RubberWhistleHistle said:
ICStats said:
A few good decisions.
1) Sony set a good price target of $400, while MS decided pursuing the Kinect is worth releasing a $500 console.
2) Sony picked GDDR5 instead of DDR3+ESRAM, allowed them to ultimately have flexible memory and more GPU cores on-die and have a clear performance win. A more powerful console for less money sealed the fate more than anything.
3) Sony focused on quick-play from disc, while MS focused on an the idea of digital game library where you only need the disc once. Not having to swap discs is a nice feature, but the backlash over inability to share & sell your games meant this feature never saw the light of day, so Sony again make the right decision from the start while MS wasted effort on an unpopular idea.
Since a camera didn't fit in the $400 target, Sony didn't bundle a camera with the PS4 even though you can see they developed new camera related and motion control features. This was very fortunate since the Kinect was badly received and blamed for the price difference, so Sony just downplayed their own camera product and profited.
|
nice analysis. a lot of things seem to be playing in sony's favor, here. do you think its enough to get them to 75% marketshare?
|
Right now I think it will do 70% but who knows in the end. If they play their cards right, deliver exciting announcements at E3 then they can. They have not only games but lots of interesting features with project Morpheus, PS Now & backwards compatibility. David Perry (of Earthworm Jim) CEO of Gaikai is very smart and I'm awaiting to see PS Now.
