EXACTLY PS3 had a new architecture so people found it hard nothing else

they keep the next one similar and people will find it easier

So you agree in that they made a mistake with the PS3, so why are you arguing against me?

cause the mistake that you are pointing wasn't all a mistake like you are pointing out

There are PCs that far, far outclass what the PS3 is capable of. You can easily get the same power.

yes but at what price not at what the PS3 is at with all its features

More over the developers could more easily take advantage of that power giving better games earlier.

yes but again the price would be a stubling block

for example Crytek put out the best looking game but the machine they put it out for cost a bomb.

they found it easy to develop Crysis cause it had higher power and used the existing architecture

In essence you would have gotten effectively more powerful hardware simple because it would not take so much work to get that power to be used effectively.

again it would cost more

This does mean you won't see the same level of improvement over the course of the console,

why wouldn't you,as developer become comfortable with the machine like they are with the PC architecture then we will see the same improvements

but that is because the top is reached more quickly.

but can you bring a same power machine with the PC architectyre which the devs are used to at the same price,no you don't

This means the games are as good in individual comparisons, and substantial better on average. Win/win.

but the price will be higher.people don't like paying $300 for PS3 and what you are mentioning would have costed much more

Allow me to explain via example. DirectX was created due to developer demand. When Windows 95 came out it took away the ability to directly utilize the hardware, or something to that effect as the specifics escape me. As such a game could not be the best game possible due to issues with effectively utilizing that power. In response, Microsoft created a work around that let developers better utilize the hardware and thus we get better games with less effort.

yes but the architecture remianed same so devs got used to it

the same happend with PS2 WHERE THEY GOT USED TO IT

In this analogy the PS3 is Windows 05, and the PS4 will have DirectX.

yes but if they change the architeecture again then even that won't help

The underlying hardware will be better utilized because it will not have to fight against the hardware as much.Instead it works with the developer. The end result is better games, and more of them as developers without the ability or desire to twist the hardware to their desires would be able to create games as well.

yes but direct X would then not let DEV the full control like devs have with PS3

Imagine how much better the PS3 library would be with more ports from Valve,

i think that was more a problem with GABE NEWELL than the PS3

or if the existing ports didn't need to be outsourced. A full, and true port of Orange Box would add a ton alone!

IT would have still made problems if the other console with lead developement have different architecture

it would be the same if other console with same PS3 architecture,even then games wouln't be degraded

This is not entirely true however. The Gamecube did not get a lot of complaints about being hard to develop for despite using new architecture.

was it as different as PS3 is.no it wasn't

and did it have the userbase of PS3,no it wasn't so devs didn't care

New architecture does, by necessity, increase the level of complexity some degree but it does not automatically make it hard.

but that complexity to take power out of the machine makes it hard

Notice that the TEV system which the GPU on both the Wii and Gamecube use is not understood by most developers, but does not stop them from being able to make games of an acceptable quality

but most of the devs develop a separate version for Wii

for PS3,they use the same for both PS360 so it creates proble.

like that people developing solely for PS3 like SONY's devs don't complain that much

(before you ask, yes I think it is ultimately a bad design decision but for other reasons I will go into upon request). So long as you have the proper tool, and design then you can get developers everything they need, and more to effectively utilize new architecture without many of the growing pains you see with the PS3.

the PS3 exclusive developers are doing that

its only the developers who don't spend much time on PS3 that are complaining

Still using the same architecture with the PS4 is probably a good idea given they have worked out enough kinks. If they have a set of tools robust enough to direct a developer to the right area then there is no real issue. If not then it may be a good idea to rethink the design.

if the developers already get used to the architecture and ge th power out of it then there is no need to change,SONY first party devs won't have any problem

While older development studios won't have issues there will be new ones that would which is bad for the end consumer.

yes but it is the job of the new developers who don't know the architecture to understand and spend more time on it which they don't do these days and just concentrate on taking the game out as fast as they can

It doesn't make it a good one though. You only get lucky so many times as the PS3 proves.

Do you even understand what you are arguing? In this very thread Sony admits to not having made the PS3 with games in mind. 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. The fact that you try to argue against those two points makes it clear you have no interest in a debate of facts here.

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

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

Here is the bottom line. Sony admits they were wrong in the past, and it was a bad idea. They have done a great step forward for their future hardware. I am eager to see what happens just from a game availability standpoint because developers will have access to the tools they want guaranteed. Why are you arguing against their new direction? There are two sides, and only two sides here. Sony was right with the PS3, or Sony will be right with the PS4. I choose the latter. There is no way to reconcile the two points of view though.

you have argued in this thread that the ps3 was an engineering problem and to that point you are wrong.  the ps3 is an amazing peice of engineering and it only take one look at it's games library coupled with the fact its the only device on the market that can't be hack to realize this.

the part you are trying to argue is that the best solution isn't always the best solution (something that doesn't come up in 1st year engineering btw.  i got it only starting in the 4th year during my design course).  a good solution has three parts: the technology, the people, and the process.  sony's consession was that they focused too much on the technology and people but not enough on the process.

That is not actually accurate. I have argued that a core concept behind its design philopsophy was flawed. The machine itself I have not commented on. As an engineer you should be able to respect the point I am making if I can make it clear enough, which perhaps I am not.

The PS3, as machine in the wild, I have no comments on. I haven't really studied it. The PS3, as a game machine, has a serious design flaw at its core in that it was not built to play games specifically. This is not a problem with the technology, or machinery. It is a problem with its creators.

Let me illustrate with an example. Lets say your are building an electronic keyboard. One of your partners suggest using this great and awesome new computer that you can shrink down and force into it. With enough work you can force the computer to make the required sounds, but it isn't exactly meant to do what you want. Another student says you should instead get the basic components of the keyboard which are meant to do precisely what you want them to. The first student is building the PS3. The second is building the PS4.

@Solid
I have no idea what you just typed out in that mess. Make it readable and I will respond.

there you go making the same statement that i both agree and disagree with.

when you say, "..has a serious design flaw at its core in that it was not built to play games specifically" i disagree, the ps3 was designed  with games in mind.  it's just that the only part of games they kept in mind was maximizing performance.  what they forgot was with this amazing new performance came a shift in how things need to be programed in order to leverage this performance increase.

I work for a software company and our software is quite the resource hog.  we got to the point that running on a "standard" processor was just not enough due to the cost of equipment and in order to keep cost in line we tasked ourself with doing pretty much exactly what the cell does - spread our programming out over several smaller computers instead of one large one.  we actually had to fire a good portion of our staff because they weren't willing to work in such a manner replacing them with programers who were willing to be more open minded.

i tell you this story just to illustrate the point - the hardware is a great solution to today's challenges but it's the people that are resisting the changes and it's the people that sony forget to consider NOT the design of the ps3.

but yeah, as an overall i still agree with your general gist.  i'm mostly nit picking.

The PS3, as a game machine, has a serious design flaw at its core in that it was not built to play games specifically.

how is it not designed not to play games,if it really wasn't then we couldn't play games

Let me illustrate with an example. Lets say your are building an electronic keyboard. One of your partners suggest using this great and awesome new computer that you can shrink down and force into it. With enough work you can force the computer to make the required sounds, but it isn't exactly meant to do what you want.

how wasn't it meant to play games as it was.

your above example shows how you are wrong.it didn't just make sounds but it did it better than anything around it

Another student says you should instead get the basic components of the keyboard which are meant to do precisely what you want them to. The first student is building the PS3. The second is building the PS4.

the basic component isn't strong enogh at its price

@Solid
I have no idea what you just typed out in that mess. Make it readable and I will respond.

you have no idea of anything.how the hell isn't it readable.i hve highlighter and underlined your comments and mine are normal without them.