you know cells was a joint venture between Sony (priliminary work performed by ken himself) toshiba and IBM right? so no sony no cell. aslo i should point out the head R&D guy at IBM admited to using Cell tech stolen though a legal loophole to build 360s CPU. sooo no Sony no Xenos...
Bluray... well yea i want to hear how your gunna take that away from sony.
as far as the GPU your right any co could have just purchased a GPU from ATi or Nvidia... would nintendow have the resorces to develop a arcutecture to make such a weak GPU perform to the level it has? without cell to help out with the majority of GPU funtions could anyone?
build quality... could nitendo maintain the quality if they outsorced all the work to china like MS while still keeping cost resonable? thats been a major problem for MS they lack the control over exactly how the 360 is produced.
actualy i think the 360 is a shining example of what happens when you try and win a tech fight by out sorcing and throwing together others tech... viper you remember AMC in the 70s and 80s right?
some out sorcing is ok but to suggest you can just buy your way into the next level... all money can do is buy whats best ON THE MARKET. to go beyond that you need to do it yourself... if you have the resorces.
We the people...
We the people...
Blu-ray - See above.
The only real risks with either component were costs and as you guys love to point out hat since Sony does so much in house they can quickly reduce those costs therefore reducing risk of that cost. But cost is irrelevant with Sony's (and MS's) console financial policy anyway since they sell at a loss and make up the profits elsewhere (software, Blu-ray sales, Cell licensing, other corporate divisions, etc...)
Given that IBM developed all 3 CPU's, I don't think it's unlikely that Nintendo could have worked with IBM to develop a CPU to handle the workload of a higher end ATi based GPU exactly as Microsoft did.
Manufacturing is outsourced to China. Almost every major piece of hardware from Nintendo has been made in China at the same plant the X360 and PS3 are made. Foxconn in Shenzhen China. Build quality isn't a issue at the location of manufacture but with overall design and Nintendo is known for design quality that is second to none.
im not talking about risk... im talking about straight forward who has more resorces to build more advanced hardware. so again how dose that make nintendo capible of developing tech at the same level as a large manufacture like sony?
We the people...
Face facts, When Nintendo wants to compete in the tech race, they tend to actually achieve a high rank on that level. The N64 and GC were far more powerful than most give them credit for and they were competing against Sony pushing themselves at the time just as they did with CELL (Graphics Synthesizer and Emotion Engine anyone?).
MS is just proving to be a shining example. Nintendo on the other hand has chosen to keep it in house this gen or at least close to there own proven desines.
what im saying is out of the three Sony is in the best position to keep a close eye on there own manufaturing. the majority of PS3 componets are actual Sony made out side of the two major chips sets but power supply capacitors PCB ram moduals are made in sonys own factorys. can nitendow or MS claim that?
this would be a good front page article frosty. a brake down of just what is made ware simular to how the auto industry dose it.
We the people...
Make less money, but money isn't everything. Quality is.
Most every gamer of taste thinks this Viper, Nintendo are universally laughed at these days. Gamecube got lots of respect.
You said Nintendo could not keep up with the tech race. When provided with a valid reason why they could, you've suggested they can't do it without sacrificing quality. You cite MS as an example. Considering that the GC and Wii were both built and deigned on the same principles that a higher end model would, why would build quality suffer? GC was high end, did it suffer from build quality issues? No (ironically Sony did despite having this in house advantage you speak of).
I said and showed they could compete in the tech race had they wanted to. You've conjectured that Nintendo would only be met with the same build quality fate as MS without acknowledging the fact you were wrong about the tech race issue and without any facts to back up why you think they'd replicate MS's faulty designs.
The quality of Nintendo's games have always been a culmination of many factors - one of which is the synergistic approach they take to hardware and software. You remove one of those facets (and I don't give a damn what you think a "real" console is supposed to contain considering real games were developed on lesser powered machines for the latter part of the past 30 years) and the balance falters and the quality suffers.
No need to get all angry because all the grannies who bought your Nintendo Wii are starting to die off now.
Oh lighten up it's a joke.
Quality of the games offered on Nintendo's console has seriously, seriously dropped. There's no denying it. The respect Gamecube had amongst real gamers is completely lost. They've abandoned Nintendo in droves.
They want their Halo, their modern warfare 2, their Uncharted 2, their God of War. They don't even know or care what happens on Wii.
And those people can have and enjoy their Modern Warfare's, their Uncharted's, their God of War's. There are just as many who still want their Mario's, their Zelda's and now also their Wii Sports', their Mario Kart's, and their Brain Age's.
You're subjugating the whole concept of a video game and it's quality under your own standards. I'm afraid the industry has proven that subjectivity is too vast to delegate one perspective as superior over the other. Hate the games, hate the game maker, hate the style; it changes not the relative quality with regards to concept.
Super Mario Galaxy was good two years ago, but what has Nintendo done for us lately? Oh yeah the Super Mario Galaxy Mission Pack is coming out soon. All the bits that weren't good enough to make it into Super Mario Galaxy.
You need a string of well regarded hits, god knows they have enough money to produce them. Boom, Killzone 2, Boom, Infamous, Boom, Uncharted 2, highest rated game of all year, boom boom. Not relying on distant memories of past glories.
The games Nintendo have brought out this year on Wii are just plain awful. By any standards. Why defend mediocrity?
It's October, I'm buying my games for the year, 4 years ago it would have been filled with kickass Gamcube games. Look at the trash on Wii I have to choose from now: http://www.tronixweb.com/store/comingsoon.html
Sold their soul for the almighty dollar.
I think I'll hold off on directly replying for the moment. The debate has derailed from the previous derailment. I'll break the thread into separate threads to address the individual topics floating throughout and address them according tomorrow.
who knows why they steped outside there own R&D resorces? speed up development? cross referancing their work? to many other projects going on after? after all Sony makes more than one console and handhelds.So why did Sony need IBM, Toshiba, NEC and several hundred other component partners to create a PS3? In house? Sure a lot of it is but hundreds of pieces are not. Why do you give them a free pass for Sony yet believe they'd reduce build quality for Nintendo?
but in the end they still used there own in house chip plants for the actual production of the CPU/GPU/RAM with the lisencing going to IBM Nvidia and Rambus.
We the people...
I think all the console makers take risks and could fail miserably everytime they release a new console so this is a pointless debate especially considering how indestructible i thought Sony were before they released the PS3 and look at them now.
As for Blu Ray and Cell not being risks Viper i think that comment is just childish. Go look at the production yield rate for Blu Ray diodes when the PS3 was released it was like only one in ten produced would work and it was new tech going up against a pretty ready to hit the market HD DVD. Cell also cost a fortune to develop between the 3 companies. Remember those articles on R&D costs for Sony that they would never be able to recoup over the PS3's lifetime?
MS, Sony and Nintendo all took risks but if you have to choose one that took the most it would have to be Sony.
Technology Risk = Sony Big Time.
Early to market risk = MS
Lack of hardware spec increase risk = Nintendo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)