Would the Xbox 360 have been so successful if the PS3 didn't have a bad launch?

Coming third last gen has really hurt you cows :(

The gaming press absolutely butchered the PS3. Sony being tone-deaf in the west certainly didn't help, though.

Even at $599, the PS3 was the less expensive option for gamers who played online. The backwards compatibility was comprehensive. Blu-Ray won the format war and always was going to win.

For all of the opinion pieces out there at the time of launch, not one single journalist keyed in on Microsoft inflating the production cost of a competing product by supporting an inferior format. This forced Sony to cut all kinds of corners to become competitive. By the time RROD started becoming a hot topic, the damage to ps3 had been done and publishers started changing their exclusive software road map.

The 360, to MSes credit, made all the right moves to capitalize on these perceived weaknesses. Peter Moore was the right man at the right time to state the case for Xbox while Sony got completely tongue-tied. It was a good combination that made the 360 the go-to console early in the gen. It's impossible to separate PS3s bad reception to 360s success, though.

Yes, because it was still an awesome console.

The Xbox 360 wasn't that successful. RROD helped a bit. A lot of people had to buy like 2-3

Yes, I think so. The 360 was still a great console that had some excellent exclusives and very strong third party support plus for awhile many multi platform games ran better on the 360.

LITERALLY the ONLY reason why 360 ever had any type of lead on PS3 was because it released 1 year before. That's it.

360's "success" is literally only getting an 8 million user base lead over PS3 and instantly started loosing that lead the moment PS3 released.

PS3 was outselling 360 day 1 and only managed to beat PS3 random months in the US. Mean while WW PS3 >> 360 100% of the time.

by the end on 2013, PS3 80 mill = 360 80 mill

360's "success" is always overblown. It never really did anything special except for starting the gen early.

I highly doubt it. MS was able to capitalize on Sony’s foolish mistakes with the PS3 launch. The 360 would have been successful because it was still a good console (RROD aside) but I don’t think it would have been as successful.

You give MS WAAAAAY too much credit here.

Sony's foolish mistakes and all...PS3 was outselling 360 day 1 even at $600.

With out the 1 year head start 360 would never have had any lead over PS3. These are the facts.

Yes, because it had strong first party support early on and it was the preferred system for third party multiplayer.

You’re right, PS3 was outselling the 360 even at $599, and Sony would have swept them but at the same time MS would have been successful to an extent unlike the Xbone. The 360 did have some decent 1st party exclusives at the time that would have compelled some gamers to still want to own one even if Sony was destroying them In sales.

@son-goku7523:

I agree 360 was slightly better than XB1 but not by much. It was a Halo/Forza/Gears rehash generation but it did have a few unique JRPGs they snagged that made the system a little more worth while.

That said, 360 really didn't do much.

If you tired to make a Xbox 360 top ten best games list for the entire generation 7th, you'd very quickly realize how underwhelming the 360 was when compared to PS3's award winning library of games.

All mulitplats looked and played better on the 360. The online aspect was also way better. Fat PS3 was a turd, the only one that was good was the slim. I did like the first Payday on the PS3, good times.

The mistakes of the competition is obviously going to have some degree of effect. The same thing could be said about Microsoft's mistakes with the launch of the Xbox One helping to make the PS4 more successful this generation.

But that should not take away from the fact that the Xbox 360 was simply a really great console and Microsoft did a lot of things right with it. Therefore, I think that the Xbox 360 would have still been very successful no matter what. Sony's mistakes helped Microsoft a little bit, but most of the credit should go to Microsoft for creating a really great console that delivered what a lot of gamers wanted and pretty much created the blueprint for modern gaming that others would then copy.

PS3 beat 360 in worldwide sales. PlayStation always beats Xbox worldwide.

Even at Sony’s worst, they beat Microsoft’s best.

These are facts.

Lems need to face the facts that Xbox is never going outsell PlayStation in total worldwide sales.

PS3 was the first console I bought at launch, or close to it anyway. Besides the BC compatibility it was the worst freaking joke of a library for several years, and to be honest it never got close to offer anything on the level of ps2/ps1..

Well despite having a 1 year head start at $200 cheaper, millions of RROD rebuys, superior online and Halo/Gears at their peak the PS3 still battled back to take 2nd place in sales right at the end of the gen. That had to have been demoralizing for Microsoft.

Nah, I believe they alienated a lot of their customers that gen with their stupidity. People who felt PS3 was too expensive went with the 2nd best option instead.

Yes, 360 rocked!!! would PS4 be anywhere near as successful had both MS and Nintendo not fouled up so bad with X1 and Wii U?

Heck to the no is the right answer. Phony lucked out this gen simple as that. :P

Xbox 360 was a one hit wonder. And really, Sony's biggest mistake is letting PS3 release a year later after the 360 and MS knew they couldn't beat PS3 and tried to rush the product without testing the system's long term hence RROD happened. If PS3 had launch on the same day as 360, MS would have gotten stump for sure.

No. Personally, and I know I'm in the minority in this, I think it was a bad sequel to the OG. That whole generation is probably my least favorite, though. So freaking generic - the main selling point was really faux-720p and online (which does nothing to tickle my happy bones)

Damn system wars has really blinded some fan boys. The 360 was a great console with its own merits regardless of what Sony or anyone else was doing. Now you have fan boys saying it wouldn't have sold well if the PS3 didn't have a bad launch. How ridiculous does that sound. Lack of competition is always a factor but a quality system will still sell well regardless.

@djoffer: The ps3 had a slow start sure, but by the end of that gen its library of games rivaled that of the ps1/ps2 easily.

No one's not denying Xbox 360 is the worst console, it was a very good product by MS has ever come up, Sony's just a known brand at the time mainly because PlayStation consoles have been on the gaming market for so long then MS has and anyone who love the PS2 were more likely gonna buy PS3 despite 360 had a ahead start. I remember waiting in line to receive my pre-order PS3 when I went to the midnight launch and the line was jam pack on that night.

Not sure. They grabbed a lot of PS2 series and slapped the "only on 360" on them that it might have been a close race till 2009.

@davillain-: OK you make some good points. I didn't look at it that way. You're right Sony did have majority of the market. Makes you wonder how good the next gen Xbox will do as Sony has really dominated this gen with sales and exclusives.

@xantufrog: by happy bones you're referring to ?

As successful? Probably not. Still, the PS3 really didn't reach it's prime until later in the life-cycle.

@SolidGame_basic: jumbly bits!

Look at all the cows trying to make themselves feel and sleep better at night.

360 was a great console out the gate. Had games people wanted to play and an online infrastructure that dwarfed Sony's. Console online gaming became what it is today that's in large part to MS. It would have been a success regardless of what Sony did but with that being said the $600 PS3 price tag sure didn't hurt the 360.

360 was a success on its own merits. It had the best user experience with the OS dashboard, party system, avatars, etc... The 360 controller was vastly superior to the DS3. Also, It actually had worthwhile exclusives to go along with the best versions of multi-plats among the consoles.

The launch wasn't the issue, the CELL Broadband CPU was. It really slowed development and allowed Xbox to capitalise gaining support. The bad launch was just the icing.

It was more than a success of its own merits, it pretty much tied with the PS3. In the end after a hard long battle, there's only a few million in sales between them. It was a decent console.

Not as much but still probably wildly successful compared to Xbox OG. They still would've had their Gears and Halo.

See @kingtito you people can't let go,and this thread isn't about who end 3rd..lol

This thread is just asking if the xbox 360 would have been as successful if the PS3 didn't have a bad launch.

You are grasping here, and projecting your usual insecurities.

No the 360 was a most have console when it was 1 year old,when it got Gears,on launch it was pretty much your average console with few games to play and many multiplatforms,games like Kameo,PDZ and other were not high rated games like Gears,and in fact the best game on launch was COD2 which was a multiplatform game.

During the course of the year it got Ghost recon and Oblivion but while high rated were multiplatforms as well,saints row,dead rising were late 2006 games and were not high score as gears.

The really first big game was gears in 2006,in 2007 the xbox 360 got several great games including Bioshock,mass effect,Halo 3,Forza 2 one of this greatest years for the xbox,this is part of the reason why i say the xbox one is a piece of shit compare to the 360,the 360 had a stream of exclusives games or time exclusives high rated no found on xbox one.

Most games people wanted to play were still been done for PS2 in 2005.

Please get your damn facts right you got a $50 dollar P2P network which in some games didn't even work well,like Gears which was a total mess,plague by lag,host advantage issues,meanwhile sony was running Resistance 20 vs 20 on huge maps smooth as butter,oh yeah sony was using this thing call dedicated servers,you know the thing you lemming hyped when this gen started.

PS3 games not only ran great because several exclusives ran on dedicated servers,but the PS3 had features like home,had cross play games and a more open network,in fact you could even share PSN games with up to 5 friends,i even shared with my friends COD map packs,something you could not do on xbox live.

Console online was here before MS even enter the arena man,stop thanking MS for things they didn't do,sure maybe we would have not had party chat,but voice chat was here on PS2 as well before live launched.

And in fact online play was far more popular on PS2 than on xbox.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2004/07/30/sony-claims-socom-ii-bragging-rights

Online gaming would become what it is today no matter what,but if MS wasn't freaking here probably we would still be playing it free of charge and will not have a gigantic microtransaction market that now even infest PC.

If the PS3 would have been $399 on 2006 the story would have been a very different one,even with the head start,the were many moms that simply went xbox 360 because the PS3 was to expensive for jr to have.

It sure was that $600 price tag was double of the cheapest 360 model.

I say yes, though those better sales would come later on mostly to hardware failure rates of the original Xbox 360. If that PS4 launch includes some slight hardware changes to allow for easier programing and cheaper production, then definitely.

Of course I had both during that gen, getting my PS3 back in 2008 and my Xbox 360 in 2010, and I can say that they are aspects of both that I enjoyed, so really I don't have any particular grind that portion of the console war. Sadly my original Xbox 360 had a disk drive failure back in 2012 but no RROD and my PS4 died in early 2013 but now I have the super slim versions of both right now and play them quite a bit!

Would the PS4 have such a good run if MS hadn't screwed up the Xbox One so much at launch?

Same logic...

If that were true, the 360 would have had an attachment rate that has ever existed before or since. So, it's pretty debunked.

No in fact the xbox one prove it without shadow of a doubt,the xbox one started faster than the xbox 360 did,but after 2016 it started to fall behind the 360 numbers regardless of the slim model and X models,it was cheaper to get an xbox one in 2016 than to get a 360 in 2009 and you would probably get it with 1 or 2 games free,contrary to most 360 sku sold.

The reason the xbox one fell behind the 360 is simple,the xbox one doesn't have a 50% fail rate or more.

Is reliable and solid so you don't have millions of consumers ready to move to a new slimmer and more reliable version,the xbox 360 slim sparked xbox 360 sales in the millions,and it wasn't the games in fact in 2010 MS basically abandoned the 360 to fallow Kinect gimmick.

How many here owned a fat 360 and latter on own a slim model?

Yeah i am sure most of you owned both a fat and slim model congratulations those that did are living proof of the re bought units.

Yes it would MS only good market is US sony was going to sell the PS4 in all market regardless.

The xbox brand is not as big as the playstation brand,so yeah even while MS not fu**ing up they would have still face a unbeatable sony.

And the xbox one still sold better than the 360 at first,again it just didn't have a high fail rate to capitalize latter on.

Is this discussion more appropriate for the Legacy forum? Why talk about systems that were released a few generation ago?

The 360 had a year start, a cheaper product, a popular online platform, RROD, and some great software. This helped the 360 to do so well and remain competitive with the PS3. Once the PS3 dropped the price and software began flowing, the 360 was much less competitive.

@onesiphorus: you must be from the future because ps3 and 360 are from last gen

@tormentos: Yes, and the online capabilities of the 360 was a huge part in it's success. You didn't own a 360 or PS3 so you wouldn't know much about anything, especially when it comes to online. It doesn't matter how it achieved online play just that it was available and millions enjoyed it. It added tremendous value no matter what you think clown.

As I said, your motto never fit anyone more perfect than it fits you "we don't love our console, we just hate yours"

Get a clue and life el tormented.

BTW I didn't read anything past a line or 2 in your response....as usual it's the same shit you post everyday

I mean, Sony basically handed them 2-3 years. That's what happens when your console is a year late and like $200 more costly even when it does come out.

If the PS3 had come out at the same time and price, then obviously that would have really hurt the 360. But that's not what happened. Sony gave MS an opening and they took it and ran. When there was finally price parity and the PS3 was $299, the PS3 started to win the gen. The Sony engineers really dropped the ball on the PS3 with it's timing and price. With those issues it needed to be far more powerful, yet it was basically only on par with the 360 (with difficulty in porting, a few games even looked worse).

Except for the Ring of Death, which I thankfully avoided, the xbox360 was a solid console. It deserved all its success, and I don't the PS3 affected its sales too much.

That's a ridiculous comment. If the Xbox 360 had been competitive in Japan, even only being outsold 2:1, it would have killed the PS3 world wide, too. Your argument has no basis in fact.

Dude, you can try all you want to spread that fake analysis, but it doesn't make it smell any better that the cow-dung it is.

Its a common strategy he defaults to. Make shit up and then hope you argue back and forth with his made up speculative tripe.

There is no fake analysis just denial on the part of some people who held the xbox 360 so high in their hearts that they can't see the truth.

Tell why the xbox one started faster even that it started at $100 more than the xbox 360 yet in 2016 it begging to drop behind the xbox 360 numbers when it was cheaper to get an xbox one on 2016 with 1 or 2 free games than getting a 360 with one or 2 games on 2009.

The only variable we have here is RROD period,xbox one machines are reliable and have normal fail rate,so you don't have millions of consumers out of warranty 5 years into the generation desperate for a more solid model.

Microsoft has much more to brag about, as the Xbox 360 is the only console to see growth year over year, with 42 percent higher sales in 2010 than 2009.

The first holiday of the slim 360.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/01/xbox-rising-december-sales-up-42-from-2009/

Xbox One sales over the quarter ending December 31, 2016 were lower than the same period in 2015, according to Microsoft’s latest financials.

https://www.vg247.com/2017/01/27/xbox-one-sales-decline-year-on-year-over-key-holiday-quarter-but-xbox-live-hit-a-new-record-and-softwares-booming/

The first holiday of the xbox one slim.

The xbox one was moving faster than the xbox 360 up to 2016.

What is missing?

Yeah millions of people with damage units and tons of games they can't use willing to buy a new slim model.

You can cry all you want fact is the slim 360 sparked sales,the slim xbox one did nothing and even the stronger X model did nothing as well.

Is not not fake analysis stop looking at those sales with your heart and start looking then with your 2 eyes.

Well maybe you have a better explanation for the drop of xbox one sales compare to the 360.

Lets hear it.