| oldschoolfool said: I agree with you on something. lol |
It was bound to happen :)
The article talks of getting out ahead of Microsoft and Sony, as if that's all you have to do to be king of the console game...
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
disolitude said:
Its actually the best way to go for a smaller company. I mean, howmany billions has Sony lost making that Cell chip? They had to price the console at 599 at launch to boot and still take a huge loss. For 599 they could have easily built and equal or greater power console in 2006. The only way a smaller company can make a console/portable device is to use off the shelf parts, Google Android OS and sell it to you at cost. Regardless, the story is still BS |
most cost was for blu-ray as SONY always goes for ROYALTIES making formats
also CELL is powerful as it has all the power that games need atleast for now on consoles
and it was pretty powerful even back in 2006,now don't compare it to a PC as even though if it had more specs the game quality wouldn't have been much better for most of the games as the gamemaking expenses going up and most games developed for both 360 and PS3 so most devs would have just ignored making more quality for PS3 as it would cost more
it cost CELL makers $400m to make CELL.This was the final figure and its not just alone SONY
| Mr Khan said: The article talks of getting out ahead of Microsoft and Sony, as if that's all you have to do to be king of the console game... |
if they launch and have a low price and good games,they would be first in console race as they have a big brand name too
the main reasons HD consoles failed and Wii eclipsed was that XBOX didn't have good brand name,PS3 had good brand name but it was too much out of reach expensive and Wii had a good brand name and low price
This specification is 1000-1500$ system.
Clearly it's not a new console but arcade cabinet.
But going into off-topic it would be possible to make quite powerfull but cheap machine using on shelf parts.
Amd X4 630 cpu radeon 5750 2 GB of ram would be good and cheap base for such a thing and perfectly capable of 1080p graphics when given comform of fully optimized soft.
PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB
I'd love to see Sega back in the consle business. But im weary their is any truth to this
The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.
Ernest Hemmingway
| Solid_Snake4RD said: most cost was for blu-ray as SONY always goes for ROYALTIES making formats
also CELL is powerful as it has all the power that games need atleast for now on consoles and it was pretty powerful even back in 2006,now don't compare it to a PC as even though if it had more specs the game quality wouldn't have been much better for most of the games as the gamemaking expenses going up and most games developed for both 360 and PS3 so most devs would have just ignored making more quality for PS3 as it would cost more it cost CELL makers $400m to make CELL.This was the final figure and its not just alone SONY |
You take everything I post so personal...
No one is saying Cell isn't powerful enough. But it was widely known that cell yield rate was down the toilet when they were making them
http://hardware.gotfrag.com/portal/story/33567/
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048165/cell-yields-horrible-sources-claim
What this means that out of 100 chips they made, they were lucky to get 10-20 working ones. Rest of them had to be thrown out.
All I am saying is that smaller company can not take this kind of a loss when they release hardware. I don't think you realize howmauch sony lost with the PS3... Despite having profitable PS2 and PSP, they lost over 1 billion dollars first year with the PS3. So thats prolly over 2 billion lost on PS3 alone... Not many small companies could take a loss like that.
disolitude said:
You take everything I post so personal... No one is saying Cell isn't powerful enough. But it was widely known that cell yield rate was down the toilet when they were making them http://hardware.gotfrag.com/portal/story/33567/ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048165/cell-yields-horrible-sources-claim What this means that out of 100 chips they made, they were lucky to get 10-20 working ones. Rest of them had to be thrown out. All I am saying is that smaller company can not take this kind of a loss when they release hardware. I don't think you realize howmauch sony lost with the PS3... Despite having profitable PS2 and PSP, they lost over 1 billion dollars first year with the PS3. So thats prolly over 2 billion lost on PS3 alone... Not many small companies could take a loss like that. |
really nothing personal here
yuo think i'm am biased but i was just having a conversation with you,i never mean to offend or offensive.peace
anyways i agree on ur this post
also wasn't it rumoured to getting somebody's backing along with this rumour
Thats their new Arcade cabinet. It isn't a home console, we're not going to have something drawing 50-100% more power than the PS3 at launch. But hey, it MAY see limited home release, who knows?
Tease.
kowenicki said:
The HD consoles failed? eh? MS sold 25m Xbox's - the 360 is currently at 40m, so they will easily DOUBLE what they did last gen, on top of that the 360 is now the 6th best selling home console ever and will soon past the SNES and possibly the NES before its done. On your other earlier point.. Philips was the majority royalty maker from CD, and on DVD it was split between many many companies... on Blu-Ray it is estimated that Sony own about 25% of the IP. royalties from blu-ray will never get anywhere near DVD. |
One SD console sells almost just as well as all HD consoles combined. That can be defined as failure pretty easily.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
