Errorist76 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
I see what you're saying but Microsoft wasn't the industry leader like Sony was at the launch of the PS3.
Though if Sony didn't turn the PS3 ship around you are 100% right - Microsoft would've nuked the industry with that stuff. Plus, they would've charged like $599 instead of $499.
But I am arguing why it Microsoft was 100% a good thing for the console space (at least up until the Xbox One). Sony was hell-bent on shoving Blu-Ray down our throats for some reason, and hell-bent on making the Cell processor be a thing.
What's so funny is that if Sony would've put a generic PowerPC processor in the PS3, they could've got away with charging $399 and programming would've been easier and thus they wouldn't have lost so much support.
|
True but then we wouldn't have gotten exceptional exclusives like Uncharted 2/3, TLOU or GT6 which performed way above a console should have been able to do with that power. (Even later multi-platform releases like GTA5 looked substantially better on PS3)
BTW didn't they charge 599,- for it, not 499,-?!
The main reason most games unfortunately were't using the much more powerful PS3 hardware was convenience and laziness. Develppers mostly preferred to just adapt their basic PC code and be done with it. Hence why both this gen consoles just feature X86 architecture now.
And to put the inclusion of BluRay as a negative...?! I assume you think implementation of UHD drive in the X1/X1X is good thing now?! It was a very smart way to help to introduce their new format to the market and combine it with making it a selling point for the console. It's something MS are trying to copy with their UHD drive now but sadly fail to realise that the market has changed already. Most UHD media is only upscaled 1080p content so it's far from a necessary upgrade anyway.
At least Sony used BluRay it as a data source and for actual games...When 360 players were still juggling DVDs.
To impose Sony would have taken even more money at PS3's launch without Microsoft is nothing but speculation and highly unlikely.
But at least we all agree on something. Competition is good for the business.
|
I read that Rockstar wanted to continue the timed exclusive deal with Sony with "next-gen" Grand Theft Auto games but Sony couldn't afford it. Also, Assassin's Creed was supposed to be timed exclusive as well (it was initially announced only for the PS3) but once again Sony couldn't afford it due to the Cell.
The Cell also cost Sony exclusive rights to Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, etc. etc.
I think Sony regrets the Cell big time, which is why they dumped anything remotely close to it for the PS4. Steve Jobs was smart and rejected the Cell for Macs
The Blu-Ray player was whatever. It was super expensive but IMO it at least ha benefits - no disc swapping and scratch-resistance. The Cell on the other hand was nothing but a pain in the ass for developers and made the PS3 cost a ton more.
And there's no way Sony loses $250+ on a console unless they have competition. The Wii wasn't directly competing with them so they wouldn't care.
