Sega and Nintendo likely copied it from someone else. The thought that there is a whole lot of originality in large corporations is almost as laughable as the thought that copying what works is somehow bad. I LIKE it when companies company each other, and then improve on the technique. The consumer ends up being the big winner.

Do you even understand what you are arguing? In this very thread Sony admits to not having made the PS3 with games in mind.

they didn't say they didn't take games in mind when developing.they are just saying that they will develop a machine which is already suitable and devs would be comfortable developing on it

Further, it is well publicized that they use the razor blade business model which is sell the hardware at a loss and make profit on the software.

not always.they make money on hardware too.PS3 was sold at a loss more for blu-ray

The fact that you try to argue against those two points makes it clear you have no interest in a debate of facts here.

i am not arguin those points but the way you are twisting th points and trying to negate them is what i am arguin against

To further under-cut your argument didn't you say earlier there was no communication between parts Sony?

yes but they did not co-ordinate on time to time basis,more like only when the essentially needed.

the blu-ray inclusion wasn't communication but the senior decision for SONY to make royalties of it.this isn't really communicating.

now after Stringer came in they have started to  communicate and exchanging info in the digital era

So how could they plan on using the PS3 to push Blu-ray? They weren't communicating by your own argument, and thus wouldn't have had that master plan.

they didn't need to communicate as PS3 mainly had blu-ray on itself devloped specifically

Either you have to concede it was a conscious decision to cut out the software side, or leave the blu-ray argument at home. The two are incompatible.

i know they make software to make money

but you are like they always make loss on HW and make money only on SW which isn't

I also didn't mention the Wii once did I? I mentioned Nintendo because they are relevant. Super Mario World, Pilot Wings 64, Mario 64, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and Wii Sports are games that have been amongst the most loved and played the entire generation. They are all either launch titles, or within two months of launch. Thats the advantage you get when your programmers get what they want out of hardware. Better sooner.

cause they already knew the HW as it was nothing but some adjustments with the existing architectures available

now have those games broght any BIG improvements,no they didn't.they just sell because of the install base

even PS2 architecture was different but devs spend most of their time on it and so got used to it.

on PS3's side devs mainly work on easier 360 and then port it to PS3,but had PS3  been in first place nobody would have really complained as  now as they would be spending most of their time on PS3 like the PS2 and learning the HW whereas now they don't need to learn as they can make money on 360 too

And yes, creating a system not designed to do its primary task is a handicap.

but that doesn't effect much as PS3 is doing its job.

The same applied to Windows originally which directly led to the creation of DirectX in order to help give better control to game developers. I don't know why you would claim it is only whiners when Sony ADMITS they haven't worked well enough with software developers in the past.

i agree SONY puts out hardwares that are new and that devs need to learn it to develop on it

but all new architectures are difficult

now you can just do console like 360 with same architecture as PC's which devs are used to develop for but that architecture doesn't give you the same power as you can see 360 games are beind PS3 games

yes you can have better HW with existing architeture but doesn't that cost BIG money and consoles are way cheaper so you can't include both power and existing architecture at low price which PS3 can atm

i was calling DEV's whinner because when like in the PS2 days,it was the domiant format.even though it was  a new hard architecture,they learnt to cope with it cause they didn't need to develop for anything else and spending more time on PS2 would make them used to it

but now when  PS3 isn't dominant,they don't spend their time on it and so they don't get used to it.so they whine saying it too hard

Why are you arguing against their new direction?

i am not against it.just against your saying that making a easy HW would always be better

Sony was right with the PS3, or Sony will be right with the PS4. I choose the latter.

again you don't understand,of course they will be better with PS4.

cause now they will use CELL similar even though powerful but alike thing and by that time devs would have learnt it and used to it so it will be like developing for PC to them.

Quit avoiding the actual issues. You are trying to skate around the issue rather than deal with them. The two directions are diametrically opposed. It has nothing to do with the Cell, or anything of the sort. Stop distracting from the point.

that what is it about and what is thate point

Which is better: designing with the software in mind, or not? It is that simple really. The fact that you refuse to answer the question says a ton about your intentions here.

lay me  questions and i will answer them for you

Also, yes Sony does use a razor blade model.  The PS2, PS1, PSP, and PS3 were all sold at a loss with the intention of recouping the costs through software sales. It is inane to argue against that.

PS1 no idea

PS2 yes but barely at first only

PSP again quickly they were making on HW

PS3 it was for blu-ray

I really can't be bothered to try and decrypt what you said versus what I said in the rest.

then relay the question is simple words and i will answer them and you reply to that

Your reply in completely unreadable simply because I don't even know which parts are quotes.

i always underline and italic your comments

When you can be bothered to respond in a way that does not, by design, confuse what is said by who then I will deal with the rest of your points.

i was just trying to invidually reply to each of your points

I reply to your points individually without causing the mess you do. There is also value in taking an argument at the whole rather than trying to chop it up piecemeal since a good argument supports itself.

I DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB AS I HIGHLIGHT THINGS

I ask again, in plain english as I did before, which is better: designing hardware with the software in mind, or not?

it is better with software in mind

anwser me now:will you get the same power if all emphasize was on software being easier to develop?

The two options are diametrically opposed. Choosing the former means Sony made a mistake with the PS3, the latter means they are making a mistake with future hardware.

now you are going too aggresive there

answer me:would we have gotten the same powerful hardware if PS3 was developed with software in mind?

and whay do you think it was dificult to develop SW on PS3?

Well, after everyone's gotten used to the PS3, make the next easy?  I dunno, I just thought the PS3 and PS4 would be generally similar.. To keep backwards play in-tact.   I don't care how hard it is..  And, it's not hard, it's just unflamilar..