CGI-Quality said:
Zoombael said:
Except it wasnt the point.
I qoute:
"The lack of domination Sony was used to with the PS3 surely helped themake a much better console with PS4. Turns out competition is good."
Asserting, without the "good competition" the PS3 successor wouldnt be as good as what we have now. As a matter of fact "helped themake a MUCH BETTER CONSOLE".
I proclaim? It is you and LudicrousSpeed who proclaim what we got now is much better than what could have been if it wasnt for MS (and enter Nintendo - whoops.. where did they come from all over sudden) without providing a sound base to your claims. Nothing official or substantial logic and reasoning. I repeat myself: elaborate.
I on the other do provide at least logical, comprehensible arguments, not based on looking into a crystal ball, but on what Sony actually did the preceeding three generations, from the moment they entered the business.
|
The "crystal ball" claim is bogus. Everything presented to you is a logical analysis of the situation. If Sony had been successful with the PS3, the PS4 might have been a very different machine.
- Price
- Development woes
Those were the two biggest obstacles they faced and both were Sony's fault. Microsoft and Nintendo (ignore them all you want, but they also were able to capitalize on Sony's mistakes) took marketshare from Sony due to the reasons above. My point from the beginning was an addition to Ludicrous'. Nothing wrong that hypothesis based on what is known.
"The lack of domination Sony was used to with the PS3 surely helped themake a much better console with PS4. Turns out competition is good."
Looks like a sound viewpoint to me.
|
There was no logical analysis presented to me. You presented nothing at all. There is still no sound base to what you proclaim and your mysterious undisclosed source that told you about "what is known". It seems all you know is Sony lost dominance in the course of 7th. console generation, hence why PS4 is much better console. Thats it. Thats your analysis.
"If Sony had been successful with the PS3, the PS4 might have been a very different machine. "
Say, are you trying to pull my leg here!? First of all, i didnt object to this, as a matter of fact i included it as very possible.
But more importantly, how does a very different machine makes a much worse console?
Do me a favor and have some cohesivness before you make or support any bold statements. Thanky you very much.
https://www.cnet.com/news/ps4-declassified-how-sony-used-its-ps3-mistakes-to-build-the-ultimate-developers-console/
...and read the whole article, not just the URL.
Btw. what is it im supposed to do with your added point? Its sorta completely irrelevant, because it was never part of the debate. I also wonder when it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
"The lack of domination Sony was used to with the PS3 surely helped themake a much better console with PS4. Turns out competition is good."
"Looks like a sound viewpoint to me."
Yes, you already made that clear, yet again you failed to substantiate it.
McDonaldsGuy said:
I wouldn't take this stuff seriously. J Allard in 2005 said the 360 would reach a billion users.
|
You wouldnt. I do.
Because it goes hand in hand with Microsofts directive they made known to the world of gaming in 2013. We all remember it like it was yesterday. TV TV TV, Sports sports sports, Xbox Go Home. When everyone was wondering what was going on and what the hell MS was up to. They tried to make their product appeal to a broader audience, with the one box, to find them all, to rule them all... or at the very least 200 million... and under xbox live bind them. Cue to continue the debate above.
With a dominating Playstation and a failing fee based online multiplayer service, the need to bind customers would ve never arisen and the idea destined to fade away along side other fruitless attempts (GFWL). Yaya, "the good competition".
