VectorVictor
Donor
The gimped RAM allocation alone rendered the machine inferior to the 360--it wasn't until they were able to code around it, at the expense of CPU cycles, that they could overcome that flaw. And let's not talk about the on-die RAM for the CPU (or lack thereof for the PS3), which wasted more CPU cycles that the PS3 didn't have to spare.You obviously have no clue as to how technology or IT works then.
I have a clue, I'm just looking at the entire picture while you've got a hyper focus on tech specs.
If Company A and Company B both offer me the same device with the same features and hardware, but Company A provides a better climate for creating with, using and enjoying their device, then Company A has outdone Company B.
This is what almost did Sony in early in the last generation. Terrible dev kits, insane price point, lack of exclusives, etc. Nevermind that their machine was actually significantly superior to the 360. Luckily for them, they learned enough from their mistakes to turn things around just enough to end up on equal ground.
At the end, Sony was able to churn out some impressive looking games...but it came a couple of years after the 'impressive looking games' already hit on the XBox...or do you forget how everyone swooned when Gears first came out back in, what, 2008? Last of Us is one of the few PS3 titles that stands out (graphically) and it took until this year to see a title of this quality of visuals show up on the console.
(Incidentally, Last of Us is a good game so far. Somewhat frustrating if playing on the harder levels, but fun. Good story too.)
---
Look, I see what you're saying now...but the focus *is* on the hardware per the discussion at hand--the SDF proclamation is that the Xbox One isn't as powerful as the PS4 at the hardware level, which was supposedly the root cause for the disparity in visuals. That is being proven to be false per the Kotaku article.
Last edited by a moderator: