By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Solid_Snake4RD on 14 June 2010
Edit Thread
disolitude said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
 

most cost was for blu-ray as SONY always goes for ROYALTIES making formats

 

also CELL is powerful as it has all the power that games need atleast for now on consoles

and it was pretty powerful even back in 2006,now don't compare it to a PC as even though if it had more specs the game quality wouldn't have been much better for most of the games as the gamemaking expenses going up and most games developed for both 360 and PS3 so most devs would have just ignored making more quality for PS3 as it would cost more

it cost CELL makers $400m to make CELL.This was the final figure and its not just alone SONY

You take everything I post so personal...

No one is saying Cell isn't powerful enough. But it was widely known that cell yield rate was down the toilet when they were making them

http://hardware.gotfrag.com/portal/story/33567/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048165/cell-yields-horrible-sources-claim

What this means that out of 100 chips they made, they were lucky to get 10-20 working ones. Rest of them had to be thrown out.

All I am saying is that smaller company can not take this kind of a loss when they release hardware. I don't think you realize howmauch sony lost with the PS3... Despite having profitable PS2 and PSP, they lost over 1 billion dollars first year with the PS3. So thats prolly over 2 billion lost on PS3 alone... Not many small companies could take a loss like that.

really nothing personal here

yuo think i'm am biased but i was just having a conversation with you,i never mean to offend or offensive.peace

 

anyways i agree on ur this post

 

also wasn't it rumoured to getting somebody's backing along with this rumour