By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 20 July 2019
Edit Thread
The_Liquid_Laser said:
curl-6 said:

Not true; PS3 really wasn't that much more powerful than the 360, it was even weaker in some ways. It was expensive cos it used a ridiculous over-engineered custom chipset and a Blu-Ray player.

PS4 was cheaper than the Xbone yet it was more powerful. PS5 could exceed Scarlet's power at the same price launching a year later.

PS3 was more powerful than the 360.  I am including the Blu-Ray drive in that, since a Blu-Ray disc has significantly more capacity than a XB360 disc.  Overall the specs on the PS3 were clearly better (disc drive, clock speed, hard drive, etc...), but that drove up the price.

PS4 also proves my point, because the PS4 launched at a cheaper price and it trounced on the XB1.  Price matters a lot.  Price matters so much that it also makes power a disadvantage.  All other things being equal the weaker console has an advantage over a more powerful one.  Of course an expensive peripheral like Kinect can totally destroy that advantage, but that doesn't change the fact that having the weaker console is an advantage.  This is especially true when comparing Sony and Microsoft consoles, because they get mostly the same games.  In the end a lot of people just buy the cheaper console, and the easiest way to be cheaper is to be weaker.

360 outperforms PS3 in several areas, such as available RAM, fillrate, and bandwidth. It's a marketing myth that PS3 was far more powerful. It's price was due to using exotic rather than standardized parts.

If MS came out this year with a $500 Scarlet, Sony would just come out with a more powerful $500 PS5 next year, and from then on Scarlet would be crushed.