| Dodece said: These comments read like a justification for a delaying tactic, and they provide the company with a plausible cover story. Which is also being presented in the best possible light. Arguing for a positional advantage, doesn't disqualify the possibility that there is a competitive disadvantage. It is better to say that we will delay to be better, and to keep others from copying our ideas. Then it is to say we can't match the competition by launching at the same time. It is entirely possible that Sony has come to the realization that Microsoft has been lulling them into a false sense of security about their own console design. In which case this commentary may be pointing to a reactive posture rather then any kind of a proactive posture. Sony may well have intended to launch a console this year, but what they might not have counted on was that Microsoft was going to employ the same strategy that they intended to use, and Sony knows that they would come out unfavorable in that match up. Sales lost due to a delay can be recouped through the fullness of time. What can't be redressed are concrete disparities. My point is that Sony might have caught wind of what Microsoft is really up to, and they aren't liking their design as much as they have been. This isn't even a unheard of idea. There were rumors prior to the previous generation. That Sony actually scrapped a earlier design of the PS3, because it was far too underpowered against Microsoft's Xbox 360 for their liking. It was often cited as a reason as to why the PS3 came to the market so much later. Then again it could just be proof that the rumors about a imminent unveil, or a launch in this year of the PS4. Were just so much bullshit. Just like last years rumors were complete bullshit. Anyway we really should talk about strategy more on all of these forums. |
Not really part was to do with the Cell a CPU made not just for PS3 but with it's design focus being for it to be used in a variety of connected products each being able to use the cell's unique features to offload work to each other and the PS3 was to be one off those products that and also on the PS3 side it was envisioned it would be coupled with another customised cell acting as the gpu ,when this didn't eventuate whether through time or other obstacles I don't know maybe both , they then had to rush to nvidia to get a gpu .
The other thing is most consoles have lengthy lead in times , sure the R&D cycle is an ongoing one but sooner or later a fairly concrete image emerges of what a company wants out of their next console just like Sony mentioning what they are aiming at as far as a minimum standard goes for their console next gen , so does MS , and once you start to act on making that particular console the harder it is to stop and reboot , any way by then you most likely have in the case of both Sony and MS two companies shooting for the same minimum standard and just trying to get above it by as much as they can for each console knowing it really isn't feasible with a customer base that isn't prepared to pay a premium ( unless it's a PC) for the extra power that may or may not deliver you a comprehensive win , so both company's will try to deliver the best gaming they can and no doubt will also be looking at other newer ways to own the living room .
Just an aside I would really like developers next gen to focus on problems that continue to raise there ugly heads no matter how much more powerful the consoles have become of the years sure graphics improve poly count goes up but I still see the same old issues like pop up etc .
and then it is usually what they can add to that minimum and what other differences we might see that
Research shows Video games help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot
