Along with what's already been mentioned, it was very difficult to program for due to some interesting hardware differences and took developers a few years to really figure out which lead to some poor performance despite better hardware.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I do understand what you're saying, but it's kind of hard to call it "better hardware" in light of how difficult it was to actually develop for.

Someone had to develop a chip for the next video game console. That console didn't provide any value in itself, but was a platform to enable actual game studios to create immersive games for users. The chip design they chose hindered developers from doing that to the point that they were regularly outperformed by a far cheaper chipset.

I have a lot of respect for the nerdy details of the cell processor, and why it's an interesting processor architecture, but in the sum total context of what it was designed to do I would push back a little on calling it 'better'.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

These are all valid points. But I don’t think the “better hardware” that helped the PS3 take the lead was really just about the cell processor. Nor do I think it played much of a role in the console’s price at launch. IIRC, at least in Australia, it was the cheapest BluRay player you could buy when it launched.

While both console’s were only really capable of 720p HD, many large open-world games had to use SD assets to fit everything on a DVD.

Microsoft clearly made that choice to keep the price lower at launch, and maybe Sony took the L on that one. But I don’t think they would have had the same resurgence later in it’s lifecycle otherwise.

[–] Ser_Salty@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

Maybe "more powerful" would be the better term