Mr Puggsly said:
Kerotan said:
It's the best option for the majority of their consumers.
The ps3 was meant to launch a lot earlier but had to be delayed because they were waiting for the tech they wanted in it to be ready and available. They went through development hell trying to build a beast.
And it cost them billions. Meanwhile Microsoft rushed out theirs. I didn't see them delaying their plans so they could include blu ray, wifi tech etc. No they did what was best for them and got their comsole out asap.
That turned them from pretty irrelevant with the original xbox to a major player.
This UHD incident is on a much smaller scale but the thought process is the same. Sony know the masses don't care so they ain't taking on unnecessary costs. Great business decision and great for the vast majority who don't care.
|
The PS3 wasn't really a beast at gaming though for the price. It was at par with 360 inspite of very expensive parts like Bluray and the Cell. The PS4 is basically the opposite of PS3.
I get what you're saying, but relatively speaking UHD is not an expensive part like Bluray in '06, not even close.
Again, I don't feel excluding UHD was best for consumers considering its the best and most practical way for most to watch 4K video. But we both agree Sony is trying to save money. No need to argue about it.
|
My argument is it's best for consumers because only a small niche use it. It's not important to thr majority of buyers. Thus saving money for Sony and their fans is the priority. High fives all round (except for the very few who want a UHD drive).
