Originally posted by Elixir
mel- you can make statements like "sony sold more" all day long.
you're in an apple forum making statements like that... think about it.
it was microsofts first console!!!!!!
japenese developers didn't come out in numbers to support the xbox unlike the 360.
the playstation already had a name set for itself. geesh man they even went up against nintendo thats a pretty tough competition and considering that i think the xbox did well.
you're hard to please.
I realize where we are. But the PS 2 and three, as well as the XBox and the Gamecube and Revolution are all games. Games are better if more people buy them. Why? Because they are buying them because they like them. Not because they have to use them at work. Not because the original PC sold because it had IBM's initials on it.
Sony came from nowhere in the game business. It wasn't first by a long shot, not by 15 years or so. It sold because its games were much better than anything else at the time. The PS1 first sold for $650. It started to do really well after it came down to $500.
The XBox was highly anticipated. Everyone (including me) expected it to just blow the PS2 away. It didn't. It was a little better. It also had Halo. Without that it would have faded away, but that sold enough boxes for developers to become encouraged.
Despite MS saying that there would be 45 games available upon the 360's intro, it's expected that there will be, at most, 26.
But you just can't ignore the fact that it has lost so much money consistently. What would have happened if MS decided to price it and the games they make they way Sony did? That is, to have the games division make money?
Nobody would be buying it.
I'm not denying the numbers sold. I'm sure that BMW could sell a lot more cars if they priced them to match a Chevy or something at that level. But would they? Of course not.
MS knows that the box isn't so much better that they could convince gamers to buy it if it were priced 50% more. MS is subsidizing the people buying this, as well as the games they make. This is the point I'm making. You don't want to look at that.
Nintendo hasn't done that. They make a profit. I wonder what their sales would be if MS didn't sell their machines and games well below cost.
I'm sure that Sony could sell even more of these things if they sold them for $50. The games too.
The same thing seems to be happening again with the PS3, the 360, and the Revolution. Nintendo will price to make a good profit. Sony will price to make a smaller profit, and MS will price so that they lose large amounts of money. Though they have said that they "hope" to break even after the first year. They said that about the first one as well.
It's like Netscape vs Explorer. Explorer didn't do well until they gave it away.
Does that mean that Explorer really did well? It's that nobody can afford to compete with MS when they decide to really go for it. Who knows, maybe Sony and Nintendo will just give up if they start doing less well and then MS will be left. Then they can say that they did it fair and square. It only cost $15 billion in losses.
You're hard to please too.