Do you prefer the generations that were competitive, or one-sided?

[Spindel]

curl-6 said:

Spindel said:

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that actually doesn’t need to be the case. Most time/money in modern games are spent on art assets not game engine. Having a ”difficult” architecture impacts core engine functions and is solved (if possible) at a fairly low cost in comparison to the total development budget. 

Also it’s important to note that exotic does not necessarily mean difficult, even if I personally are of the stance that limitations drive innovation. 

Radically different hardware means a lot of your tech won't translate 1:1 so you have to spend extra time (and hence money) reworking things. Heck, even Switch 1 ports could take around a year (and a dedicated team) to pull off. 

It's well documented also that many devs hated working with PS3 due to how much of a pain in the arse it was to get games running well on it.

As I understand it the PS3 wasn’t actually that bad, but many devs went into it without the knowledge of how the hardware works and expected it to be like the PPC+GPU combo of the 360. I mean late gen PS3 exclusives and port where really good once they learned and the major engines where ported. But as I understand it a system that was horrible for real to develop on because of choices made in hardware combinations was the Sega Saturn.