Yes, the RSX was a poor choice by Sony, but it was mostly a last minute thing. PS3 would have greatly benefited with a stronger GPU, especially when it comes to multiplatform games, but considering it took like $800 to manufacture the 60GB, they would have lost a lot of money if they went with something powerful. You can say that the Blu Ray ruined the balance of the system, but hopefully that shouldn't happen again.
Right, but given the more refined and narrower set of goals that seems to define the intentions of the current platform holders, I just don't see a great change in course, thus next-gen seems to be even more predictable than last for direction and focus of software. Granted, it is really too early to have a very concrete view on this yet, but the trends, as evidenced by the last couple generations' most successful software releases, are still pretty clear and follow without much deviation. The weight of these successes seems to be more disproportionate than ever before, but DD and a more flexible, reasonable retail pricing scheme might offset and even alter (or correct) the current focus. There's going to be a greater focus on small developers than ever before simply because there are more of them now able to exist because of their success on small-dev friendly platforms, while current consoles still aim to cater mostly to the few big publishers and developers around...which means bigger budgets and, arguably, lesser games. Whoever manages to successfully leverage the large and growing base of smaller (and mostly former industry-experienced) developers out there for their console platform will probably be the winner, IMO.
Which is exactly my point about the lead SKU. Regardless of which is easier, what matters is which is more popular, because that will in most cases be the version which gets the most attention, and in turn will be better. The games that lead on PS3 are still better than the 360 versions, regardless of it's ease of use for the developer.
I don't see 3D support as anything but a regular feature for all the next-gen platforms going forward since all will be able to support it far better than the current gen and because it's relatively easy to implement, though it takes effort to do it right, clearly. 3D was only Sony's thing, initially, because they had more reasons to push it thanks to their film and television businesses. 3D will cease to be seen as only or mainly Sony's thing, and instead will be practically everywhere.
In what sense? The 360 was amazing when it launched. Only Nintendo backed down techwise.
I doubt they will push it harder than they are now. 3D, especially the one where you need a 3D TV and glasses, isn't a strong feature; not only does it require special type of TV, but it's also uncomfortable for many people. It's a nice gimmick to have, but nothing special.
Nintendo for backing down before it started, MS and Sony for dragging out this generation out for so long.
I don't know, there's an aspect of diminishing returns, every generation, to try and match the impact of the previous one they'll need to wait longer. This generation will probably be two years longer than the last one, but the next systems won't actually come close to a PS2/PS3 style leap. PC's are already ten fold the consoles, and the leap isn't at all mind blowing. It's the same thing prettier. I'd like to see the first parties hold out even longer really. Especially if every game has to be on the WiiU too, the low end spec requirements could bottleneck the other two and PC gaming for the next ten years.Nintendo for backing down before it started, MS and Sony for dragging out this generation out for so long.
I know all their reasons for doing so, I was just speaking as a gamer who's looking at nothing but his own interests.
I planned to make a business perspective post countering my own afterwards, but your quick response prevented that.
It'll be on everything I imagine. CoD is the reason Sony needs to launch at the same time as MS this time really. If MS have a year exclusive on next-gen CoD, Sony might as well not bother. People aren't going to wait a year for Sony. They only did this time because of how PS2 crushed Dreamcast I think. Now they're not a powerhouse and third party exclusives are over, the only thing that matters is who has the software you want, which is everyone, and who is cheapest.
came for this, 12 pages later not disappointed.
Cell was designed as a media streamer, not a gaming CPU. Cell isn't very good at general purpose code, and
The SPUs' redundant power is mostly used for graphics operations to compensate for the somewhat weak RSX. For example, Uncharted uses the SPUs as additional graphics processors for effects and AA. That doesn't make much sense at all - in hindsight I think Sony would've rather cut down on the CPU and get a more powerful GPU in there. A GPU could have probably done the same with much less silicon - at least, that should be the case with the state of technology today.
Wait what - after the Wii U discussions people think the PS4 will have an old GPU as well? Come on, what company goes out for a contract for 50+ million console GPUs to be served some dusted off off-the-shelf chip? All three next-gen consoles will have a very customized chip that is distantly related to but unlike any standard PC component, all based on the latest tech AMD can give them. Probably all will use GCN (except Wii U maybe) and have modern tesselators.
A 28 nm Cell could definitely be useful as an additional processor and for backwards compatibility. Its main CPU will be something related to the Wii U CPU or an AMD processor however.
Cell was a huge R&D investment for a huge chip that hasn't delivered on its promises. It is inefficient at least for gaming purposes, and it has hurt Sony tremendously. It has its merits, sure, but all in all it wasn't the right choice then and it definitely isn't the right choice for the PS4 (as its main processor).
That's almost expected though, because it was compromised visually to run at 60 on the consoles, so on PC where everything is 60, the difference is more pronounced. The performance doesn't make up for any of the visual shortcomings basically.
No doubt, but until I hear Stig is not heading it, nothing is that pretty...Quite possibly still the best looking console game.....but GOW IV will top it
