How would this generation have been if Sony didn't use Cell?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by DrRockso87 (2505 posts) -

How would this generation have been if instead of using the Cell processor, Sony instead developed their console more like the PS4?

Looking back on the PS3's early days, there's no denying developers had trouble programming games. Do you think more developers would have signed on to develop games if the hardware was easier to understand? Would Sony hve sold better? Just food for thought.

#2 Posted by ramonnl (769 posts) -

The multi-platform games would be much better on the ps3 then the xbox360, the exclusives would look even better.

#3 Posted by SecretPolice (21382 posts) -

Lotta if's here butt..

If Sony launched Nov 2005 with DVD9 @ 399.99 and a better controller with good games at launch and many good games offered in the 1st & 2nd year, Poke MS with a fork, they'd be done and outta the biz :shock:

Yup, true story. :P

#4 Posted by dobzilian (2490 posts) -
Gohan wouldn't of become the powerfulest Saiyan.
#5 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

If they only changed the CPU but left everything else alone, they would have the inferior console.

Namely PS3's GPU didn't have unified shaders and was generally weaker than the one in 360 and the split RAM architecture was another bottle-neck.

Cell actually wasn't the problem, the expensive blu-ray player was.

#6 Posted by PAL360 (26653 posts) -

The multi-platform games would be much better on the ps3 then the xbox360, the exclusives would look even better.

ramonnl

In fact they would look even worse!

The cell is only reason why PS3 multiplats look close to 360 ones. Don't forget 360 has a superior GPU and more available RAM. As for the exclusives, you should thank devs, not the hardware.

#7 Posted by ramonnl (769 posts) -

[QUOTE="ramonnl"]

The multi-platform games would be much better on the ps3 then the xbox360, the exclusives would look even better.

PAL360

In fact they would look even worse lol

The cell is only reason why PS3 multiplats looked close to 360 ones. Don't forget 360 has a superior GPU and more available RAM.

 

Then the 'cell' was really the product send by god.

#8 Posted by btk2k2 (352 posts) -
Well, the GPU in the PS3 is weaker than the 360 so assuming they had used the same CPU as the 360 then they would have the weaker console and it would be the opposite of the situation we have now. If they had gone a different direction at the inception of the console then who knows?
#10 Posted by lamprey263 (22836 posts) -
you'd need at least a few dozen more ifs to see drastic improvement
#11 Posted by jimmypsn (4425 posts) -

PS3 was a travesty of gaming this gen.  yeah it sold around 70 million unit but cost sony billions of dollars in losses which I'm happy about.  Reminds me of the failure of the PSP where they sold 70 million but so much piracy on the system.

#12 Posted by Shensolidus (931 posts) -

It would've given them a more manageable SoC, but they would still need a replacement. Proprieteray tech in Japanese R&D was almost a manufactured method of getting content created on that platform that was exclusive, due to it being so unique to develop on.

Microsoft's generally PC-traditional architecture was built in such a way to allow easy development on the console so they didn't miss out on games. The irony was that it was so easy to develop for, it became the lead development console while the Sony machine became the specialized beast we know it as.

I'm currently conducting a research project on a thesis I hold regarding the games industry from 2005 to 2011. I think the 'thing' that held back Sony the most this generation was that it didn't compete as strongly as Microsoft on what I believe was a fab or bubble that occured during that period called Console Online Gaming.

Much of what defined the 360 was Xbox LIVE and the innate capabilities it provided for online games almost by default. It changed the way we viewed console multiplayer and connected us in a way we hadn't seen yet. And it wasn't even something that MS was able to benefit from at the 360 launch. Gears of War was the first game that delivered the promise MS had been making for the LIVE service and the overall 360 experience. It was a huge boon for MS and it was an area that Sony had large amounts of trouble competing against to this very day.

However, I believe that the inherent value of such a service or of MP is beginning to die down. I've postulated and looked at numbers shared to me from different studios, and i'm beginning to come to a conclusion - People are starting to play less MP. It isn't an area that'll ever go away mind you, just that the value people have 'normally' placed in MP is beginning to die down. The days of thinking 'Why does COD even have SP, everyone just plays the MP?" is quickly coming to an end, as the metrics I have seen have pointed to a steady increase in the amount of players who both play and complete the SP campaign in COD. Also, please take note that the biggest console games in the last 12 months of gaming (Hitman, Far Cry 3, Dead Space 3, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us) were all games that were well-regarded and sold well thanks in MAJOR part to them having fully-fleshed out SP campaigns.

#13 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23432 posts) -

had they left out the cell and blu ray multiplats would not have been crippled and it would have been $200 cheaper and sony would have sold millions and millions more consoles.

they may have also gotten a few more 3rd party games that sony missed out on this gen like ace combat 6 and saints row 1.