a year and a half of constant play time? uhhh no
that charge will most likely get cut down to 20 after a few months and once the new rumble controllers kick in, well it'll go down even lower.
DivergeUnify
Lithium Ion doesn't have the memory effect like NiCad and NiMH (one of which is what the 360 and Wii battery packs use) does. Lithium Ion has the best weight to charge ratio and can go through approximately 300 cycles before dying. By doing some quick math I've determined that there are 8736 hours in a year, at 40 hours per charge for 300 charges thats 12,000 continous hours, so while I overestimated some thats still well over a year of continuous playtime. Even assuming 32 hours thats still 9600 hours..once again, more than a year of continuous playtime.
playing devils advocate here a bit
on ure first bit about sony, they invest alot in hardware allright, wouldnt it be great though if some of that went to creating some dedicated games hardware, not multimedia centers? would tn it also be nice if they invested more in software for devs to make their lives easier.
i also have to pull u up on the ninty comment. the wii is certainyl way behind the PS3 and 360, but nintendo have not, by any means, always used old hardware and tech. the N64 was extreemly sophisticated for its time. it could easilt pound the PS1 silly and was the most powerful console of its time. then theres the GC which was the finest console ever built (shame nintys head was in the clouds in other areas). very fast and extreemly efficent, the console was relatively easy to make games for according to devs and it was alot more sophisitcated than the PS2 and was knows to give the xbox a run for its money at times. nintendo have done there fair share in investing in new tech and bringing hardware foreward in the past. they stopped simply because only 25 million ppl wanted powerful nintendo hardware.
osan0
Your post isn't really that relevant to innovation in the first part, but I'll play along.
All game systems today have a lot of extra features beyond merely playing games, even the original Gameboy had additional things that you could buy to provide extra functionality, the GBA has video cartridges, NDS has a MP3 player you can purchase, Xbox and Xbox 360 both have a lot of additional features aside from games.
Would it be okay for them to invest in purely gaming hardware? Sure, but given the nature of their business and the general trend towards convergent devices this is unlikely and the same is true of Microsoft and Nintendo who have additional functionality as well.
Nintendo as a company has a history of reusing old ideas, they do this often in new or different ways but the fact remains. The N64 was sophisticated in a lot of ways but it was built using a cutdown version of a pre-existing CPU and a storage format that was obsolete upon release. The Gamecube Game Discs were in some ways innovative, but they were actually developed by and based upon pre-existing Matsushita technology.
Nintendo doesn't invest in new technology, they invest in tweaking old technology and they often perfect it in some respect but it is still very much based upon pre-existing technology. Sony for better or worse has taken part in developing a lot of different new technologies. They developed the first HD camcorder, they are the first to bring Li-On batteries to market, they are going to be the first to bring OLED to market, they developed the first real cassette tape, they co-created CDs and contributed to DVD, they co-developed S/PDIF (which bears their name), developed 3.5 inch floppy discs...need I go on?
Sony is no doubt a more innovative company than Nintendo in the hardware sector at least, the difference is that they tend to do all their innovation with hardware rather than hardware IMPLEMENTATIONS and thats the differentiating factor.
Log in to comment