This look to be equivalent to a lowend gaming rig by the time it releases.
Sony is trying to hype what will be another iteration of generic PC hardware with the anti-consumer redundancy of a separate software ecosystem.
The only place
the console isn't dead is mobile.
People are still falling for the trick. It's sad but me complaining won't raise the average IQ. Sony and MS will sell us anti-consumer redundancy for as long as we're stupid enough to pay a premium for a disadvantage. Every alleged advantage non-mobile "consoles" have is available on the "PC" platform, especially now that developers can use Linux + Vulkan + OpenGL to bypass the MS tax.
— update, since I was downvoted without an attempt to discuss the issue:
Logic?
claim A: It's good to standardize the hardware. Let's move from dozens of proprietary platforms to x86.
claim B: It's not good to standardize the software. Let's keep three software platforms on x86 that are artificially incompatible, even though two of them only have to do one thing: gaming.
That sounds like development joy indeed, Lex. The only joy involved is for the fewer who benefit from this absurd situation. The majority of people don't because it's an example of gross inefficiency. Also, I doubt being limited by Jaguar (a chip that wouldn't have gone anywhere significant in the market without being propped up by the "console" peddlers) qualifies as joyous for a lot of game developers.
Development joy would be having a single software platform to deal with to go with a single hardware platform, not a lot of extra nonsense designed to extract profit via the peddling of entropy.
1) Compact desktop form factors exist on the "PC" platform.
Other form factors, including any of the "console" form factors can be deployed without special software walled gardens accompanying them. Any form factor can exist on the PC platform.
2) The "PC" platform can hit any price point any serious so-called console can. In fact, without the unnecessary costs of the redundancies, the price points should be lower. That's why most everyone, even Apple, decided to ditch proprietary hardware in favor of x86.
3) The "PC" platform can do anything with its hardware that any serious so-called console can. This has been true since non-x86 parts like Cell were dumped in favor of the same x86 platform that ate all of the incompatible personal computer hardware standards, one by one.
4) The easy-to-use factor is actually worse with three incompatible software platforms, not superior. Additionally, there is nothing stopping anyone from replicating their software walled gardens on a common underlying software platform that runs atop the already standard x86 hardware platform.
Having to buy and deal with 3 boxes for gaming is hardly easy nor cheap.
Having to develop for 3 platforms for gaming is hardly easy nor cheap, particularly given Jaguar's weakness.
Adopting Zen 2 doesn't retroactively eliminate all of the pain and stupidity Jaguar "consoles" have caused, nor does it prevent a similar situation from occurring later, so long as the unnecessary redundancies continue.
4) Porting from Linux to Windows, provided the games utilize Vulkan and/or OpenGL is hardly as onerous as dealing with three platforms plus Linux.
5) Having Linux be the dominant gaming platform gives momentum to getting software like AutoCAD and Adobe CC/CS ported, making Linux a more useful desktop OS. That's a win for the PC platform because MS Windows 10's anti-consumer practices, like force-feeding opaque monolithic updates and relentless spyware, can be bypassed. Another example is refusing to get current DX to run on the previous iteration.
6) There used to be dozens and dozens of incompatible microcomputers and quite a few consoles on the market simultaneously. While it was interesting it was highly inefficient overall, which even led to crashes. Sometimes, back in the day, a console wasn't much of a computer rather than being a computer in disguise. However, there were exceptions (e.g. Atari 5200). A true console has a unique hardware platform. A console isn't credibly defined by the existence of a thin proprietary software layer upon the world-standard x86 platform, particularly since even proprietary ports for controllers have gone the way of the dodo.
There was justification for "the console" (outside of special mobile form factors like Switch which are slightly more credible as separate entities vis-à-vis the PC platform) back when they had special radically-nonx86 CPUs (e.g. Cell) in particular. There was justification for "the console" back when microcomputers were either too expensive for just gaming and/or too primitive to deliver an experience that was on par with a color TV-oriented machine (a console) that possessed things like sprites, scrolling in hardware, sound (the $10,000 Lisa had none), color, etc.
Back when we had a situation where one console used a 6502 derivative, its competitor used a Z-80A, and the PC platform used an 80286 — we had a situation in which consoles were relevant. Adding a mushy cheap keyboard to a cheap gaming-oriented 8-bit computer (i.e. Atari XE) wasn't even close to replicating the PC platform in a "console" and vice-versa (in terms of price tag, primarily). Back when we had actual special sauce consoles were relevant (e.g. Cell and the Emotion Engine). But the market has spoken and it has found that the inefficiency of having incompatible hardware for cheap gaming PCs ("consoles") isn't worthwhile. It's time for the market to figure out that the same inefficiency in software isn't worthwhile either. In our tech world, which is dominated by monopoly, duopoly, and similar, however — efficiency isn't necessary the goal.
