| HappySqurriel said: Wow, someone has bought into the hype of the PS3 pretty hard ... Realistically, a $300 console in 2010 should be able to run a game that has more polygonal detail, higher texture detail, and better shader effects than Crysis on ultra high detail while outputting at 1080p @60fps; at a resolution of 720p @30fps it will be able to do things noticeably better than anything the PS3 can do.
The fact that PS3 fans can't seem to get is semiconductor technology didn't stop advancing when Sony released the PS3. |
The point is not that it can't be better, it CAN be better, the question is to what degree would it be better.
Mild differences don't change the game, its been that way for a long time. Genesis did what Nintendo Don't remember? It was 16 bit, it had better graphics and it still couldn't pass the NES because it wasn't better enough. Ditto for the Dreamcast, it was better then the PSX but not enough better that it could take things over and end the previous generation. The original xbox had a hard drive, more shaders and all that vs the PS2 but it was a marginal difference and so it didn't sell.
Any box you could make by 2010 would probably be better then the PS3 (ok almost certainly) but would NOT be significantly better. It would be like the PS2 vs the Xbox or at most the dreamcast vs the PSX. It would NOT be the 360 vs the PS2 and would not be a game changer to start a new generation in a meaningful way.
Most people don't pay out the nose for minor diffrences, it has to have a WOW effect, like WOW this is way better I must have it (like the PS2 elicited when playing PSX games of the 360 and PS3 elicited when comparing those games to the PS2).
PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me
