| Jizz_Beard_thePirate said: So... Basically what you are suggesting is a cpu/gpu that is still worse than a ps4/x1 but slightly better than the wiiU? And instead of buying SoC for a cheaper price with IBM and Amd, they should pay more to go for Nvidia? I say pay more cause Nvidia wants more which is the main reason why none of the big 3 went with Nvidia GPU... Heck, you want an example? Look at the vita, its basically an OUYA... It emulates psp and ps1 games and there is a vita TV version for $100... Shits not selling |
Yeah, I knew Vita TV wouldn't sell and it was hilarious how Neogaf was making it out like it was going to dethrone Apple and so forth. Hahahaha.
Actually you have a point though with Vita TV...
But there's a lot of differences, for one it's less powerful even the 360. For two it's not Sony's main console or focus and Sony has a history of anbandoning projects (3D, Move, eyetoy, etc etc etc)
Also emulating early 3D games is a whole other kettle of fish and not very attractive imo. I dont really care about playing ugly PS1/PS2 games. 2D stands the test of time and is what people have nostalgia for. Nobody is yearning to play old PS1 games...but everybody in the world loves 2D Mario games and the like.
Emulation on Wii U was also a good point, they would have to have a change of heart and push emulation as a key aspect of the system.
Also stop being hung up on the Tegra K1, it doesn't have to be that, it can be any latest mobile chipset from any company (they will all have chipsets competitive to K1 anyway)
Mobile chipsets tend to be cheap, Google Nexus devices usually have the latest and greatest chipsets for very cheap prices (229 Nexus tablet, which includes a screen and lots of other stuff a console doesn't need)
$100 may be pushing it, that's why I'd aim for $149.
My idea could fail, but I dont see a lot of options. What do YOU advocate? If they keep going with Wii U, it will keep dying. Believe that.







