| EricHiggin said: In retrospect, PS should have launched 2 SKU's like they did, but in a different manner that was totally doable back then without simply saying they never should have used cell. It should have been the 60GB BC model for $599, along with a 20GB non BC model for $399. Based on the rise in sales once PS3 slim hit the market, a non BC model right off the bat would have solved a lot of the early sales problems. Games were going to be an issue for awhile no matter what until cell was better understood, but at least they could have kept some from jumping into the MS camp with a lower cost of entry. I would have to imagine that one change would have put PS3 within reach of 100 million. |
I agree.
But by the same token, the Cell processor was completely unnecessary, Sony would have sunk a truck ton of cash into that design. (In collaboration with others of course like IBM)
Even if manufacturing costs were tenable, the R&D costs was a significant part of the initial high price... Towards the end of that console generation, Sony wasn't able to consolidate the GPU, CPU and such into a single chip like Microsoft did either, most likely because of nVidia.
They could have spent that extra R&D budget on say... More Ram or a faster GPU... Or. Lord forbid. A lower price.
But the Cell wasn't the only inhibitor to Sony hitting a lower launch price which is what I am trying to convey, so many aspects that just didn't need to be there or could have been dumbed down.
Obviously they didn't make the same mistake twice, the Playstation 4, for all intents and purposes and shortcomings had the right combination of hardware at the right price, it wasn't a high-end device though, but Sony did invest in components that will give the biggest bang-for-buck and they were rewarded for that with good sales.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
