Dark_Feanor said:
What kind of counter-argument is that? The PS3 was a technological nightmare. It fails in ALL its performance goals and almost tank Sony - that at the time was in a far better financial situation that they are now. Do you think Sony would risk burning billions of dollars in a gamble that would give them no extra advantages? Besides the consoles being almost 25 and 20 years of age, both PS1 and PS2 were full of third party parts and old technologies. The only real novelty of the PS2 was the DVD drive. Take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_Engine https://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/R5900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R5000 The base of the PS2 CPU, launched in 2000 was a MIPS processor launched in 1996 that was used in arcade cabinets. |
So after admitting PS3 was a tech nightmare you rest you case of Sony ALWAYS using proved technologies and architetures?
You should rest your mind.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."