By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 06 November 2014
Edit Thread
Intrinsic said:
sc94597 said:

1. If all that mattered was the ability to play games (and no other multimedia functions) then why would those features be advertised by the companies and why would they even be implemented in the costs of producing the system? Why didn't Sony just use more powerful hardware instead of spending money for their software to support multimedia applications like Netflix? 

2. In your opening post you said nothing about performance or graphics. You mentioned, "what is in the box." It was generally labeled "hardware", 

 

 

  1. Can you show me one commercial sony has made saying that the PS3 plays netflix? Or that its also a blu-ray player. I am beginning to think you do not grasp what it means when referring to somethings primary fucntion. A gaming consoles primary fucntion is to play games. That is solely what it is designed for. Everything else it can do is just a bonus. But I strongly doubt anyone alive spends $400 on a console primarily to play netflix. And as for Pcs, if all someone wants to do with their PC is browse, youtube, check their mail and edit the odd documnet or two. I strongly doubt they would buy anything outside a basic laptop.
  2. You should read my opening post again. I am just not gona do this again with yet another person that choses to noyt read the opening post properly, sees PC vs consoles and jumps to conclusions.

1. Actually many people bought PS3's solely as media devices. The combination of a (3D) Blu-Ray player, and third-party media apps made them very appealing to that audience. My point was, however, is that the cost of implementing something must be justified for any company which wants to be profitable. If these things cannot be justified they will not be implemented. By consequence, the decision to add these features increases the value of the platform, just as say a secondary feature like - backwards compatibility does. There is much more to the sales (and therefore its marginal value) of a platform than its games performance. Many people prefer platforms that have backwards compatibility and will only buy a platform that has backwards compatibility because they don't want multiple devices and for convenience (see your last category in the OP.) Many gamers choose to do more with their gaming hobby. Twich, Ustream, Youtube, and the plethora of social gaming proves this. A PC is the better option when it comes to social gaming, and usually for those who want to do intensive streaming is the only option.  ALl of these things have costs involved and will increase the price of a system. And consequently, your assumption of "what is in the box" being "equal" doesn't hold (which my my main point here.)