EricHiggin said:
So let me get this straight. What your saying is that back in 2013, when XB announced the XB1, showed it's specs, and said it would cost $500, that since PS didn't announce PS4 until afterwards with much better specs, meant that it was definitely going to cost at least the same if not more than XB1? XB1 may have had the Kinect, but PS4 had the better hardware in more than a few aspects. How was PS able to sell PS4 for $400 while XB1 was $500? How come when Kinect was dropped, the XB1 still cost $400, the same as PS4, even though it had weaker hardware? How was PS4 able to have stronger hardware than XB1, even when they used the same manufacturer and similar chip architecture's, yet PS4 was by far the better deal? Just because the new Ryzen mobile chips are only in laptops but aren't in handhelds at the moment, doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be like saying Nin can't compete with PS and XB, because well just look at how much weaker Switch is compared to PS4 and XB1. It has nothing to do with what Nin can or can't do, it's what they decided to do that matters, and they decided mobility was more important than performance. Why didn't Nin use Ryzen mobile instead? Probably because it wasn't available yet for one, since it only launched recently. Not only did Nin get a good deal on Tegra, but it is also a proven chip, which Nin basically requires in their consoles. They don't really like to gamble on the internals of their hardware. Why the PS handheld/hybrid has to be the exact same specs as PS4 doesn't make much sense either. If it was the exact same architecture than it would, since it would make putting PS4 games on it much easier, but with Ryzen+Vega, these newer arch's are much more efficient and don't require the same amount of power to achieve the same results. |
PS4 hardware didn't make a profit til 2014. Sony lowered the price 11th hour to $400 when MS announced thiers was $500 and it was $500 because of the Kinect.
