Sony usually plans to have a console last 7-10 years.
About a year after the launch of a console, there are off-the-shelf computer systems for the same price that are just as powerful. And of course, 7 years after, the console is completely blown away.
I wonder if they finally realized what die-hard gamers have known for a decade, or if they just can't take the losses any more and don't have a choice?
In the meantime a given console hardware is able to push from one to three orders of magnitude more polygons than the supposedly overpowering PC. This too has been known for decades.
I've experienced both sides (Computer vs Console) and I'm sick of those arguments. about which is supposedly better. I don't care. I just want my experience to be hitch-free and not having to jump through horrendous hoops (video cards, DRM and whatnot) to enjoy games.
Wait, hoops? DRM???? Where have you been for the last month.
However, to not cause flaimbait, there are technologies such as http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/ which look promising potentially making this "# of polygons" issue moot.
Don't forget the overhead that comes with windows and direct x. It is quite known that these things do cause a reduction of power.
ALSO with PS3's fully known hardware, sony optimizes IT and developers optimize FOR IT. They know exactly what limitations exist in which parts of the hardware. Because flaws and advantages in the hardware can be directly exploited certain optimizations are possible ONLY on consoles. Parts are specifically chosen and the OS is designed to do it and get out of the way. They can create a new OS for each console and not worry about legacy, making the best of optimizations not possible in OSes that must support legacy programs. The older PS3 had PS2 hardware to run PS2 games. The new PS3 does not. The point is everything on these consoles is crafted to specifically target that exact console and nothing but.
3 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 21.5 ms ] threadAbout a year after the launch of a console, there are off-the-shelf computer systems for the same price that are just as powerful. And of course, 7 years after, the console is completely blown away.
I wonder if they finally realized what die-hard gamers have known for a decade, or if they just can't take the losses any more and don't have a choice?
I've experienced both sides (Computer vs Console) and I'm sick of those arguments. about which is supposedly better. I don't care. I just want my experience to be hitch-free and not having to jump through horrendous hoops (video cards, DRM and whatnot) to enjoy games.
However, to not cause flaimbait, there are technologies such as http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/ which look promising potentially making this "# of polygons" issue moot.
Don't forget the overhead that comes with windows and direct x. It is quite known that these things do cause a reduction of power.
ALSO with PS3's fully known hardware, sony optimizes IT and developers optimize FOR IT. They know exactly what limitations exist in which parts of the hardware. Because flaws and advantages in the hardware can be directly exploited certain optimizations are possible ONLY on consoles. Parts are specifically chosen and the OS is designed to do it and get out of the way. They can create a new OS for each console and not worry about legacy, making the best of optimizations not possible in OSes that must support legacy programs. The older PS3 had PS2 hardware to run PS2 games. The new PS3 does not. The point is everything on these consoles is crafted to specifically target that exact console and nothing but.