Can we agree that Sony is best gaming hardware maker of all time?

I don't really care about old games, you're right.

But I just felt like putting it out there.

PS2's were extremely faulty and the Slims have awful drive lens and compatibility issues with games and peripherals. The PS3 had Ylod and the first batch of Slims had faulty wifi cards. On top of this, these 2 systems had very disproportionate hardware with more bottlenecks than a strainer has holes.

@kingtito: God you sound stupid.

"hahaha u mad bro...yeah u mad.....mad u r....LAMOBBQ!!!!!"

Ugh....what a joke.

And you sound like a butthurt cow

Stay mad amigo....stay mad

@kingtito: Don't call me amigo....I'm caucasian.

And you're probably not even hispanic.

indefinitely. Just compare the technical prowess of something like the 3ds to the Vita, it's night and day.

Nope, for me SNES and PS1 are the best consoles ever, but imo Nintendo would be best for me, Sony and MS have been pretty even for me as far as how much enjoyment I get out of there systems. Nintendo would be king, none of there consoles have ever fully broke on me (unlike sony with ps1 which two had issues, one ps2 had issues and with xbox 360 I had two mess up), ever! And I have 3 Nintendo consoles in my top 5, Nintendo over the years has made the best consoles hardware imo. They are not the leader in graphics or power but still have made great systems and games.

@mr_huggles_dog: what does you being cacuasian have to do with anything?

I'm Puerto Rican....does that count as hispanic amigo?

Well as I already noted in my locked thread, sony is not very good at making consoles. They just got extremely lucky with the ps1 because nintendo and sega screwed up. The ps2 thrived upon the succes of the ps1 and the ps3 was an overpowered but unbalanced, complex system. They were actually a sitting duck this gen but sony got lucky again with the ps4 because microsoft screwed up.

I gotta say they are very consistent though, they don't make good consoles but they never made a really bad console and most importantly they don't make very bad business decisions as well. They are also very good at making games and that's the reason why they stay in the running. I really wonder what nintendo is going to do this time around because now they really have chance to bring themselves back to the old glory days.

N64 was way more powerful than ps1, Xbox was more powerful than ps2, 360 was marginally more powerful than ps3, ps4 is great and all but this is their first best console in the generation.

On the topic of their handhelds they might have had more power than the competition but as far as the game library or sales go they come so short of their competition it's hard to look at them as successful despite how much we might have enjoyed them, just like I liked GC but ps2 owned that gen.

Ha ha...No. Reliability wise the PS2 and PS3 were junk. Power wise all of the PS consoles with the exception of the PS4 were outclassed by at least on of their rivals. This is really the first generation that Sony has got it all right.

No way. The PS2 and PS3 were both poorly designed, very inefficient, wasted power because of unnecessarily complex architecture, and were very difficult to work with for developers. The PS2 also lacked basic hardware features that even the N64 had, let alone the Dreamcast, like anti-aliasing, texture compression, and four controller ports. The PS1, PS2 and PS3 often suffered hardware faults, prone to breaking down. And the PS Vita was a poorly conceived handheld. The PS4 is more well designed than its predecessors, but its power was mid-range PC level upon release, whereas the PS1 & PS2 surpassed high-end PCs and the PS3 rivalled high-end PCs upon release.

The best console hardware makers of all time would come down be either Sega or Nintendo in their hey day. Their consoles were very well designed up until the Dreamcast and GameCube days, powerful and efficient for their time, and their consoles were made to be durable and long-lasting, without the kinds of breakdowns we see from Sony and Microsoft consoles. But the best overall gaming hardware maker was undoubtedly Sega, with its powerful arcade hardware which were light-years ahead of consoles & computers throughout the '80s and '90s.

Sony is the best for Style but Nintendo is the best for durable hardware.

What?

I don't care.

Keep dwelling on this conversation.

Anyway...on to the next more important discussion.

The ps2 could be considered as "outclassed" by the og xbox, but "overall" hardware wise, the ps3 COMPLETELY destroyed the 360 initially like it was no contest. MS was basically playing "catch up" for virtually the entire time last gen in hardware. The ps3 had: a blu-ray drive, an HDMI output, touch buttons, backwards compatibility, and a built in WiFi adapter amongst other things, along with having very minor issues with their hardware. Now notice how everything I put in my post, the 360 LATER ON adopted (minus the blu-ray drive, and the hardware version of BC) with the 360S, and on top of that, had not only the RROD fiasco that took a plethora of improvisions to solve , but other comparable small but evident problems. Now if you're talking "strictly" gaming, then you have a point, but (since the OP really didn't specify) in overall hardware, the og 360 was extremely outclassed by the og ps3.

^Good post.

Sony makes hardware ?

Then why did they team up with AMD ?

4 gens in a row.

It's just third party chips though, isn't it? So not really developed by Sony. They just put money behind it. So really, you're talking about AMD here, not Sony (or in other cases, intel and nVidia).

Sony (along with Toshiba) developed the PS2's Emotion Engine CPU & Graphics Synthesizer GPU and the PS3's Cell CPU. The Emotion Engine and Cell were very powerful CPUs for their time. But in both cases, most of that power went to waste, because they had much weaker GPUs as bottlenecks... which is what I meant before about Sony's poor inefficient hardware design.

Either way, most major hardware manufacturers rely on third-party chips, including Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple, etc. It wouldn't make much business sense to develop a hardware entirely with in-house chips. It's possible, and with enough R&D funding, in-house chips could be even more powerful than third-party chips, but it's much more affordable and cheaper to go with third-party chips instead of developing them in-house. Sony learnt from that mistake with the PS2 & PS3, and so they went with third-party chips this time around for the PS4.

Also, there's a lot more to the hardware than just the CPU & GPU, like the memory architecture, which is equally important. And it's usually up to the hardware manufacturer (e.g.. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) to design the memory architecture (though the RAM/ROM chips are third-party).

PSOne I found to be excellent. PS2 and PS3 were both pretty awful in retrospect. 360 had great design but the overheating issues were way above normal rates. Same with DRE. PS4 and X1 are both weird and weak, but reliable and easy to develop on. It's funny to think about how we expect "next-gen" systems to look and function compared to how they release.

NES top-loader, SNES, N64, GameCube. Those were great consoles.