Microsoft Knew They Had A “Chance” Against Sony When PS3 Price Was Announced

When Sony announced the pricing of the PS3 at E3 2006, Microsoft knew that they had a “real upside” with the Xbox 360.

[corroios]

Microsoft hit the jackpot with the 360 cheaper and launch year before the PS3. The console, for that time, was a powerhouse, we got a huge transition from SD to HD games.

The problem was that they didnt learnt nothing with the 360 and the transition for the Xbox One was a nightmare. They launch a underpowered machine targeted at the casuals with Kinect, expensive and the launch conference was a nightmare.

They lack killer software and the old formula just doesnt cut anymore.

[Cindy-rella]

Microsoft decision rushing the xbox 360 to launch a year ahead of sony caused the rrod epidemic which haunts them to this day because a lot of people dont trust the built quality of xbox. Some people can talk about microsoft having a warranty program that fixed broken systems but in a lot of cases people were changing multiple xbox 360s in a short period of time and the exchange program was a nightmare for some people in certain countries. A lot of people dont want to buy another xbox or xbox one because of rrod situation on xbox 360.

[Z501]

@ moldy
I'm not a troll and i still question the build quality of xbox systems.

"Fool me once"....

[bouzebbal]

MS rushed 360 and they weren't very sure of what they wanted their console to look like and offer.
They started releasing a low ass 360 lacking HDMI port and wifi sensor, then they updated the SKU once all these things were finally decided.
I agree they had a good chance against PS3 due to exclusive games in the first year and especially the lower price, but they gave up supporting it the right way around 5 years ago where all that counted for them were Gears Halo Forza every single year.

[freshslicepizza]

@Z5013
"I'm not a troll"

you are certainly not a fan of the xbox even ignoring the past build quality of the xbox 360.

"and i still question the build quality of xbox systems."

then that is your problem.

"Fool me once"

so did you buy a ps3 or ps4 since the ps2 and ps1 had disk read error issues? sony even settled out of court for the ps2 disk read errors. do you go online on playstation network after they had to shut it down for weeks because of a security breach? which in the end sony admitted was not as secure as it should have been. normal people move on, those who have hidden agendas keep bringing up the past even if if has no relevance to today.

[DarXyde]

moldybread,

You said: "now sony is risking losing that rebuilt faith with the ps4 neo becasue some may question why come out with a ps4 neo when the ps4 has been such a well thought out system and perfectly executed."

So explain to me how that works out for Microsoft. Let's say, hypothetically, consumers do not take well to Neo because it's a mid-cycle upgrade. How does that benefit Microsoft, who will also upgrade mid-cycle? Why would it benefit one and not the other when the approaches are very similar? If neither will feature exclusive titles that you cannot find on the current models (VR withstanding, which requires you to invest in Scorpio and a PC VR headset anyway) why would anyone be bitter? That sounds like a PC enthusiast buying a high-end GPU and maybe six months later (scaling time for PC reasons) a much better card is announced by the same company.

If the price is right and a trade-in program is in place, I have a hard time believing people will be that bothered.

One more thing... historically, Sony releases hardware revisions. Literally, every platform Sony releases sees revisions. If you don't know this by now, you are a fool. Let me offer some perspective: The original PS2 had many complaints of disc read errors and PS3 had yellow light of death. People often upgraded with no trade-in incentive. People who never even had any issues with their original consoles. Plays the same games. Just pretty much takes up less space. In PS3's case, it was even missing backwards compatibility, yet the slim sold swimmingly. Heck, they even made a SUPER Slim when the original slim runs phenomenally. Why is that? Do you really think that'll upset PlayStation fans in mass quantities? I doubt that will even upset Microsoft fans on the level you're suggesting.

It's important to note that Neo and Scorpio are different in this regard because they're very much expected to be MORE expensive than the original units, but they're also more powerful. Additionally, the original units are already pretty reliable and will feature all of the same games. There's literally no need to upgrade unless you want better performance. And even then, if Sony offers a trade-in program (which they likely will), it's likely cheaper out of pocket than the original PS4 should you take advantage of that.

You worry about Sony destroying their consumer faith? Microsoft literally destroyed consumer faith in the same generation they earned it with Xbox 360: great heavy-hitters but hardware problems then a software drought later on. THAT is far more worthy of concern. I think they've learned their lesson, but to express "concern" for one in the way you describe but not the other is, frankly, asinine.

[Trez1234]

Moldy your Microsoft defence is a little crazy at times. I had to buy another 360 after sending my 360 arcade twice to get fixed, saying that makes me a troll?
The built quality wasn't good and that's the truth.

And then you go on talking about Sony arrogance etc....have you been asleep this gen? Microsoft been lying, spinning to a level where Sony or Nintendo for that matter wouldn't dare because they'll be crucified. Where's that 6x xbox one aka cloud? Where that investment on first party? ( all we see is third party deals and the usual first party ip's from the 360 era). Titanfall can only possible on xbox one they said..right?

I can go on and on. What I'm trying to say is its easier to point a finger at the other company, just have a good look at your darling company without those shades and I guarantee you , it's not that rosy.

[freshslicepizza]

Some of you guys have trouble reading. I never defended the rrod issue on the Xbox 360, I said there is no reason to keep questioning the hardware since. Same thing with Playstation consoles, that was then this is now. So stand by my comments that those who won't buy the new consoles because of past consoles many years ago are just trolls who refuse to move on.

I am also supportive of both Neo and Scorpio. I have always been. The reason I mentioned Neo is because Sony has such a loyal fanbase who don't like the idea of midcycle console upgrades. That is not the same as slim systems by the way.

[rainslacker]

To be fair moldy, I've never been a fan of MS built hardware even before they released the first Xbox. Anything I ever owned that they built ended up crapping out within a year.

OGXbox was pretty solid though, but the 360 just reaffirmed it's better to let others be the beta testers. X1 seems pretty solid to me though, so credit goes to them for that.

[darthv72]

From my perspective... 360 was very much like the sega genesis. It was MS 2nd system after their attempt at gaining on the popular previous gen leader. It launched a year earlier and by the time the ps3 launched, it had the chance to have a lower cost to increase sales.

Ultimately (like genesis) it did manage to take market share away from the previous leader while building a name (and following) for itself.

Then we have the xb1 which would be akin to the saturn. Launching at $100 more than the ps4 (like saturn did to the ps1) and being under powered (again like saturn did to the ps1).

Its like MS was following the sega play book step by step. Which could mean that scorpio would end up like dreamcast. A system that started strong, never got a fair shake and died all to soon only to be revered to this day as a true rock star system.

If that does happen.... we could very well see ms games on other systems. Only time will tell.

[_-EDMIX-_]

What could you learn from a chance given by your opponent based on something you have no control over?

Microsoft issues in regards to the software Department existed last generation as well.

And I personally do not believe that the reason why the Xbox One is selling the way it is is based on being underpowered.

The PlayStation 2 was the least powerful the Wii was the least powerful Xbox One is merely not selling because it does not have enough compelling software to move units consider I own a 3DS clearly it's not as powerful as a PS Vita clearly it's not as powerful as a PlayStation 4, but it offers software that I wish to play. at the end of the day Gamers want a platform to play good games what does it matter the power? That isn't really as relevant to Consumers they want games.

I don't believe the power difference from PlayStation 4 to Xbox One is really the real reason on why it's not selling.

[Errorist76]

Imho also the lack of dedicated support in the second half of its lifespan was disappointing. Even more disappointing they didn't really learn from it with the One.

[nix]

MS' big mistake was to not have any new IP in the end years of 360. PS3 was still churning out new exclusives on its final years but MS was just doing the same IP.

A nd then their intro to Xbox1. That was the nail.

[lelo2play]

Microsoft Knew They Had A “Chance” Against Sony When PS3 Price Was Announced... but later on they royally screwed up the Xbox One launch. They learned absolutely nothing from the X360 and PS3 launch.

If they don't price the Xbox Scorpio just right next year, it will be another screw up by Microsoft.

[arkard]

So then they turned around and made the same mistake Sony did one generation later?

[andrewsquall]

Not really. Sony banked on bluray which is the absolute norm even in Xbox camp now. Sony's big mistake was putting PS2 components into PS3 making it very expensive. They removed these a year later after launch (only 7 months after the console launched in Europe) and were able to drop the price by 200 quid.

Quite ironic the thing mostly that hurt PS3 in the beginning, is the thing that people are screaming is a "game changer" on Xbone..... and after 2 years into the console's life too when its even more irrelevant.

Its not quite the same as the worse games console reveal in history now is it? :)

[IIFloodyII]

It wasn't, PS2's were very cheap back then, Sony's big mistake was the Cell, great tech, but far too hard to work with and too expensive. It's why the technology flopped outside of the PS3.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@llflood- absolutely completely agree I believe they would have done so much better with a more simple streamlined architecture.

x86 is doing amazing for them right now

[rainslacker]

Blu Ray lasers and the CELL were the expensive parts of the system. Keeping the PS2 emotion engine wasn't super expensive in relation, but it's one of those "every little thing adds up to a lot" scenarios. Sony was selling the system at quite a substantial loss at the beginning there, and even after the revisions removing BC, it was still selling at a loss for a couple years due to the CELL, although BR diodes came down in price within the 2nd year to something reasonable.

[andrewsquall]

Lol the 360 was already out, in stores, 7 months when the PS3 price was announced. No shit.

[hennessey86]

Have I travelled back in time...........

[andresegr]

Companies like to reminisce the time when they were in a relevant position, just like Nintendo fans like to remember the time when the Wii was dominating.

Its just how it is.

[HawaiianDreads]

Same I'm pretty sure we had a article like this before, not too long ago.

[Spectre_StatusN7]

Now Sony is back to dominating like they did in the PS1 and PS2 era. Hell you could even argue that the PS4 has been Sony's most dominant console that has ever hit the market. All is where is should be in the gaming world, with Sony far on top.

[TheColbertinator]

Then Wii came along with the cheapest price point and buried both in sales.

Price is a powerful factor. Power,online features and even top notch games can swim or sink based on the sticker price at retail.

[JackBNimble]

I bought a wii and Mario for my kids just so they would leave me and my ps3 alone. Funny thing... they didn't want the wii they want my ps3.

[SynestheticRoar]

LOL, but they didn't win. One year headstart , and they still came in last. So unfortunate.

[Jon_Targaryen]

MS still trying to live in the past by the looks of it.

[DragonDDark]

And it didn't work out in the end..

[FPS_D3TH]

The 360 was an incredible console and OG Xbox had some great titles. Too bad the Xbox One doesn't hold a candle to either. I would've bought an Xbox one day one but hoo boy that reveal...

[FallenAngel1984]

I remember how so many people tend to focus on the intial cost that they forget the various hidden costs that made ultimately made 360 more expensive than PS3.
- Every PS3 had an HDMI while if you bought a 360 at launch, you'd have to rebuy another later model that had HDMI.
- 360 consoles notoriously had a high failure rate early on, so you'd have a high chance of rebuying it anyway as opposed to PS3's significantly lower failure rate.
- Early 360 models often scratched discs, meaning you'd have a high chance of having to repurchase those games. This isn't the case with PS3 which had Blu-Ray that had much higher resistance than DVD. Another thing to note is that Blu-Ray meant I'd never have to deal with another multi-disk game again.
- You saved a lot of money having every SixAxis and DualShock 3 being recharchable instead of buying batteries or battery packs on 360 controllers.
- You could connect any Bluetooth headset to PS3 as opposed to having to buy a specific one for 360.
- PS3 was region free meaning you could import game from anywhere on any console. 360 was region locked so you were confined to only playing your region specific games, lest you buy another console from another region to play different games.
- Except for early 20GB models, every PS3 had built-in WiFi. On 360, Microsoft would rather have you pay for an expensive adapter so you could wirelessly connect their console to the Internet.
- You could put any SATA HDD into any PS3, which was very cost effective. 360 had expensive proprietary HDDs in comparison.
- PS3 didn't lock half of its functionality behind a monthly paywall like 360 did for most of its life.
- Microsoft Points had a shady algorithm system that didn't always accurately translate your funds into its unique currency. In comparison PSN always showed you the exact price of every digital item and remaining funds in your wallet.

After looking at all those factors, it was easy to see PS3 was cheaper and more valuable in the long run than 360. A lot of other people seemed to catch on to that as well seeing as how PS3 eventually outsold 360 in the end.

Plus PS3 still receives more games than 360 or any other 7th gen platform. Talk about extreme bang for your buck.

[DarkZane]

That was Microsoft's only chance and they still ended up in last place because the PS3 outsold it worldwide every months the moment it released. The PS3 managed to grab second place in the end.

No matter what Microsoft do in the next generations, Sony will just beat them like they are with the PS4.