If the Xbox 360 was the latest Playstati ...

it would have won already. think about it- the REAL PS3 only started selling well after the pricecut meant the millions of PS2 owners started switching over. but if the PS3 launched in 2005 %26 was exactly the same as the Xbox360 is with same games etc Sony would have WON ALREADY!If the Xbox 360 was the latest Playstati ...
I agree to some extent. I don't know if it would be ahead of the Wii(its a selling monster), but it would have been ahead of the 360.If the Xbox 360 was the latest Playstati ...
See,
would never happen, sony had a horrible hardware failure rate last gen,
this gen they took their time to insure it won't happen again,
they'd have had to rush out the system like they did with the ps2
which would really not be a good thing.
I actually agree with this. Sony had name recognition; EVERYONE knew the PS2. And just about everybody had one too. Sony had the upper hand in that regard; the launch of a PS3 would always be much more impressive than the next Xbox, which although the original Xbox was a good system, was nowhere near as popular as the monster that was the PS2.If Sony had followed Microsoft's plan instead of the one they did follow, they definately wouldn't have had the time to install Blu-Ray on the PS3, which may or many not have hurt/helped it. What's for sure, though, is that the PS3 would've sold very well initially, because it wouldn't have cost $600. Without a Blu-Ray drive (and believe me, if the PS3 had launched as early as the 360, it COULDN'T have had the Blu-Ray) it would be cheaper by at least $150, which was a reasonable amount. That, combined with the name recognition the Playstation brand already enjoyed, would've meant the console would have sold very well.Part of the 360's problem is that it was developed by Microsoft, which lest we all forget is a software company who really didn't have all that much experience with hardware. Their only big achievement in that field was the original Xbox, which wasn't all that impressive, hardware-wise. Sony, on the other hand, have been making TVs and laptops forever, and so they KNOW their hardware, not to mention they've released a PSOne and a PS2. I don't think that if they released the PS3 early, without Blu-Ray, it would've neccessarily have been a hardware-failure-filled disaster. True, the PS2 had its problems, but nowhere near to the degree that the 360 has with its RROD.Now, all those factors combined would've meant that this fantasy PS3 would've sold VERY well in its first year. After that, when they realize that it's so hard to program for, and games like Gears of War start coming out for the 360, the sales may start to flag significantly.Oh and, I doubt ANYTHING Sony could've done would've allowed them to beat the Wii. That thing just prints money.
hmmm not won, but be further ahead, i kind of ahree with you, plus they prolly would have pushed blu-ray faster into the 360 because they wouldn't of had to add the rsx last minute.
Indeed, in fact if you switch the name-plate and the launch date; the 360 now launching as a Sony console in Nov. 2005 would have left MS launching with the PS3 one year later and absolutely, no doubt about it, MS would have been D.O.A. trying to sell that thing at 599.99 and laughed right out of the VG business.Alas, we have the name-plate ( fanboys ) buyers who will be loyal to a company even if the best product is not the one they are buying. :?Of Course IMHO
Yeah, because Microsoft suffers from a lack of brand recognition...
I liked the Sony brand, I bought a ps2 and a ps3 at launch. I still can't really understand why even 10% of that 120 million user base still hasn't jumped aboard.
what about the same rrod problems and costly online play?
[QUOTE=''Arsenal325'']what about the same rrod problems and costly online play? [/QUOTE] it would make no difference- PS2 wasnt the most reliable %26 cows earned their name due to all the extras you were encouraged to buy for the PS2