I know you were or are one of the negative people regarding the PS3 (and me). But what would you have worded differently?

Your post includes very little feedback, nothing useful.

I know many people were upset as well when I stated HD DVD would not make it against Blu-Ray, but I have never been impolite or aggresive with regard to that. Sadly I cannot say the same about many replies against such a harmless and correct statement. In hindsight we can all agree HD DVD did fail and Blu-Ray is seeing solid growth at this point?

@ kowenicki

I am a tech enthusiast, less a sales enthusiast, pricing comes down in due time and thus sales can pick up.

Sales need to be enough to make sure the high tech games I am interested in actually materialize, but they are not crucial beyond that.

For example someone can really like the Neo Geo for the tech and amazing games it provided for its time, despite its high entry pricing and low sales.

Nomatter what, I wouldn't have wanted the Neo Geo to have been specced like a Sega Mega Drive, I loved their arcade games far too much and that would absolutely have sacrificed quality. Why would we have needed two Sega Mega Drives, for example? Or for example the Atari 2600 was pretty sucky compared to the Coleco Vision, etc (but sold more and was cheaper).

Personally I wouldn't have been interested in a PS2.5. The PS3 now sells at 300 dollars, I don't think that's expensive. Looking at the big perspective Sony wanted to create a console which could last them a decade and help bring excellent content for HDTVs and surround audio systems, a PS2.5 wouldn't have been beneficial to their bottom line with wanting to advance the consumer electronics market.

I think its a hard question.

Both are undoubtedly beneficial, but both have in their own way held the PS3 back.

I dont think you can have one without the other with the PS3.

I think the two technologies could have been much more beneficial if the PS3 as a whole had been a better machine to build games for.

Anyway, the Cell hasn't made a huge difference to our current generation of games I think. The biggest implication here, will probably be that developers are better able to utilize more cores for the coming generation of consoles from the get-go.

And the blu-ray could have been much more beneficial if the PS3 had had a faster drive. The few games that utilize it greatly hardly outweigh the losses in terms of overall installs and loadtimes. Although the blu-ray playback is pretty sweet, it just hasn't done much for the gaming side of things.

So no, I don't think there has been a real benefit to these two technologies. If the Cell had had all 8 SPUs, the blu-ray drive had been faster and the PS3 architechture had been easier to utilize, then I think we could have seen a more real benefit.

In want of a more fan-boyish way to say it PS3 was far to epic for it's time and the market and developers couldnt keep up

The cell has been beneficial, because without it the PS3 would not be able to compete graphics wise with the 360 due to the fact that the RSX is a slightly weaker graphics card than the Xenos.

Blu ray on the other hand, really hasn't done anything.. if a game like FALLOUT 3 can fit in one disk?

No I dont think the PS3 has been anything like the success that SONY had hoped and in commercial terms is by far the worst Playstation to date.

The Cell as good as a processor as it is has taken three years to barely edge past the competition in performance terms.

Blu Ray has beaten HD DVD to the throne only to find their father in DVD happily say down and in no mood to walk away.

Qualified failures or qualified succeses. Its just semantics.

I think the Parameters of the argument are extra-ordinarily narrow which was probably an attempt by the OP to manipulate the argument.

The PS3 was released a year after the XBox 360, cost $100/$200 more than the XBox 360 to buy, and Sony was still losing hundreds of dollars to manufacture the system, and after developers have spent over 4 years working on the system the benefits over the XBox 360 are minimal; and the XBox 360 still regularly receives the better version of games because how unsuited the Cell processor is to game development.

Within 2 years the next generation will begin and soon after all three manufacturers will have systems with real-world performance that greatly surpasses the XBox 360 and PS3; and rapidly support from third party publishers to create quality games for these systems will disappear. Most of the games which continue to be released will be the occasional sports game and licensed tie-in which will (mostly) be developed by inferior teams within inferior studios. Or to put it another way, the best the PS3 has to offer in game has already been seen ...

Now, if you want to see how much of a mistake the Cell processor was and how pointless Blu-Ray was compare the advantage a year gave the PS3 to the advantage a year gave the Gamecube and XBox over the PS2; and neither of those systems cost nearly as much to manufacture as the PS3 cost Sony.

You and your well-written, well thought out posts Happy Squrriel.

I ll say that cell was a failure mainly because to its really low memory speed (16mb/s), but neverthenless I ll say that it was still more powerfull then xbox's xenos procesor. In my opinion ps3 superior graphics is more a work of rsx nvidia graphics processor then it is form cell. The blu-ray capacity was a definite benefit, but its speed of read is a disaster 2x is so low that basicly it 'd be cheaper and better to install two dvd readers (in terms of read speed and overall drive performance), also the ps3 hard drive is too slow to be any changer but at the end of the day its a great gaming machine and i enjoy it but the best moments i spent when gaming belong to pc - max payne franchise, echelon, command and conquer, gothic franchise, the witcher, timeshift, world in conflict, battlefield franchise, heroes of might and magic 3 and so on.