Had roles been reversed...

[Nite_Hawk]

Hi Guys,

I've been musing about this for the last couple of days. Imagine for an instant that it was actually Sony that came out with the xbox360 console as the new PS3, and MS had released the PS3 console as the new xbox360. Out of curiosity, what do you think the market would look like right now? Beyond how it would effect MS and Sony, do you think Nintendo would still have the success it's had with the Wii?

Nite_Hawk

 

[Acert93]

Hi Guys,

I've been musing about this for the last couple of days. Imagine for an instant that it was actually Sony that came out with the xbox360 console as the new PS3, and MS had released the PS3 console as the new xbox360. Out of curiosity, what do you think the market would look like right now? Beyond how it would effect MS and Sony, do you think Nintendo would still have the success it's had with the Wii?

Nite_Hawk

Would they have flipped release dates as well?

I think the Sony brand marching into next gen was very, very strong. I argued a long time ago that Sony going with a reasonable pricing scheme would have damaged MS's Xbox enough to force it out of the market IMO (MS has actually made a lot of blunders with the 360).

If Sony had launched a PS3/60 in 2005 their sales would have been phenominal. Far greater than what MS mustered. I don't doubt based on the popularity of the Sony PlayStation brand, the more approachable price, and the more approachable hardware design that Sony would have ended 2006 with 20M units--double what MS was capable of. This strategy would have also muted the default exclusives and made the "funded exclusives" MS has leveraged less appealing to developers. Why take $20M for an exclusive, when the competition has 10M+ in the market and that can EASILY be recooped with going multiplatform? Sony would be marching into holiday 2007 with the ability to hit (or get close to) mass market appeal which, with all the momentum, would be a very hot item.

The Xbox PS3/60... dead in the water. Doesn't matter when it was released, but the cost and software issues would have sunk it. The Xbox was the "house of Halo and better 3rd party ports".

As for the Wii... it would have more competition from Sony, that is for sure. Wii is hitting some markets traditional consoles just don't appeal. Gamasutra made a great point of the distinction in "casual gamers" that there are "casual gamers who are put off by traditional games and then there are casual gamers who like PlayStations et al". The PlayStation brand at an approachable price point may not have done a lot to the Wii, but I also doubt the Wii would be halting PS3/60 success.

 

[_phil_]

Sony would probably be dying as a hardware manufacturer ,with a credibility at the lowest.

 

[dobwal]

Hi Guys,

I've been musing about this for the last couple of days. Imagine for an instant that it was actually Sony that came out with the xbox360 console as the new PS3, and MS had released the PS3 console as the new xbox360. Out of curiosity, what do you think the market would look like right now? Beyond how it would effect MS and Sony, do you think Nintendo would still have the success it's had with the Wii?

Nite_Hawk

It would have been the return of last generation.

This generation reminds of a console version of the movie Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd.

Its like Bill Gates and Stringer got together and bet a dollar on whether the PS3 could succeed even in the face of similar conditions faced by the Xbox1.

 

[Jaeyden]

In this scenario, which machine suffers the unbelievable failure rate..Sony PS360 or Microsoft Xbox3?

Serious question, not meant to point fingers at the status quo.

 

[Mintmaster]

If Sony came out with a $299/$399 console in 2005 and it was graphically similar to MS's $499/$599 console that launched in 2006, Sony would absolutely crush MS. It wouldn't even be close. Chances are that the software situation would be reversed too, and probably by an even bigger degree. There would be little reason for anyone to buy a 360. Imagine, for example, if MS launched the Zune and charged a premium over the iPod.

Obviously nobody can prove it one way or another, but it seems blindingly obvious to me.

 

[rbushner]

In this scenario, which machine suffers the unbelievable failure rate..Sony PS360 or Microsoft Xbox3?

In this scenario, I'd say it doesn't matter. Has the XB360's failure rate kept it from outselling the PS3 month after month?

Obviously nobody can prove it one way or another, but it seems blindingly obvious to me.

Agreed, if the companies were switched it would be completely over by this point.

 

[Acert93]

Sony would probably be dying as a hardware manufacturer ,with a credibility at the lowest.

I would love to hear more on this. Details please!

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Hi Guys,

to answer some questions, I'm thinking pretty much an exact switch, IE Sony would have the same release date as the 360 and vise versa, the same manufacturing problems, etc.

Consensus seems to be that Sony would have sunk MS had their roles been reversed. Do you think it would have also Sunk the Wii? Would the Wii have flourished in an environment where Sony had the strong brand recognition and the price/performance and release date of the 360?

Nite_Hawk

 

[PARANOiA]

I agree with the notion Sony would have been in a much stronger position.

What is interesting is trying to work out how much value they gave BluRay by delaying the PS3 to include it - was it worth losing so much on the Playstation division?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Really this is just a question of brand strength. XB360 would have been totally trashed if it launched later, most expensive, and without PS's brand. That's a no brainer. I doubt Wii would be effected. It's quite a bizarre topic though, like those 'who would win? Death Star or Enterprise?' debates. Why the blazes would MS put a BRD drive in their console, and add PSP connectivity?!

 

[Pozer]

Sony came into this gen way to arrogant and messed up 3 aspects of the ps3......in pricing, timing and engineering. I agree a simultaneous '05 release would have helped them much much more.

But i also think a '07 PS3 release with 1 gig of ram, a better gpu, and very refined launch lineup would have seperated the ps3 from 360 graphically and BR costs would be under control. They could have possibly hit $499/$399 with much superior hardware and 360 sales would not be where they are due to anticipation of a "true" next gen system. This could have truly made the 360 the new dreamcast. But alas the ps3 is at best marginally more powerful than the 360 but with worse looking ports due to less available memory yet costs more.


Sony should have matched the 360's launch window with a better price point and no BR drive. OR seperated from them by 2 years with signicantly more powerful hardware. There was a large level of arrogance from both MS and Sony.

 

[Rangers]

Sony would be dominating.

Especially if Sony's hardware engineering had avoided all RROD issues surrounding 360.

360 is the lighter, cheaper, system. Not the most powerful, but packs plenty of punch. Sony would have KILLED with that..

 

[Acert93]

Hmmm I would buy that PS3

 

[Crossbar]

Yeah, in that scenario Sony would probably be dominating the market at present, they would probably have been faster to cut production costs than Microsoft and therefore would have been giving Nintendo a harder time in the budget segment, still Nintendo would probably been doing great thanks to the novelty of the wii-mote.

Anyway, it´s a VERY hypothetical scenario as Sony has larger plans in mind for blu-ray, while MS would have had no incentive whatsoever to incorporate a next-gen storage format in their console from start.

 

[archangelmorph]

But i also think a '07 PS3 release with 1 gig of ram, a better gpu, and very refined launch lineup would have seperated the ps3 from 360 graphically and BR costs would be under control. They could have possibly hit $499/$399 with much superior hardware and 360 sales would not be where they are due to anticipation of a "true" next gen system.

1 GB GDDR3+XDR & > RSX GPU & you think they could have still launched at $499/399...?

You're not serious..

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Really this is just a question of brand strength. XB360 would have been totally trashed if it launched later, most expensive, and without PS's brand. That's a no brainer. I doubt Wii would be effected. It's quite a bizarre topic though, like those 'who would win? Death Star or Enterprise?' debates. Why the blazes would MS put a BRD drive in their console, and add PSP connectivity?!

I agree, it's bizarre.

It seems to me that Sony held all of the cards at the end of last generation. People thought Nintendo had half a foot in the grave after the gamecube, and given how much money MS lost on the xbox, investors were going to start complaining sooner or later about the lost profits if they couldn't turn the gaming division around.

The decisions made with the PS3 just seem incredibly bizarre to me. During a time when middle class wages are stagnant and houses costs have increased dramatically (at least in the US), Sony decides to release an incredibly expensive console (On average twice what the public is used to paying for such a device) that has few visible benefits over their competition and a lot of pork (BRD being the biggest contributor). Marketing it as a "Home PC" could have made some sense if it had more memory, applications, and upgradability, but that's not what the PS3 is. It's really just an incredibly expensive game console with some really neat hardware. It's a NeoGeo all over again.

Nite_Hawk

 

[DuckThor Evil]

It's quite a bizarre topic though, like those 'who would win? Death Star or Enterprise?' debates.

Uh.. Surely you mean Star destroyer vs Enterprise, but which Enterprise??!!?1? there are atleast 5 different models (not counting the one which was in the two-episode final of ST the Next Generation)

hehe

But yeah had Sony launched early with a machine that is closer in tech specs to MS's offering that what they had during round one (PS2 vs Xbox), it's pretty safe to say that it would have been a first round knockout victory for Sony, I think even Wii wouldn't have made such a big impact in that case.

 

[Acert93]

@ Nite_Hawk: While not popular at the time (2005 & 2006), I know Minty and myself (scoob too?) were pretty vocal about our shock that Sony didn't take the free pass (relatively competitive PS3 in similar ballpark and release plan) and push Microsoft from the market and allow Nintendo to jump off the tech bandwagon altogether (which Ninny cannot really get back on) and have the home console space all to themselves.

Reaching those goals, and another 5-6 years of profitable PlayStation business, and then Sony can begin executing their broader vision. They bit off too much, too soon, were slow in executing and misfired on price

And now they run the risk of being 3rd in console sales... oh, and it isn't out of the question that Sony could rack up PS3 losses similar to those MS racked up with the Xbox.

I swear that MS and Sony both need to hire a "common sense consultant" whose job is to sit in on all significant meetings and interject when ideas and plans violate practical common sense.

 

[AlNom]

I swear that MS and Sony both need to hire a "common sense consultant" whose job is to sit in on all significant meetings and interject when ideas and plans violate practical common sense.

That might be too intimidating in person. Maybe they should have a consultant on-board using an instant messenger (video conference to the person, but only text back on a giant projection screen). Just like forum flame wars, the anonymity or physical absence gives one an extreme vocal strength.