The PS3 was a direct follow-up from the huge success of the PS2
And the xbox one was a direct follow up from the hugely successful xbox 360.
and all the talk about teh Cell lead to people thinking it was much stronger rather than weaker somewhat justifying the price. It also didn't do too well,
There was a lot of PR bullshit then too about Azure dedicated servers, power of the cloud making it more powerful, and a faster CPU. I'm sure the power of the Cell had little bearing on anything once games came out for it much like xbox ones PR didn't.
it was only in its latest year that it really came into its own and surpassed the 360 which was ahead for most of the generation.
Because they lowered the price and started pumping out amazing games tell the very end of the generation. That's my point. Sony turned it around during the PS3 and released a successful PS4. Somebody was suggesting Xbox Series can't lead in a market because of XB1 but there was nothing inherently wrong with XB1.
The XB1 stuff were reversed far too late and by that time it lacked the game appeal while the PS4 which had a weak library initially was getting all the bangers out completely overshadowing whatever MS did at the time.
They were reversed before it even launched. Even the price was decreased sooner than most consoles with it decreasing the first March after Christmas release.
You can't just take one individual aspect like the price or hardware specs and conclude that this is all that matters about a console succeeding or failing, it was a combination of multiple things and they all worked against the XB1.
I'm not. I'm just saying MS could have done the same transition from PS3 to PS4 because there wasn't anything inherently wrong with XB1 (there was more stuff inherently wrong with PS3) but they haven't. They concentrated on gamepass and have seen some success with it and XSS but not enough to lead console sales in any market.