How did SONY loose the gaming crown?

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Sony never lost the gaming crown, they are still number 1 in the console world when it comes to games and quality. In terms of sales they are neck and neck with the 360, most games sell around the same on both, so there isn't a wide margin. But the PS3 still beats it in graphics, free online, cost (it's cheaper), blu ray, and exclusives. Overall the PS3 is the superior system.

But to answer your question, Sony made the PS3 really powerful which is part of the reason why it was so expensive at launch. A lot of people couldn't afford a PS3 so the went with 360 instead, a lot of 360 only owners had a PS2 last gen.

They only went with 360 this gen because their mommy and daddy wouldn't buy a PS3, or they were adults with lower income levels and could not afford one. So you see, they don't really like 360 more, they don't have a preference, they never got to choose.

So now they are all jealous of the PS3, that's why they are so angry all the time. They all want one, but they won't buy a PS3 because they can't afford a second console. So they have to try and down play it so they won't feel insecure about their console anymore.

themajormayor

You really are dlusional. Fact is, the PS3 is in third place in numerous areas. In sales, software sales AND quantity of quality games, it gets beat by the 360. Not to mention its aging UI, regurgitated controller and inferior online, its just not as appealing as the PS2 and PS1 were. The 360 has it beat.

Depends. Irrelevant in any case.

Proof?

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]But 360 has no games so that's fallacious reasoningclone01

$600 happened. Shot themselves in the foot right from the get-go.

In most races with a staggered start, those who start out first usually have a handicap relative to those who started out later.

Since the 360 had a 1 year head start, what were the 360's first year sales? If we subtract the 360's first year sales from the 360 total sales, that would leave sales for the 360 from the second year to the present and match the time the PS3 had been out. Would the numbers for both be equal or would the 360 or PS3 be ahead?

Edit:

Of course, if we apply the same handicap to the Wii, then the Wii is really much farther ahead than it seems.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

You really are dlusional. Fact is, the PS3 is in third place in numerous areas. In sales, software sales AND quantity of quality games, it gets beat by the 360. Not to mention its aging UI, regurgitated controller and inferior online, its just not as appealing as the PS2 and PS1 were. The 360 has it beat.

PAL360

Proof?

Its not needed. Every place where you look for full lists show more games on 360. Why dont you prove him wrong?

I have yet to see a full list. Using fallacious lem logic though I've found lists pointing to the opposite. If you'd understand how burden of proof works you wouldn't ask such a silly question.

The competition got better and Sony made several mistakes. The cost of 7th gen development increased to the point where exclusive titles sinply made little sense and western console development got extremely better while Japanese development faultered.

$600

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

You really are dlusional. Fact is, the PS3 is in third place in numerous areas. In sales, software sales AND quantity of quality games, it gets beat by the 360. Not to mention its aging UI, regurgitated controller and inferior online, its just not as appealing as the PS2 and PS1 were. The 360 has it beat.

ToScA-

Depends. Irrelevant in any case.

Proof?

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]But 360 has no games so that's fallacious reasoningDavekeeh

This thread makes me so glad I left this forum. :|

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]

My opinion>>>>opinion of hillbilly plebs as yourself

themajormayor

This thread makes me so glad I left this forum. :|

StrongDeadlift

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]But 360 has no games so that's fallacious reasoningDavekeeh

Please explain. Fanboys are idiots. That's a known fact.clone01

[QUOTE="themajormayor"] Using it colloquially is not incorrect.clone01

I don't know how they loosed it, maybe they should tighten it.bleehum

Still number 1 and number 2 all time (consoles)

Still number 1 all time (including handhelds)

come get some

MS already told you why they were able to breathe

$599

Cell

we took our foot off the competitions neck for one gen and look what they go n say

see you next gen with PS4

back where you belong

[QUOTE="clone01"] [QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] Using it colloquially is not incorrect.themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="clone01"] which part? That you are an idiot or a fanboy? One only needs to look at your posting history.clone01

The thing is you obviously didn't know what you put in your quote since it came out very silly. Even by your illiterate hillbilly standards.themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"] The thing is you obviously didn't know what you put in your quote since it came out very silly. Even by your illiterate hillbilly standards.clone01

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="spiderluck"] But Mosey weren't you the same two faced drone arguing at one time that the 360 was in fact more expensive than the ps3....want to be taken seriously? begin by being consistentOhSnapitz

At launch on face value the 360 was cheaper, but it did end up costing more overall with all the things you had to buy for it.

Launch PS3-$600

Launch 360-$400

But in order to get your full 360 experience you had to buy some things

WIFI adapter-$100

XBL for 3 years-$150 (XBL was cheaper back then)

That brings the 360 up to $650. It goes over a grand if you kept paying for XBL or upgreded the hard drive (lol 20GB). Also factor in to those who also upgraded to the 360 slim to stop getting the RROD recently, and you have a system that costs over a thousand dollars.

PS3 you just buy it and that's it. No other costs associated with it.

I believe your fanboy math is ... off.

Launch PS3 = $600

Monster HDMI Cable (because it didn't come with an HD/type Cable) = $50

3 Blu Ray Movies a yr (which is minimal.. Besides what's the use of buying a BD player if you don't buy movies to go along with it) = $75 ($25 a piece)

PSN+ = $50 a yr (for 2 yrs)

That equals.. $775 on the low end.

If you buy Monster HDMI Cables for that much you must love to waste money. HDMI cables can be had for $7 that perform the same as those $50 ones.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] The thing is you obviously didn't know what you put in your quote since it came out very silly. Even by your illiterate hillbilly standards.themajormayor

Ignorant fanboy that doesn't know what the hell 2001 is.

This thread makes me so glad I left this forum. :|

StrongDeadlift

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="clone01"] so in other word, you are an idiot fanboy. Can't really debate that Charles Darwin. Amuses me a troll like yourself continues to stick his nose somewhere no one wants him. Sad human being, frankly.menes777

Ignorant fanboy that doesn't know what the hell 2001 is.

The Cell/Blu-ray, Microsoft's pushed growth and Nintendo gimmick boom happened.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] The thing is you obviously didn't know what you put in your quote since it came out very silly. Even by your illiterate hillbilly standards.themajormayor

terrible launch basically no good games for the first year or 2 while 360 had bioshock. mass effect, gears. halo 3 etc

thats what cost em imo now theres a nice stready flow of games for both systems

Still number 1 and number 2 all time (consoles)

Still number 1 all time (including handhelds)

come get some

MS already told you why they were able to breathe

$599

Cell

we took our foot off the competitions neck for one gen and look what they go n say

see you next gen with PS4

back where you belong

ebrezzy1

360 launched one year prior

xbox live

that price tag

losing a ton of japanese support (I blame Sony for the lack of good JRPGs on consoles today)

so hard to dev for

wii was so cheap and different, great for parents buying systems for kids

[QUOTE="StrongDeadlift"]

This thread makes me so glad I left this forum. :|

Second_Hokage

he just wanted to let us know.

Sony pushed to hard to come out as soon as they DID. HAD they waited a more powerful PS3 would have launched a year later.

PS2 outsold Xbox 360 in 2005/2006 and outsold PS3 in 2006/2007

Sony should have droped the price they charged programers to make games and goten rid of the oversite certification. That would have brought in a huge amount of games from both indie and establihed developers, taking away from Xbox 360 until PS3 was ready to launch for real.

Problems that made PS3 less that it should have been

• PS3 was cut short 7 out of the 8 cells were working
• PS3 was caped at 3.2 GHz
• heat was a problem and they had a expensive cooling system
• A huge decrease in chips due to problems with production,
• shortages of Blueray parts caused big price increase and delays

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="ispeakfact"]They never lost it. More exclusives, more award winning exclusives, more gotys.ispeakfact

i think its because blu-ray is so expensive and some people dont see the difference from a dvd...

the ps3 put all its chips on blu-ray being a huge hit.

PS3 came out late and expensive. Also, rising development costs forced most high profile 3rd party titles to become day 1 multiplats, whereas Sony had enjoyed at least limited exclusivity on many titles in the previous gens.

PS3 released last and it was very expensive. Same for VITA.

there are a lot of reasons why sony lost first place

• nintendo brought in a bunch of people that didn't previously play video games. it soo happened to outnumber core gamers. please dont think that nintendo stole casual gamers because casual gamers did not make the majority of the ps2 fanbase
• it came out way too late. core gamers wanted to play something, so they lost those gamers that didn't have brand loyalty
• ps3 was too expensive a launch. regardless of the machine being touted as more powerful than 360, there is a threshold at reasonable...they went the 3do route but the difference in graphics is negligble
• 3rd party developers decided to back 360 or become multi platform. they lost most of what powered the previous era's...developer exclusivity support
• microsoft innovated online multiplayer while sony just took the functional route. No trophies at launch, no party chat, gamers had to buy separate headset device, xmb being inferior, psn home wasnt there at launch and it was fail
• microsoft has better marketing than sony PERIOD
• japan decided that they want to play handhelds instead of consoles
• microsoft appealed to more american gamers...which is the number one gaming market in the world
• there were no games that made sony worth buying for a couple of years in a lot of peoples eyes. it wasn't until killzone 2, lbp, uncharted 2 came out that sony had games people really want.

in the end i think these factors have done them in....

When did Sony have a tight gaming crown?BPoole96