Pemalite said:
Jumpin said:
I don’t think so.
The only generation where I felt hardware was too powerful was the PS3 generation where, for years, the console was priced out of the range of most PS2 consumers despite not being highly priced enough for Sony to turn a profit on the hardware.
On software, I’m finding the exact opposite trend. We’re seeing way more games than ever before. During the Gamecube and N64 years, we might only get 25-75 games in an entire year. These days 25-75 new games could come out in a single week. Additionally, the genre spread is significantly higher than before.
Regarding AAA games, as in the iterative annual/biennial branch release franchises by EA, Ubisoft, and Activision? People have been complaining about those since the beginning. I’m not the best to comment about that part of the industry as those games aren’t my thing. |
The PS3 wasn't too powerful.
Sony just burdened it with unnecessary junk. - Essentially including PS2 hardware with every console, Blu-Ray player, Card-Reader, Wifi, Hard Drive, Other-OS, tons of I/O and more.
Cell was an unnecessary chip in the grand scheme of things... And nVidia charged a premium for their GPU which didn't offer much of an advantage over the Xbox 360 and could be argued was an inferior chip to the 360.
The Ram was expensive.
Once they slimmed and refocused the hardware, they managed to reduce it's cost and thus price.
Sony was just trying to make a jack-of-all-trades console that could do everything, cost be damned. |
OK, I'll change my previous answer to this: I don't think any home console has been too powerful.
But I've been getting to thinking about handhelds and battery life. The Game Gear comes to mind.
Currently Online 
