Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'GBAtemp & Scene News' started by Chary, Nov 9, 2017.
no so it can be called the valve vita
pretty cheesy pun i know
I disagree. Sony invested heavily for the PS3 & PS Vita era. The problem is they tried to be too clever which ended up putting too much cost on the console, which in turn passing down to buyer. Sony bit more than they can chew. Pretty much PS3 was to be ultimate home entertainment system with the latest Bluray technology, developer unfriendly Cell processor ... Game console is known with overheating issue. Overambitious backfired as the more you use the faster it is getting to its death bed. It's one of those case where you want specialist devices, and Sony can release special edition with Blueray a little later once they fix the overheating issue design flaw. Also not many shipped with backward compatible for PS2 stinks, as PS3 faced stiff competition from XBOX 360 for games. Not using the PS2 edge to help keeping the faithfuls is shooting their own feet.
PS Vita was similar. I explained in my previous post. I will add that Sony tried to use Vita to compete with not only DS & 3DS, but Mp3 players and smart phones. Nintendo focus on games which its console is purposed for. With game console you need build the game library first. Feature can come later with newer revision. By keep producing games, Nintendo subtly encourage people to update. Most of common users do. This narrow the hacker back in the days. Without games, people wouldn't care about Vita as the hardcore game should be better played on the home console given the all round overpriced cost of Vita. Nintendo and smart phones share the silly smaller games market. Vita is just too big for mere music players. Sony can't compete in app market. Vita ain't dedicated built for. All the amazing securities of Vita actually adds the extra kick on Vita dead body as homebrew scene found it too hard to get PSP emulator to work. It's like Sony was trying to kill the PSP themselves.
Enter Dark Knight quote for PS Vita...
Agree. Microsoft got carried away with Xbox One after Xbox 360 success and stepped straight to Sony PS3 & PS Vita car crash. Gaming console sole purpose is dedicated gaming. Losing focus on that then it's a piece of overprice PC.
Build a dedicated gaming system first and add games, then upgrade with newer revision instead of downgrading (PS Vita Slim, PS3 killing off PS2 backward compatibility)
Hey, at least they're learning their lesson
Not really. They're still ignoring their user base when it comes to what's actually desired out of their systems.
Oh right, if they did listen, there'd be less issues.
Nah. However their handheld market wouldn't be shit.
Let's talk in a few months. A little ridiculous to assume that after one week of new hardware selling well to think that the momentum will be maintained. I'd like to see the X continue to succeed in order to up the competition which in turn breeds better games, but the first month of sales are going to be good regardless of the hardware, so long as it's coming from one of the big 3, hell even the Wii U had a strong first month on the market.
Good thing I never bought a Vita
If you don't know much about hardware, we speak up and make a fool of yourself? The Vita's CPU had a maximum clockspeed of 2GHz each core and was downclocked to a lower clock deliberately because CPU power was not required for gaming, a strong GPU was, which is why the Vita was equipped with a PowerVR GPU. That, and having multiple cores run at a lower speed as opposed to less cores at a higher speed is beneficial thanks to parallelism. It took a while for phones to catch up with what the Vita could render. Next time check the actual chip you're talking about and read up on the Megahertz Myth.
... So it is a high end CPU that was downclocked? How is that any different from not having a high end CPU at all? It's irrelevant whether it can go up to 2GHz or 10GHz or whatever if it is not used. I am not saying a strong CPU was required, but that doesn't make the specs high-end. Parallelism etc etc, sure, but the difference between 444MHz and 1.2GHz is a bit... Big. I didn't mean to say you can compare it directly through clockspeeds, but the difference is not irrelevant. Plus, regardless of my understanding or lack thereof, you needn't be so... Aggressive. Chill out.
I'm not aggressive. A difference in megahertz is irrelevant, megahertz is a measurement of CPU cycles per second, not a measurement of processed instructions - it has nothing to do with performance, read up on the Megahertz Myth. CPU power was not required, GPU power was, so the CPU was downclocked in order to maximise battery life - it's an easy trade-off.
the age of handheld gaming is dying....
Sure you aren't. Megahertz myth? Ha. I am familiar with it. Comparing clock speeds is not meaningless in the case of the S2 and PSV as they use similar CPUs (both use Cortex A9 cores, etc). The IPC shouldn't differ too much, I suppose. I would love for a benchmark to exist to allow for better comparisons, but no such thing exists as far as the Vita is concerned.
Everyone who owns a switch begs you differ. Switch isn't a perfect console by any means but being able to play great games on the go is pretty sick. That said, it's definitely not a pocket sized console though
Jeez. Re read.
Vita didn't need to get to max processing power because it doesn't need to. It's like to say F1 car is not better than regular car comparing a regular car running on empty free way vs F1 car being stuck in school zone speed.
The point regarding Vita used to have top spec for handheld stands. Vita failed to tap into its potential is Sony fault. If Vita was a hit and app, games with more demand being ported, then for sure Sony would have release the inner power it has
Tbh, seeing as I seem to carry a backpack everywhere I go, it not being too small doesn't really bother me.
— Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —
I never said it needed any more. As far as I can remember, the phrasing used was "top smartphone specs" and that was the only thing I was disagreeing with. I never said it was a weak handheld (especially seeing as its competitors are so weak as they are)
i forget about the switch... but what i meant is by sony not joining in the war.
I don't like this "war" term that I see so many players throwing around, I'll say. It seems to spawn a lot of "omg your console sucks" over time, for no real reason other than "platform wars", and also seems to be used a lot by fanboys to defend their platform of choice like their lives depended on it. Just wanted to state that. I don't feel it is an accurate term.
I believe Sony tackle the problem wrong with Vita. Vita could have been built with PSTV hook to TV feature from the get go and advertised as portable home console which has its own library and support for port from their other system: PS1 PSP PS2, PS3. It has enough power to get demanding game built in its time. Instead Sony tried to play against smart phone, music players and Nintendo gaming handheld console in 1 go as a dedicated multimedia handheld.
You can compare the actual SoC's - the Vita is using a Cortex-A9 MPCore coupled with the SGX543MP4+ GPU, a modified version of the GPU that powers the iPad 3.