potato_hamster said:
Barkley said:
We're not saying the same thing because you want someone to define the Switch as a "hybrid" console without using features of it's software, I'm saying you can't get an accurate definition of a device without taking that into account.
I'm saying features of it's software are a defining aspect. If some chinese company made a product that was an exact copy internally of a PS4 with the same Jaguar CPU, 1.84TFlop gpu, 8gb gddr5 ram but it was created only to watch video, and it had no games on it and they were never going to add games to it. You could not call it a video game console. Software features and Purpose matter when defining a device and cannot be discounted.
A button is always a button. A device with a CPU/GPU/Ram is not always a video game console. My Roku Box Hardware might have the "potential" to be a video game console, but it is not one.
|
Okay. so we can lump the features of the operating system and API in the definition. It matters very little for the intents and purposes of trying to define a hybrid game console. This is literally just arguing over semantics and beyond the intent of the question I was asking. For the purposes of trying to define what a hybrid game console is, we can assume any potential hardware solution plays video games, and the API of the consoles allows game developers to access most, if not all the hardware within the console in a meaningful way. Is that good enough?
|
One more question. Is the distinction between whether a knife is a tool or weapon dependant on what the knife was created for and the purpose behind it's creation? A.K.A is the purpose behind the creation of something an important factor to consider when defining something?
