PS3 Picked to Pass 360 in 2011

[AzrealMaximillion]

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

 

[thedeathscythe]

Biggest seller this Christmas? I suspect Gran Turismo 5, hands down, which might push PS3 sales. Check the sales of the other Gran Turismo's (full games, no prologues leading up to the next game), they're off the chart.

As for next year, with all the software PS3 now has out, and has coming out, I think that's a plausible scenario. It's also half the price that it launched out, I'm thinking 2011 will be the year PS3 takes the lead.

 

[Danpascooch]

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

The "losing billions" is not an overestimation. RROD lost Microsoft nearly $2 billion. (http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+360+Defect+Coverage+Drives+189+Billion+Loss+for+Division/article8118.html).

Apple has surpassed MS as an entire company.
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-passes-microsoft/)
And how can MS be destroying Apple in the computer front when MS doesn't make computers?
The only thing that MS has over Apple is OS sales, and really not by much.

And yes I did look up my info, you clearly did not because you saying that MS raking in millions off of first party games is false. They didn't make any money off of the 360 until 2008, three years into this generation.

And if you actually looked up any info you'd know that 2008 was when MS made a $77 profit off of each console sold.
(http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/xbox-360-costs-over-500-less-to-make-than-ps3-says-isuppli/70376/?biz=1)
So yes, consoles do eventually post a profit.

MS had an early lead because of a year jump on the competition. If you actually look at the sales performances of both the 360 and PS3, if that year jump didn't happen, the PS3 would have outsold the 360 long ago. The other factor to why the 360 is ahead of the PS3 now is because of the 360 Arcade which has cost $199 US since it appeared, as well as paying 3rd party companies for exclusivity (a practice that really isn't worth the amount that MS pays off as shown by the many JRPGs they tried to pull that stunt with). I'm in school for marketing and accounting, I know what I'm talking about. I also can tell you that MS will not release a console in 2 years as you keep saying. It's not logical to do so. They lost $4 billion on the Original XBox alone, and just started making money off of the 360 two years ago. They just released a major peripheral which will have most of it's major games released late next year, and to be quite honest ending this generation in 3rd place for the second time in a row does not look good to investors, or 3rd party developers at all. If MS is going to make new consoles just to gain an early lead, then they really wouldn't have learned anything from the mistakes that caused them a large amount of loss this generation.

 

[Danpascooch]

The

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

The "losing billions" is not an overestimation. RROD lost Microsoft nearly $2 billion. (http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+360+Defect+Coverage+Drives+189+Billion+Loss+for+Division/article8118.html).

Apple has surpassed MS as an entire company.
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-passes-microsoft/)
And how can MS be destroying Apple in the computer front when MS doesn't make computers?
The only thing that MS has over Apple is OS sales, and really not by much.

And yes I did look up my info, you clearly did not because you saying that MS raking in millions off of first party games is false. They didn't make any money off of the 360 until 2008, three years into this generation.

And if you actually looked up any info you'd know that 2008 was when MS made a $77 profit off of each console sold.
(http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/xbox-360-costs-over-500-less-to-make-than-ps3-says-isuppli/70376/?biz=1)
So yes, consoles do eventually post a profit.

MS had an early lead because of a year jump on the competition. If you actually look at the sales performances of both the 360 and PS3, if that year jump didn't happen, the PS3 would have outsold the 360 long ago. The other factor to why the 360 is ahead of the PS3 now is because of the 360 Arcade which has cost $199 US since it appeared, as well as paying 3rd party companies for exclusivity (a practice that really isn't worth the amount that MS pays off as shown by the many JRPGs they tried to pull that stunt with). I'm in school for marketing and accounting, I know what I'm talking about. I also can tell you that MS will not release a console in 2 years as you keep saying. It's not logical to do so. They lost $4 billion on the Original XBox alone, and just started making money off of the 360 two years ago. They just released a major peripheral which will have most of it's major games released late next year, and to be quite honest ending this generation in 3rd place for the second time in a row does not look good to investors, or 3rd party developers at all. If MS is going to make new consoles just to gain an early lead, then they really wouldn't have learned anything from the mistakes that caused them a large amount of loss this generation.

When I said computers I actually meant Operating Systems and assumed that's what you meant too, my fault for the improper use of the word, but what I meant was that Windows has never been surpassed in sales by any Apple OS (not counting a mobile operating system) and that Apple overtook Microsoft as a whole through their other incredibly successful ventures (such as the Ipod)

As to the other stuff......well shit, you shut me down, the first link lead to a 404 Page Not Found error, but given the rest of the stuff you posted I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it said what you posted it as. My apologies, I thought I knew more than I actually did it seems.

 

[Double A]

Never expect for a product you buy once to keep selling infinitely in Japan. Most of the populace is old, and most who are already going to get a PS3 have one.

 

[laststandman]

They have been saying this ever since the XBox 360 and PS3 came out. And guess what, its hasnt happened!

Damn! Ninja'd!
But yeah every single year it's "this is the year of the PS3! No seriously, the software has improved along with the library and now it'll happen!" This is like saying that THIS is the year the Capitals will win the cup (but that might actually happen this year)

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

The "losing billions" is not an overestimation. RROD lost Microsoft nearly $2 billion. (http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+360+Defect+Coverage+Drives+189+Billion+Loss+for+Division/article8118.html).

Apple has surpassed MS as an entire company.
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-passes-microsoft/)
And how can MS be destroying Apple in the computer front when MS doesn't make computers?
The only thing that MS has over Apple is OS sales, and really not by much.

And yes I did look up my info, you clearly did not because you saying that MS raking in millions off of first party games is false. They didn't make any money off of the 360 until 2008, three years into this generation.

And if you actually looked up any info you'd know that 2008 was when MS made a $77 profit off of each console sold.
(http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/xbox-360-costs-over-500-less-to-make-than-ps3-says-isuppli/70376/?biz=1)
So yes, consoles do eventually post a profit.

MS had an early lead because of a year jump on the competition. If you actually look at the sales performances of both the 360 and PS3, if that year jump didn't happen, the PS3 would have outsold the 360 long ago. The other factor to why the 360 is ahead of the PS3 now is because of the 360 Arcade which has cost $199 US since it appeared, as well as paying 3rd party companies for exclusivity (a practice that really isn't worth the amount that MS pays off as shown by the many JRPGs they tried to pull that stunt with). I'm in school for marketing and accounting, I know what I'm talking about. I also can tell you that MS will not release a console in 2 years as you keep saying. It's not logical to do so. They lost $4 billion on the Original XBox alone, and just started making money off of the 360 two years ago. They just released a major peripheral which will have most of it's major games released late next year, and to be quite honest ending this generation in 3rd place for the second time in a row does not look good to investors, or 3rd party developers at all. If MS is going to make new consoles just to gain an early lead, then they really wouldn't have learned anything from the mistakes that caused them a large amount of loss this generation.

When I said computers I actually meant Operating Systems and assumed that's what you meant too, my fault for the improper use of the word, but what I meant was that Windows has never been surpassed in sales by any Apple OS (not counting a mobile operating system) and that Apple overtook Microsoft as a whole through their other incredibly successful ventures (such as the Ipod)

As to the other stuff......well shit, you shut me down, the first link lead to a 404 Page Not Found error, but given the rest of the stuff you posted I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it said what you posted it as. My apologies, I thought I knew more than I actually did it seems.

Hey, it's a healthy debate you learned new things through it, as did I. I see it as knowledge being exchanged through communication. In my opinion it's the best way to learn really.

 

[Danpascooch]

The

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

The "losing billions" is not an overestimation. RROD lost Microsoft nearly $2 billion. (http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+360+Defect+Coverage+Drives+189+Billion+Loss+for+Division/article8118.html).

Apple has surpassed MS as an entire company.
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-passes-microsoft/)
And how can MS be destroying Apple in the computer front when MS doesn't make computers?
The only thing that MS has over Apple is OS sales, and really not by much.

And yes I did look up my info, you clearly did not because you saying that MS raking in millions off of first party games is false. They didn't make any money off of the 360 until 2008, three years into this generation.

And if you actually looked up any info you'd know that 2008 was when MS made a $77 profit off of each console sold.
(http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/xbox-360-costs-over-500-less-to-make-than-ps3-says-isuppli/70376/?biz=1)
So yes, consoles do eventually post a profit.

MS had an early lead because of a year jump on the competition. If you actually look at the sales performances of both the 360 and PS3, if that year jump didn't happen, the PS3 would have outsold the 360 long ago. The other factor to why the 360 is ahead of the PS3 now is because of the 360 Arcade which has cost $199 US since it appeared, as well as paying 3rd party companies for exclusivity (a practice that really isn't worth the amount that MS pays off as shown by the many JRPGs they tried to pull that stunt with). I'm in school for marketing and accounting, I know what I'm talking about. I also can tell you that MS will not release a console in 2 years as you keep saying. It's not logical to do so. They lost $4 billion on the Original XBox alone, and just started making money off of the 360 two years ago. They just released a major peripheral which will have most of it's major games released late next year, and to be quite honest ending this generation in 3rd place for the second time in a row does not look good to investors, or 3rd party developers at all. If MS is going to make new consoles just to gain an early lead, then they really wouldn't have learned anything from the mistakes that caused them a large amount of loss this generation.

When I said computers I actually meant Operating Systems and assumed that's what you meant too, my fault for the improper use of the word, but what I meant was that Windows has never been surpassed in sales by any Apple OS (not counting a mobile operating system) and that Apple overtook Microsoft as a whole through their other incredibly successful ventures (such as the Ipod)

As to the other stuff......well shit, you shut me down, the first link lead to a 404 Page Not Found error, but given the rest of the stuff you posted I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it said what you posted it as. My apologies, I thought I knew more than I actually did it seems.

Hey, it's a healthy debate you learned new things through it, as did I. I see it as knowledge being exchanged through communication. In my opinion it's the best way to learn really.

The More You Know!

(lol, seriously though, it was a good back and forth that didn't degrade into some sort of pissing contest, thanks for the new information)