Bonzinga said:
DonFerrari said:
At first I was going to give a full explanation, but Setsu already gave most of it for me so I'll mostly reinforce.
Sega - They trully had a faster CPU and it was used fully, the blast processing was real (and reason Sonic was able to be that fast) but since the system had worse GPU and some other parts it was generally weaker than SNES.
Sony - Cell Processor was really much stronger than the one in Xbox to the point that it covered for the weaker GPU and still had some juice left, the problem was that the type of specialization that CPU had wasn't the best fit for gaming programming at the time. Nowadays perhaps it would have done better since at the time most devs were threating it as a single core.
MS - Yes power of the cloud was total shenanigan since it neve made Xbox 3 times more powerful than without it, but still had some minute use. You can't use the power of the cloud to parallel processing because of the internet speed and latency. Today it is either totally generated on the HW or totally streamed (so you only need the bandwidth for video and input signal), with the exception of some heavy calculation that is "totally independent" of bandwidht and latency.
Sony again - SSD and I/O are real and implemented on the system if you want to believe it won't be used that is your prerrogative, but still would be false.
|
Ok so many people replied to me.
Okay ill make this clear, I am not doubting the tech exists, I am saying its just another buzz word for a new generation to get people on board. Sure the tech exists, sure its amazing, but the lowest common denominator will always win. PS1 outsold the more advance N64, PS2 outsold the more advance Xbox and Gamecube, Wii outsold the more advance 360 and PS4 and now we have the Switch outselling the more advance PS4 and XB1. Weather the PS5 has amazing tech or not will not determine the outcome of the system. Price points, huge library of games and marketing is what sells consoles and yes this SSD in the PS5 is being used to leverage the marketing towards Sony as its the thing it has over its competitors but it wont matter as I mentioned to whatever the other guys name is. Good devs will make good games regardless if they are using a super fast SSD or having a 12TF GPU. I think Nintendo is a prime example of my point here.
goopy20 said:
DEvelopers have always flocked to Sony's platforms. The ps2 was a pain in the ass to develop for, in fact it was actually part of Sony's strategy so we would get better looking games once developers started wrapping their brain around the design. Still, every developer on the planet was supporting it with AAA exclusives.
Obviously developers will always support pc or any other platform too if there's little extra work involved in bringing their games there. That's simply a matter of economics. But if they have to put too much time and resources in it, they might just focus on the platform that sells them the most copies. Same reason why loads of developers aren't bothered with doing Switch ports.
|
We didn't get better looking games on the PS2.
|
Of course we saw better looking ps2 games later on but that's not the point. Point being, developers are always looking to reach the best demographics for their game. RTS games for example historically sell for crap on anything but pc, nobody buys cod games on a Nintendo console and Animal Crossings probably wouldn't have sold over 10m copies if it was a Xbox or ps4 exclusive.
Sony also has an audience that clicks better with certain genres or ip's than any other platform, and I definitely see some of those going exclusive. Especially if it's too much work to alter core game design elements so they can run on other platforms too.
