So I guess MS is conceding December to Sony?
Maybe. I think there is a chance for a nice bundle deal to crop up next week for $249.
So I guess MS is conceding December to Sony?
So I guess MS is conceding December to Sony?
Maybe. I think there is a chance for a nice bundle deal to crop up next week for $249.
Another way to look at your characterization is to consider what that suggest about MS's achievement with the 360... If things are as you say then 360 and PS3 ending up virtually tied after all those years is really eyebrow raising. In that sense your comment taken at face value and in line with other things you've said "MS did everything right with 360"; I'd have to conclude that the 360 under performed when in reality MS did a very good job building on the vision laid with the OG XBOX and sold a lot of hardware and Sony was able to win back consumers after stumbling horribly out of the gate.
Simply stated what you wrote shouldn't characterize Sony for the entire generation in fact it doesn't characterize them for most of it and shouldn't anymore than the original XB1 vision should forever stain the XB1.
PS3 sold as much as the 360 despite launching over a year later. Sounds like a nice recovery to me. Calling one a success and the other a failure is irrational. Both had major issues out of the gate, and both recovered after a die shrink, etc...
Bad analogy, gamers are not very loyal to a platform.Going from 25 million to 85 million is a lot different than going from 160 million to 85 million. If you and Usain Bolt tied in a 100 m race with a time of 14 secs, your jubilation would be just as rational as his disgust.
Depends, if I was backed by a billion dollar mega corporation, and raised with gene therapy and undetectable enhancement drugs... it would be expected that I would beat Usain Bolt on my first public appearance. The merit would be the corporation's technology, not my "talent" at running.
Say YES to drugs.
Winners use drugs.
Bad analogy, gamers are not very loyal to a platform.
Still doesn't change the circumstances. When you are looking at your first console selling 25 million, you have a whole different outlook of what "success" entails then someone coming off 100+ million for each of the last two generations.
Unless you are Fox Rogers and have access to a Super Runner formula.
Still doesn't change the circumstances. When you are looking at your first console selling 25 million, you have a whole different outlook of what "success" entails then someone coming off 100+ million for each of the last two generations.
Unless you are Fox Rogers and have access to a Super Runner formula.
I don't know how it works that's why i am asking
Still doesn't change the circumstances. When you are looking at your first console selling 25 million, you have a whole different outlook of what "success" entails then someone coming off 100+ million for each of the last two generations.
The market has moved since the PS2, I don't think anybody is going to have those sorts of numbers with cell phones and tablets eating into potential hardware sales. Further I'd say selling basically one less year and ending up with virtually same install base suggest Sony did rebound from their early mistakes and go on to sell at a decent clip (arguably faster) for much of the generation.
Its probably fair to say PS3 sales have slowed down since the release of PS4 but that might very well be a function of the attractiveness of PS4 as much as anything else.
In fact if someone wants to insist PS3 sales fell off too early I could argue that if 360 sales held on too long because it took time for MS to repair the mistakes with XB1 and for those who wished to stay in the MS ecosystem it made sense to buy a(nother) 360 versus invest in XB1.
Eastman's characterization isn't very rational or very objective in that sense because he doesn't give Sony any credit for something that is very open to interpretation (the drop in PS3 sales since launch of current generation). I just don't see how someone draws his conclusions.
To say it another way you have to pretend tablets and cell phones didn't have an impact on the overall market and cling to the notion that gamers are loyal to platforms which just doesn't appear to be true to a large degree to conclude Sony had their head in their butt all of last generation.... At some point relatively early they realized they had misjudged the market and did a good job winning back consumers - something I think we see MS attempting to do with XB1. If that isn't true the generation should have ended up far more lopsided than it did.