have to deal with this awesome tech now ), we PS3 users will enjoy the long term benefits. Sony has no other oppertunity than to finish what Ken started.   The $399 360 had no harddrive?  I thought it did.

He said 200 dollar difference, the PS3's entry pricing was actually 500 dollars for a 20 GB PS3, so a 200 dollar entry pricing difference. The 60 GB PS3 with extras like card readers and Wi-Fi costed 600 dollars at launch.

I was honestly wondering if MikeB's account hadn't been hacked by a very clever pretender, but then he made the Amiga comparison.

MikeB has finally cracked completely. He's making Crazzier predictions than the man himself.

@ Darc Requiem

More EDRAM (the 360's main bottleneck) and a harddrive (also for virtual memory) would IMO have been far more useful.

Note that HD DVD drives at the time (including the 360 HD DVD) drive is half as slow as the PS3's Blu-Ray drive and not even ready for mass production in time (it would have required a lot of investments).

More system RAM is always useful (if doing PC ports), but higher bandwidth is usually far more effective for a console (compare with the Neo Geo's potential for its time). Heavy streaming is IMO really the way to go for modern console games.

MikeB said: appolose said: MikeB said: mrstickball said: What I don't get is how 'ahead of it's time' is the Playstation 3 vs. the Xbox 360 when the PS3 came out a year later and cost $200 more for the base price....What could the 360 of had with such a high price tag? A harddrive and free online multiplayer. Really, a lot of Sony R&D went into the PS3 regarding Blu-Ray and the Cell processor. Maybe Sony really gave Ken a bit too much power to realize his hardware ambitions than was good for Sony as a company regarding some of the core technology. But they did and Sony cannot turn back time (they will have to deal with this awesome tech now ), we PS3 users will enjoy the long term benefits. Sony has no other oppertunity than to finish what Ken started.   The $399 360 had no harddrive?  I thought it did. He said 200 dollar difference, the PS3's entry pricing was actually 500 dollars for a 20 GB PS3, so a 200 dollar entry pricing difference. The 60 GB PS3 with extras like card readers and Wi-Fi costed 600 dollars at launch.

Oh, that's right; I forgot about the 20 gig.

 

@MikeB

What are your thoughts on when each next gen system will come out?

CrazyMan,

I have to say I loved this line:
"Market share has grown, Wii will bring more gamers, which eventually will want to try HD console. By that time PS3 will be the BEST choice. =)"

Nothing like claiming the Wii will pull the PS3 up by its suspenders and launch it into first place. But then you topped it off so nicely with this line:

"Wii buy mostly Wii fit/Wii sport users and Nintendo fans(SMG, MK, SSBB),"

So which of these Nintendo exclusives will Sony be stealing in order to convert the magority (in your eyes) of Wii owners?

By the way, if Nintendo is doing what I hope it is, they are keeping a finger on the pulse of their current userbase. When the majority of them are ready to add HD gaming to their experience, Wii HD will be waiting for them.

koffieboon said: Crazzy, congratulations with a thread which will last 4 years and will find you defending your prediction even 2 years from now when the PS3 still has more than 50 million consoles to sell to reach the goal. I would have expected a PS2 in 2002 versus PS3 2009 thread, but I guess you don't want to be proven wrong every single year. Btw, I think your prediction will fall about equally short as PS3 did in 2008 in comparison to PS2 in 2001.

 

It's a 4 years plan!!!