I voted "More than one thing but not everything."

I would reconsider adding Blueray depending on the cost it added to the final hardware.

I would take out the cell and go with something similar to the 360, same goes for the gpu. Spend less money on the cpu and more on the gpu. In fact id go as far as to say take the innards of the 360 and use that. You will get 90% similar results in terms of gaming at a significantly reduced price.

Il keep all the other goodies about the original PS3 though, again depending on how much it actually added to the cost of the final unit. If Sony sold the PS3 at about 499 with profit from release the company would be in a much better position than they are now.

Also if they had gone that route they would have been able to release earlier, and cheaper. This probably would have made the PS3 the primary console to develop for. And i think we would be looking at a significant lead in ps3 hardware sales over 360. Pretty much the reverse situation that we seeing now between 360 and PS3.

Irrespective of all that the Wii would still be tops though. But this way 2nd/3rd place would be much more profitable for Sony and benefit gamers.

I think it is obvious the two priority issues in the PS3 hardware was the Cell and the memory. Now the Cell is a beast and produced some great things but the cost to develop that technology was high and making games on it was difficult and costly to devs. The Cell helped decide for devs not to be exclusive to PlayStation and resulted in poor multiplats or even exclusives for the 360. Sony could have used a a different CPU and had more time to choose a GPU if they weren't betting so much on the Cell. Maybe even being able to launch earlier, but perhaps blu ray was reason for delay as well, but I think blu ray was a good move as it provides several benefits and its cost went down quickly and made the PS3 the better buy for blu ray movie customers. The Cell was big and hot, making the system large and expensive, and now backwards compatibility is not an option.

The second is the memory set up. There wasn't enough, it wasn't fast enough, and it wasn't unified memory. If they still kept it split, a bump up to 512mb for the graphics would have made the system much better, cell or not.

this is a rather odd questions to ask consumers. personally i dont care if it were 20 ps2's duct taped together as long as it makes the games it plays now. im extremely happy with the ps3 and i wouldnt change a thing

What's wrong with the question, exactly? Several developers have said they're happy that the PS4 is easier to work with; Sony itself said they realized the hardware was a problem and sought to rectify it with their next console.

I've thought the hardware set-up was dumb for years, but I've seen several people disagree. I want to see what people think.

its because we consumers dont deal with the hardware, we deal with the content. we play the games and use the apps. but i never went like "that damn cell is so hard to deal with!" while using my ps3 because i dont personally deal with it

PS3 is the N64 of the gen

I'd say they are complete opposites. Wasn't the N64 easy to develop for?

exactly. the average consumer and probably above average consumer will have no idea the innards of the ps3 were differentfrom traditional consoles. they will not know developers had a hard time with it. they wont know it was the reason for some decisions.... they will just know the games andwouldnt know the hw was a mess and if you ask them if theyd change the answer would be no

Gunotak said: The drame is the actual PS3 (slim and super slim) can't read PS2 games (the FAT could) .

Yeah, but for most gamers that feature is not important.  Because before the re-design it should have sold better than it did, but it did not; and post re-design it should have not sold as great as it did if people was so interested in a feature that now is absent.

I really cared for BC, that is why I bought a 60gb at launch, and an 80gb PS3 when MGS4 came; so that I could have 2 BC PS3 in case the first YLOD on me, but it did not :D.  So I have 2 BC PS3 XD.

No, N64 was a pain in the ass for devs cause SGI provided crappy tools and the hardware, while very powerful in main aspects, was severely bottlenecked in others such as ram speed.