| DonFerrari said: OK we have an agreement on the first part. But it seemed you were putting it all on getting the cheapest period. |
In Microsoft and Nintendo's case, they did go for the cheapest.
| DonFerrari said: Launch is different than design. At the time they decided the architeture and components the memory was still more expensive (and you can see the reactions on this forum on the relentless discussion on the memory decisions of both consoles). You can let it go and accept that sometimes the console makers will choose something that is more expensive at the moment of launch if they see that long run it will make they more money even if at first they need to eat up a little of the cost, Sony have made it with PS1, 2 and 3. Or will you say to me that BD drive was the most cost sensitive decision? Or Cell? |
I recognize that sometimes they will opt for more expensive hardware, what I am trying to say is that consoles have a budget, they aren't going to break through that budget... And sometimes a console manufacturer might make a priority of one component over another... Case in point the Playstation 4 prioritized Ram over the CPU.
But... Even though they might choose something which is a little more expensive, doesn't mean it's high-end.
The Playstation 3 was a unique beast as Sony went all out on everything. - Did they really need to include the PS2 components when software emulation could have been sufficient?
Did they really need to spend an obscene amount of money on a CPU when a CPU more along the lines of what the Xbox 360 had would have been perfectly sufficient?
Did they really need to opt for their expensive memory setup?
Did they really need to include a card reader?
...And the price was reflected in that, to the point where some people needed a second job to afford such a console.
It wasn't until the PS3 went on a diet and cut out allot of that rubbish that it became more tenable for the masses, that was the big lesson that Sony learned with the Playstation 3.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
