| kitler53 said:
the part you are trying to argue is that the best solution isn't always the best solution (something that doesn't come up in 1st year engineering btw. i got it only starting in the 4th year during my design course). a good solution has three parts: the technology, the people, and the process. sony's consession was that they focused too much on the technology and people but not enough on the process. |
That is not actually accurate. I have argued that a core concept behind its design philopsophy was flawed. The machine itself I have not commented on. As an engineer you should be able to respect the point I am making if I can make it clear enough, which perhaps I am not.
The PS3, as machine in the wild, I have no comments on. I haven't really studied it. The PS3, as a game machine, has a serious design flaw at its core in that it was not built to play games specifically. This is not a problem with the technology, or machinery. It is a problem with its creators.
Let me illustrate with an example. Lets say your are building an electronic keyboard. One of your partners suggest using this great and awesome new computer that you can shrink down and force into it. With enough work you can force the computer to make the required sounds, but it isn't exactly meant to do what you want. Another student says you should instead get the basic components of the keyboard which are meant to do precisely what you want them to. The first student is building the PS3. The second is building the PS4.
@Solid
I have no idea what you just typed out in that mess. Make it readable and I will respond.
