Pemalite said:
ironmanDX said:
Agreed. Ps3 was stronger yet was outperformed most of the generation. Only near the end did 3rd parties manage to get a handle on the cell. 1st party titles were very impressive considering.
PS4 was more powerful than the X1 because of Kinect. Without a shadow of a doubt. It was actually designed to only have 4gb of ram initially... They just let Ms make a mistake and provided a solid console.
X1X wasn't intended to affect the landscape. It was intended to be the most powerful and change the perception of xbox.... It has.
The og did release later. It could have also just matched specs and price with the PS2 but didn't... Much like the X. The trend and mindset of Phil Spencer and Co is set and their pockets run deep.
|
The real mistake wasn't Kinect. (Although that certainly didn't help)
It was the eSRAM. - That cache meant that the Xbox One chip was roughly the same size as the Playstation 4's chip and thus likely similar in cost to manufacture.
If Microsoft ditched that and sprinkled more CU's and had faster DRAM, things could have certainly played out differently.
Kinect was just an unnecessary add-on which added to cost, but it's not what caused the Xbox One chip to be technically inferior for the same price as Sony's efforts.
|
Hmm. I didn't explain myself well enough.
By saying that it was less powerful because of Kinect, I mean that the consoles design was flawed because of the direction that the X1 was aimed, casuals.
They tried to recapture that audience that had already moved on, much like they had with the Wii and tried to do enough to appease us "hardcore" gamers too. It didn't work.
Had they decided to focus on the core gaming audience, who knows what they could have done. They decided to shoot themselves in the foot just before the race instead. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.
