Did Microsoft win it for Nintendo?

DonkeyStyle \o/

the_syco wrote: »

Wii-Fit, motion detector
Wii steering wheel thing, motion detector

Yes, motion detector seems to be a large thing that they're selling.

I think there's a distinction between what they're actually selling and what their selling point is.
And I think their selling point goes way beyond a PS2 with motion sensors.

BlitzKrieg

And I think their selling point goes way beyond a PS2 with motion sensors.

As in the product as a whole? Catering to key markets?

Or are you referring to hardware differences?

alexmcred

There is one very important point people are missing here and that is how many very young kids love the wii. Brand loyalty built at this age goes a very long way.

The PSP launch has cost Sony a lot so they not in a position to lower the price of it to boost sales.

Nintendo at this stage are the grand daddy of this market and the Wii was a master stroke.

noodler

For 325e I am absolutely chuffed with my PS3 purchase. For all it does etc. Free online, wireless built in, Blu-Ray (I guess-I wouldn't buy-just rent-until they get cheaper).

I still think theres a PS3 surge to be had when Sony eventually lower the price-I know alot of PS2 owners who haven't made the leap to a next gen console.

Anyway, I wouldn't be happy with a Wii on its own. Granted the Wii was a master stroke in a business sense, but I couldn't play Wii on my own for an hour or two. They got more use at Xmas when people were over etc but so did the deck of cards.

I could, as a hardcore-ish gamer, only be happy with a PS3 or a 360.

PS: I do not see the backwards compatibility thing as a good argument-nearly anyone considering buying a PS3 would already own....guess...thats right a PS2. Furthermore, are Sony still not offsetting there current losses on PS3 with pretty strong PS2 sales (software and Hardware).

carlrac

I love how people get so offended when it comes to consoles! I have almost every console created in the last 20 years (bar any SEGA, original xbox, and PS3) but don't give a poo what anyone else 'should' own. Basically I'm not a fanboy, and like anything that plays games

Anyways... Blitzkrieg appears to be the only fully informed poster here as regards the Emotion engine and console history/ trends, but Nintendo is making the most money right now because they revolutionised (recall early name for Wii...) the gaming industry with refreshing and innovative methods for playing games, which gave gaming a whole new audience through this image. This of course removed the steoreotype of gamers as socially inept males with a penchant for eating and Star Wars. (except PC gamers )
Marketing will win this 'Console War' because the industry was ready to evolve in a way only Nintendo foresaw.
All i wanna know is when they're gonna make a game about the console wars, and which company will nab exclusive publishing rights! :rolleyes:

Back on point though, the Gamecube was more powerful than PS2 (and prettier too if you ask me!) so i'm not sure even the slimmer update of Sony's console could compete with Nintendo's savvy marketing, and when you have Miyamoto working for you it seems even less likely.

By the way, PS3 will need more exclusives than just MGS4 to make it's target audience buy it at that price in my opinion...

carlrac

Also, money made from sales aside, this is articles says a lot:

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/02/nielsen-2008s-most-played-console-was-ps2/

Jazzy

i personally think that nintendo got lucky by keeping to their game plan. the cube did nothing to advance and the GBA was keeping afloat. MS and sony just went for the cock in face approach and told us how everything was going to be excellent and far better then it was.

im really honestly struggling to think why i should own a PS3 or 360. cba with the wii as its single player games are pretty much man vs. the control pad. the single player games on the ps3 or 360 are ok, but all the best games could have been done on the xbox or ps2. there is a reason why i gave my sister the 360 and why i havent got a ps3, and that is i really couldnt be ars3d to play all the apparantly good games for them. ive often found that like films, games can indeed be judged by their cover.

Little Big Planet - THE game of last year. oh that and GTA4 soz... are good. but thats it. there is nothing that is really really good about them, they are just there and will get pushed to the side in a year.

if i live to 80 so help me god, i know for a f**kin fact i will think back and go "crono trigger was a god damn great life experience". do u really think ill think the same about oh i dunno, gears of war 2?

Samurai

I'm unsure if its that as I age I enjoy games less or if its that the latest gen games are too focused on graphics, probably the age bit!

tba

its the age thing, its affecting me too.

steviec

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

initially yes, the US/jap models contained the emotion engine hardware within the PS3, this was removed and replaced with emulation to bring down costs.

After that though emulation was removed, the reasoning for which I cant find on Wiki, though I remember at the time the *spin* was to put the focus on the PS3 software rather then the PS2 software. As PS3 software sales at the time had the lowest attachment rate of all 3 consoles.

The original PS3s had the PS2 hardware in its entirity inside them. When they moved to emulation, that was only emulation of the emotion engine and not of the graphics synthesizer (the PS2's graphics card) - that was still hardware. So when they removed that aswell to cut costs emulation was no longer possible.

Sony are still said to be working on emulation software for the GS, but I hear that conventional wisdom says it may be impossible since the chip was ludicrously fast at some very specific things, faster even than the current consoles.

steviec

carlrac wrote: »

Anyways... Blitzkrieg appears to be the only fully informed poster here as regards the Emotion engine and console history/ trends, but Nintendo is making the most money right now because they revolutionised (recall early name for Wii...) the gaming industry with refreshing and innovative methods for playing games, which gave gaming a whole new audience through this image. This of course removed the steoreotype of gamers as socially inept males with a penchant for eating and Star Wars. (except PC gamers )
Marketing will win this 'Console War' because the industry was ready to evolve in a way only Nintendo foresaw.

This thinking really confuses me since Sony were doing alternative input methods like Eyetoy / Singstar / Buzz and marketing to casuals (going all the way back to the Wipeout kiosks at raves in the 90s) and Microsoft were doing motion sensing controllers on PC years before Nintendo caught on to any of that. Nintendo hit marketing gold, but they weren't any more forward thinking than their competitors and they didn't revolutionise gaming. The early supply issues with the Wii is probably an indicator they weren't expecting the mainstream to adopt the Wii so much either.

gizmo

Dev, after looking at the figures I believe it's rather obvious why Sony removed software backwards compatibility from the PS3, the continued high sales of the PS2 hardware. Apart from June of this year PS2 sales, in North America alone, have been around 75% of that of the PS3. In fact, it was only the first quarter of last year that global hardware sales of the PS3 finally surpassed the PS2, and even this was more than likely due to the combined effect of the mid-May price cut and the release of MGS4. I'm convinced said software backwards compatibility will return eventually to, as you mentioned, cater for those PS2 owners with large back catalogues who haven't made the jump but this will only happen when the PS2 sales finally subside to a level Sony are happy with.

Also, while I currently don't own a Wii I fully intend getting one at some stage in the near future. Not for, as some of the above posters would say, the kid or party orientated games but for the slew of fantastic releases currently available on the console. The likes of Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Resident Evil 4, Super Paper Mario, Okami and No More Heroes justify the purchase of the console alone. This is not to mention the forthcoming Dead Rising and awesome looking Mad World, the latter of which will certainly not be marketed as a kids title. Also, f I want party games I'll rely on Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Mario Strikers Charged and perhaps Rayman Raving Rabbids.

In short, I see no reason to resort to the child-orientated games when purchasing a Wii. However, in terms of future releases I am well aware that the number of hardcore titles being released on the Wii will probably be less than that on the 360 and PS3 and, in light of this, I still regard the Wii as a second purchase console for someone such as myself.

If anyone questions Nintendo's strategy, however, I suggest having a read of Blue Ocean Strategy, a book which promotes creating new market space or "blue ocean" rather than competing in an existing industry, the so-called "red ocean". Using this terminology it's clear that Nintendo are in the "blue ocean" and Sony and Microsoft are at each others throats in the "red ocean". In short, Nintendo has no competition in its defined marketplace as it is one they created themselves, something which has obviously paid dividends for them in terms of sales. So even if MS had pulled out of the marketplace and Sony had released a PS3 either in its current form or with slightly reduced specifications, as I'm sure they would have given the release of a new Nintendo console, I still think it would be as successful as it is today.

DeVore

Steveic: Have you actually USED a six-axis controller??

I love them... they add hilarity and frustration in equal measure to any game!! In fact, any game transforms to become the "how do I do anything even vaguely like what I want to do with this crappy six-axis controller" game. The Wii might be a bit wonky at times but its light years ahead of anything else. I would put good money that the next generation of Wii controllers are rock solid sensitive and accurate.

I'll put these questions to you all:

Do any of you think MS might not make a successor to the 360?

Do any of you think Sony might not make a successor to the PS3?



Ps3 was supposed to blow the 360 away. It was supposed to arrive mid-life of the 360 and so over shadow it we'd all be impressed by the cell chip and its graphics processors. Unfortunately, by that time the 360 had Live and a big back catalogue of games built up because developers and publishers have clambered onto the MS train. They know MS is going to put its weight behind it and they want to be inside pissing out when the time comes.
The graphics engine in the 360 is being squeezed so hard while the PS3 seems hardly taxed. Quite simply people take the same game as looking the same on the two, or close enough not to be mentioned much. That was PS3's golden ticket, their knockout punch. If the 360 can fend off the PS3 until its successor arrives (and it shows every intention of not only fending them off but possibly winning on its own) then Sony are screwed. They'll be a generation behind and playing catch up.

I'm not a fan boi for any of them by the way, I share a PS3 and own every console back to the Atari Jaguar .... I'm looking at this from a marketing/business perspective. If I was Sony, I would be seriously worried. PSP got owned by the DS and the PS3 is struggling to gain traction.

Did Nintendo win it for MS? I dont think so, I dont think sales of Wii's will have affected the sales of the hard core systems much, most gamers I know have a Wii and one other. But as a previous poster said, the loyalty factor might makes things different in future years.

DeV.

carlrac

steviec wrote: »

This thinking really confuses me since Sony were doing alternative input methods like Eyetoy / Singstar / Buzz and marketing to casuals (going all the way back to the Wipeout kiosks at raves in the 90s) and Microsoft were doing motion sensing controllers on PC years before Nintendo caught on to any of that. Nintendo hit marketing gold, but they weren't any more forward thinking than their competitors and they didn't revolutionise gaming. The early supply issues with the Wii is probably an indicator they weren't expecting the mainstream to adopt the Wii so much either.

Ye i agree with this, but i specifically meant how Nintendo marketed their 'gimmick' to the non-gaming masses. Of course Sony and Microsoft made a stab at the casual gaming market, but Nintendo fully comitted with a dedicated console and an ingenious advertising campaign. This, combined with the mainstream accessibility of the DS reformed their brand image while competitors were still confusing people boasting about frame-rates and 1080i etc. Someone on this thread already hit the nail on the head saying that most casual gamers are attracted to colourful, cute visuals in games that are easy and fun to play with friends.

Excellent point about the early supply issues though - I'm not sure anybody foresaw the success of the Wii, and clearly not even Nintendo themselves! But my point was not that they were revolutionising the games more than other companies, but that they changed the image of the games industry into something much more accessible. Mainly through targeting girls and people over 30 (yes PS2 peripherals started this to an extent, but DS and Wii focused most of their efforts on this gap in the market, and hence were more successful). Even just comparing the aesthetic of the boxes of Wii and PS3 will reveal which would appeal more to a person new to games...

noodler

DeVore wrote: »

If the 360 can fend off the PS3 until its successor arrives (and it shows every intention of not only fending them off but possibly winning on its own) then Sony are screwed. They'll be a generation behind and playing catch up.

Are they screwed though? From my view there appears to be room in the market for the PS3, 360, Wii, DS and PSP (as well as the PS2).

I think it is fair to say anything Sony make on PS2 these days is mostly profit, PSP sales are alot less than DS but they are still pretty substantial 43m), no? Also I don't know how accurate VGCHartz is http://vgchartz.com/ but 360 has sold 27.4m and the PS3 has sold 19.3m. For me this is fairly close when related to previous console wars and this is still before the price cut.

Anyway, I don't agree that there is a clear loser in this war. How many consoles did the Gamecube and Dreamcast sell individually?

Was it as much as 19m half way through their lifespan?

DeVore

Planning to break support for their massive back catalogue, right when they were facing into a fight with a new contender for the throne is an idiotic idea. Why their coders and tech-architecture people weren't *told* to design a system that could emulate their old games I simply dont understand.

Instead they designed a system to push pixels at any cost. An architecture that the best in the business (Carrmack/ID and Valve) have publically scorned as difficult to work with. Its like Sony said "you know what, we are the massively dominate incumbent but lets give MS a fighting chance and put ourselves back to where they are at: brand new archeitecture, no back catalogue and no experienced developers/distributors".
Christ, the 360 at least runs on x86 architecture... you can code for it in c++ in nice MS Visual environments and test on your computer (afaik). Sony's kit is notoriously tricky to work with.

Sony should have this industry sown up but instead they are going to lose imho. Someone should write a business study on this of how to sabotage a dominant position in one single generation. Astoundingly incompetent.

DeV.

noodler

Read my Post above.

DeVore

noodler wrote: »

Are they screwed though? From my view there appears to be room in the market for the PS3, 360, Wii, DS and PSP (as well as the PS2).

I think it is fair to say anything Sony make on PS2 these days is mostly profit, PSP sales are alot less than DS but they are still pretty substantial 43m), no? Also I don't know how accurate VGCHartz is http://vgchartz.com/ but 360 has sold 27.4m and the PS3 has sold 19.3m. For me this is fairly close when related to previous console wars and this is still before the price cut.

Anyway, I don't agree that there is a clear loser in this war. How many consoles did the Gamecube and Dreamcast sell individually?

Was it as much as 19m half way through their lifespan?

Given that the PS2 was the undisputed champion of its era, the fact that you are making an argument for the PS3 still being in this fight says more then any debate I could pen.


Also, there is no "live and let live" with MS. Certainly not with Sony.

DeV.

DeVore

noodler wrote: »

Read my Post above.

Read the conditional IF statement in my post, you quoted it in yours! Given that I was talking about the possible future , I dont see how the rest of your post applies as it deals with the current present.

DeV.

noodler

See, and this is before I was about to say your previous post had more hate-filled drivel than anything I have read on a cvg or eurogamer forum.

Check out the facts in my post (assuming VGChartz are accurate), then make a point based on them.

It is highly immature to dismiss a rational argument as fanboyism just because it is in contrary to your own.

EDIT: RE: your IF: If Sony close the gap on MS and considering decent PS2 and PSP sales I don't see how they would be screwed. They may not be the dominant one anymore but it would still be a more than economically viable business, i.e. they wouldn't be in Sega territory.

Shiminay

There's been a lot of interesting points made here, many of which support my own thoughts. However, there's another point I'd like to throw in for consideration...

The 360's (I own one and love it btw) shocking reliability problem: the RROD. This has burned a lot of gamers and for that reason, I'd say that unless the next MS product has a serious amount to offer *current* 360 owners (full backwards compatibility with all "disc" games and existing Live purchases - maybe controller compatibility too), I can see a lot of people thinking "I'd rather not go through all that again." I think MS rushed out the 360, but ultimately it's worked for them as they're the market leader in that section of gaming (I would tentatively call this the "gamers" market and would include PS3 and PC gaming in this). They need to make sure their hardware is rock solid next gen and maybe offer rebates to existing 360 owners or people who've suffered RROD's in the past.

Similarly, the PS3 was rushed out cause MS were ahead of the game. I feel Sony's was a 2 fold game though. They wanted to keep their gamers happy (tech powerhouse) but also wanted the new media format they'd invested so heavily in to dominate (BluRay). I read somewhere that the PS3 is still the benchmark BluRay player by which all others are measured - don't know if that's true or not, but found it an interesting statement since the previous DVD playback option on the PS2 (which was one of it's selling points) was so far beyond awful, you know it was tacked on in a week.

A further point as to where I see the market currently: you don't see any PS3 titles used in the pro-gaming competitions for example and former hard-core PC gamers world over are switching over to 360 cause they don't need to spend €600 every 6 months to keep up with the tech. It'll never be as good, but you know what, it's pretty damn close in a lot of respects. Easier for the traditional PC games developers to write for too as DeV mentioned. It's not encouraging when the leaders in "serious" (and I say that with a pinch of salt) games say your console is hard to work with.

Where do Ninty fit into all this? The point Blitz made about the PS2 and Wii being competitiors is a good one. The range of accessories that came out for the PS2 was astonishing - Guitars, mics, Buzz controllers, voice comms (SOCOM), camera etc. I'd never have imagined that such accessory sales could work on a console, but they have. This trend has continued with the accessories for a Wii and now all the Rock Band/Guitar Hero things. there's a reason the PS2 still sells so well, it's a great console with some of the best games I've ever played. so what if it doesn't have the technical "power" of a PS3 or 360, games are what sell hardware, not graphical capability. Sony have read "less expensive" where others saw "casual" and that's not an entirely unreasonable thing to do. You're far more likely to pick up 2 PS2 games for €30 than a single 360 for €60 if you're not that bothered about having the latest and greatest game that the internet tells you is going to be the next big thing. Ninty sits right in this corner too, it's hardware was cheaper to buy and it's games are less expensive and it is genuinely a fun console to use (if a little frustrating at times).

BlitzKrieg

I agree fully on the RROD being a serious black mark that microsoft cant seem to clear up. In their defence though, people i've known who have experienced it or similar faults have had their machines replaced by MS no questions asked, and for the most part (not all of them of course) thats the response most people get (even Kotaku who recently had their 12th machine die on them). Yes serious problem with the hardware, microsoft know it and are doing the right response to it.

I do believe that the change over to the next generation, with 360 at least will be a seamless one, there is way too much of an investment being made in LIVE and its features, the changeover should hopefully go somewaht similar to the recent Rock Band 2 release, all downloads etc for rock band one, work with rock band 2 (though I do feel paying a small fee to get all rock band 1 default tracks to work is a bit unfair).



I like these sort of discussions though, discussing the strengths and weaknessess of each company in market/hardware without too much of a fall into fanboi b1tching.

Did Nintendo win it for MS? I dont think so, I dont think sales of Wii's will have affected the sales of the hard core systems much, most gamers I know have a Wii and one other. But as a previous poster said, the loyalty factor might makes things different in future years.

I was thinking it went the other way round with my original post. But on the two of them as competitors, the attitude between microsoft and nintendo doesnt feel as filled with bad blood as it is between Sony and either of them (of course Sony being market leader originally and also some very bad history between sony and nintendo has alot to do with that). In fact hasnt Viva Penata has been ported to the DS, thats owned by microsoft. The only serious difficulty between the two of them I saw was over Goldeneye and the attempt to bring it to Xbox Live/Wii shop. There's also the famous Wii60 campaign that sprung up out of the internet when the PS3 had its price announced. The two have sort of ended up as unofficial friends with benefits.

On Devore's point that microsoft will at some point turn its attention to nintendo's share of the market. Well we've seen bits of it already, elements of xbox live have very much emulated some of the Wii's charm (read: ripped off). But I do think Microsoft lack and will probably always lack the same sort of brand respect Nintendo have in the game industry. Nintendo have the same sway over the game industry as Disney has over childrens entertainment, they're companies that their very existence define the products they make. They have dark times, they can drag the name through the mud many times over, but they can always generate the sales and bounce back to the top.

tba

DeVore wrote: »

Do any of you think Sony might not make a successor to the PS3?

DeV.

They have!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2gzRQ5f3No

marketing is always out the door first

L31mr0d

It is a curious postulation... If MS never entered the console arena I think Sony would have sat on the PS2 for a lot longer. That being said, I think the Wii would be a completely different animal had the Xbox 360 never appeared. It would of had to better the PS2 and also innovate in usual Nintendo fashion. If the 360 didn't exist I think the Wii would be a HD platform to compete with the PS3.

There are numerous points in gaming history that have been pivotal though. Namely, would Sony have ever even made the Playstation where it not for Nintendo dropping the ball, letting them study their hardware for the CD attachment of the SNES, then publicly humiliating Sony by announcing at a convention they where changing to Philips at the last minute, to which Sony retaliated by using everything they had learnt to make the Playstation.

IMO, had Nintendo let Sony continue to develop the CD attachment, we'd see FF VII on the SNES and a lot of the exclusives that Sony nabbed with its CD based console would of went to the far more popular SNES.

AlmightyCushion

DeVore wrote: »

Steveic: Have you actually USED a six-axis controller??

I love them... they add hilarity and frustration in equal measure to any game!! In fact, any game transforms to become the "how do I do anything even vaguely like what I want to do with this crappy six-axis controller" game.

I've used a six axis controller and I have to disagree with you. It can be a wonderful piece of equipment. The problem isn't the controller, it's how the developers use it. Play Heavenly Sword, Dev, it's used brilliantly in that and it shows just how accurate it can be. It actually adds to the game instead of being just a gimmick.

Jazzy

DeVore wrote: »

Planning to break support for their massive back catalogue, right when they were facing into a fight with a new contender for the throne is an idiotic idea. Why their coders and tech-architecture people weren't *told* to design a system that could emulate their old games I simply dont understand.

its because that PS3 games make more money for sony then PS2 games. there is a lot of overlap in big games that come out for both the PS2 and PS3 and a lot of ppl tend to plumb for the cheaper game, which aint good for sony. considering they are still selling the console for a loss means that they pretty much have to make up the money in as many ways as possible. i guarantee you they had some team set up to investigate this and they probably ran through all the statistics and customer research and then concluded that they would indeed save X amount a year or watnot by not having backwards compatibility.

personally i dont think its much of a big deal as if a console doesnt have the new games to sell it anyway all the old games in the world (which the PS2 pretty much has) wont make a lick of difference

steviec

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I've used a six axis controller and I have to disagree with you. It can be a wonderful piece of equipment. The problem isn't the controller, it's how the developers use it. Play Heavenly Sword, Dev, it's used brilliantly in that and it shows just how accurate it can be. It actually adds to the game instead of being just a gimmick.

Yep the sixaxis is actually technically more precise than the Wiimote - it's got a gyro + accelerometers when the wii only has accelerometers (the wii motion plus addon nintendo announced will put it on par with sixaxis). The problem is that it's completely unergonomic as a motion controller and the games aren't designed with it in mind either, so it never gets used as well.

DeVore

Jazzy wrote: »

its because that PS3 games make more money for sony then PS2 games. there is a lot of overlap in big games that come out for both the PS2 and PS3 and a lot of ppl tend to plumb for the cheaper game, which aint good for sony. considering they are still selling the console for a loss means that they pretty much have to make up the money in as many ways as possible. i guarantee you they had some team set up to investigate this and they probably ran through all the statistics and customer research and then concluded that they would indeed save X amount a year or watnot by not having backwards compatibility.

personally i dont think its much of a big deal as if a console doesnt have the new games to sell it anyway all the old games in the world (which the PS2 pretty much has) wont make a lick of difference

That doesnt strike me as the actions of a company who are looking at the long term viability of their leading platform but rather the actions of a company-division trying to cook the books so that the quarter/annual returns from their section dont look so bad. What you said above effectively embodies that as you make points regarding the short-to-medium terms return on investment of that decision. It basically gutted the PS3's back catalogue in order to squeeze some more profit from a console which is on its way out.

Noodler, you dont make any sense dude. Come back to me when you have read and understood my posts.

I'm a business analyst by trade, its what I do for a living (when not playing poker) so what i'm saying comes from that training. I have no understanding nor truck with fanboyism. I have owned and loved a PS3 for games like Paradise City and Motorstorm etc. I'm merely pointing out where I feel Sony have dropped the ball (does anyone seriously suggest they havent?) and the reasons why that has happened and what could happen in the future (SWOT analysis anyone?).

As a gamer I like both but I find myself playing the XBox more often because of the games that are coming out for it.

Going from the dominant leader to third cannot be consider a business "win" by any standards.

DeV.

Shiminay

I think where Noodler is talking about Sony as a whole, DeV's breaking it down by individual console and I think that's the correct way to look at it. I would imagine that within Sony's Gaming section there are PS2, PS3 and PSP sections who are to an extend in competition with one another.

steviec

DeVore wrote: »

I'm a business analyst by trade, its what I do for a living (when not playing poker) so what i'm saying comes from that training. I have no understanding nor truck with fanboyism. I have owned and loved a PS3 for games like Paradise City and Motorstorm etc. I'm merely pointing out where I feel Sony have dropped the ball (does anyone seriously suggest they havent?) and the reasons why that has happened and what could happen in the future (SWOT analysis anyone?).

They cut out PS2 compatibility because it cost too much. They were at the limit of what they could sell the console for and it was a choice between pricing themselves out of the market even further, or cutting out this feature.

Sony's main problem wasn't what they did wrong, but who they were against. Re. ease of development, no matter how much work they put into their tool chain they were never going to compete with the creators of Windows and Visual Studio, the company who's software every single developer is intimately familiar with.

And while the hardware is notoriously tricky with its unique architecture, that's how consoles have always been. The PS2 was equally bad, Sega's consoles were worse, Nintendo aren't much better. The reason is to get the maximum performance for minimum cost. What Microsoft have done is create a machine with a lot more in common with PCs, and lowered costs by reducing quality control and build quality. So you have two consoles with roughly the same capabilities, but Sony's one is quiet and reliable while Microsofts is noisy, and has a tendancy to overheat and break. On the other hand Microsoft's is cheaper, and easier to develop for. And it has turned out that people have been able to accept the other problems, particularly since Microsoft had deep enough pockets to foot the billion dollar bill to replace all the broken 360s. That probably never could have been an option for Sony.

"Ease of development" is overplayed though. If a console sells then developers will find their way around any problems. The 360 isn't the lead console for most third parties because it's easier, it's the lead console because it's where the money is. If Sony got a better start and the sales were different right now, third parties would be leading on PS3, just like they did on PS2 when it was much more awkward hardware than the xbox.

I think Sony's biggest problem was an early lack of first party support. They are the biggest games developer in the world by far, but they spread themselves across three platforms and so none of them shone as they could have, and have only started getting most of their games out this year. There was a recent article looking at Metacritic scores for 2008, it showed each publisher and how many games they published that scored 80% or higher, if I remember correctly Microsoft had 5, Nintendo had 6, and Sony had nearly 20. Yet because they're spread across their three consoles, and also because Sony have done a really poor job marketing their games, you still get a lot of people who think the other consoles are getting more good games released.

Edit: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/12/19/metacritic-analysis-five-big-publishers/ is the source