those are accessories. Im talking retail prices of the console and the console alone. Last I checked PS3 has accessories too that 360 has out of the box that PS3 doesnt have (headset, component cables, pack-in games, backwards compatibility).

My theory works.

An Arcade and Gears 2 is better gaming value then A PS3 and Killzone 2 (for the average consumer, not the hardcore elite like us who post on gaming forums :p).

The thing is that GT5 will release pretty late into the cycle. I know there's a small chance it will make 2009, but from the information we've heard it's not likely. That puts it in 2010, when in all likelyhood it won't matter that much anymore.

The further we go into the gen, the more casual the potential market become, since hardcore gamers will buy early in the generation. GT5 will be great, but PS3 probably won't ever have the competitive pricepoint against 360 and Wii.

Now let's look at the expected numbers for end 2009: Wii: 75m, 360: 35m, PS3: 30m (it's rounded on nearest 5 million, don't complain about a million or 2 more or less). That's 140m combined end 2009. Last gen combined was 180m. I know the industry is growing, but with 50m PS2's in America alone, don't expect this gen to be 100m bigger than the last. Let's assume a total of 200m consoles for this gen. That means 60m "left" to sell after 2009. How many of those late deciders will be affected by GT5? I don't think a whole lot, again since these are the people that bought a PS2 late in the gen last time, because it had all the casual games. It's almost a given that Wii will take some 40m out of my expected 60m.

Killzone looks great and will sell some consoles, but in all honesty: It would sell loads more on 360. That's where the shooterbase is. Fans of that genre already have their system of choice and I don't think Killzone 2 will change that.

@ benga
You beat me to it on the gt5 but my goodness I never thought It was going to be that late.

i think i kinda agree with it not having any absolutely must-have titles, at least exclusives that since thats what is important since the idea of a must-have title is to have something that the competition doesn't have. ps3 certainly has some great games, but i don't see it as having a single must-have title yet, while the other two systems do. i'd say must-have titles can be evaluated by some combination of popularity and quality as viewed by the gaming crowd as a whole and not just a smaller niche in the market. a game doesn't have to sell a lot to be must-have but that does help to show it is wanted by a lot of people.

i'd say for the 360 generally the gamer crowd would consider halo 3, gears of war, and gears of war 2 as must-haves. although maybe you can cross gears of war off that list since gears 2 is on there. still thats two absolutely must-have games. not saying everyone wants them, but generally the critical and popular view is that they are must-have games. i guess people who don't like shooters wouldn't agree, but generally, if you like really fun games and great multiplayer, these are must-have exclusives. there are other great games but generally i don't think people would consider them to be must-haves by most gamers out there.

same thing for the wii, i'd have to go with probably wii sports, mario kart, and maybe mario galaxy. mario kart and smg obviously are two of the most consumerly popular games this gen and are just generally really popular with gamers. smg scored amazingly well with reviewers, mario kart didn't but that series always gets shafted by reviewers for some reason despite the game always being considered one of the best each generation. and the wii version is probably the best yet. and don't come on here saying wii sports isn't a must-have. its THE defining game of the generation and is an absolute blast to play for anyone, gamers and nongamers. anyone who doesn't have fun with this game is clearly biased against it before they even play it. the only person i've ever seen say they don't love it is my old roommate who is a 360 fanboy and said wii sports isn't even a game and always ragged on the wii except everytime we actually played wii sports he enjoyed it. there are other great games like metroid prime 3, ssbb, zelda, etc. but all three of those while normally being considered must-have franchises i think are too much like their past iterations to be considered absolute must-haves this time around.

ps3 certainly has great exclusives like mgs4, lbp, warhawk, uncharted, resistance 2, etc. but are any of those really must-have games? not really. lbp certainly is great especially for people who want to create a lot of levels, and while i certainly would want to buy it is an innovative platformer thats multiplayer and has endless user created content but in the end the actual platforming gameplay itself is nothing special despite the features of the game being something new and special. warhawk i really wish i had, seems like just the perfect online game. but all it is is online. no single player campaign. thats definitely not must-have. resistance 2, based on the commercials, i thought that was gonna be must-have, but after reading people's opinions of it and seeing that it really isn't appealing to a ton of people its obvious it may be a great game and really fun but must-have it is not. i've played uncharted a bit and it is really fun. i think its graphics are a bit overrated, i could name several games on 360 and ps3 that have just as good graphics, although it is up there with the best graphically. and its a fun action game. but nothing that truly stands out this gen when considering the general view of all gamers and not just ps3 fanboys. mgs4 is more of a niche title, it sorta being as much a movie as it is a game doesn't help it. while surely a great game and for fans of the series its a must-have the general view of gamers i'd say is that its great but not must-have for most people with a ps3.

not everyone is gonna agree that the games i listed as must-haves actually are that, but i'm not talking as an individual but considering what games would be viewed as must-haves if all gamers had to vote to very strict criteria of a game being something that is really something special and that you just can't go on without playing.

Yeah, it's unbelievable. SCE should have pushed PD to deliver. Just imagine the effect GT5 could have had this holiday. Maybe it wouldn't have beat the 360, but GT is bigger than Gears + Fable, so I'm pretty sure the two would have been really close. And GT5:P is for me the best looking game this gen, so GT5 would have at least showed something that justified the more expensive pricetag. Something that can't be said about LBP, Resistance 2 and Motorstorm (they're really good, but nothing special to the average customer).

Yeah GT5's late release in the generation cycle really hurt Sony. If they could have had that released for Holiday 2007, they'd probably be in a much better position then they are now.(against the 360 anyway) And now that a release for Holiday 2009 would be a semi-unexpected surprise...oh boy.

Well, its obvious that guy doesn't know what he is talking about. In his eyes, he believes that PS3 doesn't a Halo type of game, or Gears of War type of game or Smash Bros Brawl type of game. I understand that they need some games to increase sales but not every game can do that. I think that once GT5 is released, I think he will take back what he says about PS3's software titles.

Killzone 2 is the title hes talking about.

I thought we established that one game is hardly a factor anymore in console sales. It's about the future releases, the broadth of interesting games. Not just the peak.

The only reason I see for Sony to tolerate its late arrival, is that normally, GT5 should make a huge impact on console sales for Sony, and if they can tackle that release with a console that is break-even or even profit, they get a nice revenue from it.  Release it when you're still taking quite some damage on each console and you're putting yourself in quite a deep hole, with only this game...