By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Errorist76 on 05 December 2017
Edit Thread
McDonaldsGuy said:
Errorist76 said:

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.

Yeah, the Cell definitely was an expensive way to compensate for the NVidia chip's short-comings...and as we can see and you correctly stated, Sony has, indeed, learned from their mistakes with the PS4. Ironically it was Microsoft which needlessly overcomplicated things with the ES-Ram on the One. Which they respectively eliminated by making the X1X more like a PS4.

I simply think it's mad to assume Sony would have charged even more than that already off-putting and ridiculous price tag for the PS3 at launch. But you're right...MS have definitely brought some worthy competition for some time. It's just a bit sad I always find just as many reasons why I hate them to why I like them.