Originally Posted by twitchyzero
but they did and failedPS3's Cell Broadband with 7PPE and XDR memory was very new tech with niche supercomputing in mind which kinda screwed them when it came to developing 3rd party games
What makes you say PS4 is 15x more powerful then PS3? lol.
The jump from PS1 to PS2 and PS2 to PS3 is far larger than PS3 to PS4 will be...the saving grace really is the unified 8GB GDDR5 though which I can see them going for 7+ year console cycles again.
That was their initial issue, which got smoothed out in the end. Though your main point stands, the cell tech was never designed to be used in the way they used it. The biggest problem they had wasn't quite the cell, it was using the cell with a really crappy graphics chip. Oh whatever it was, as they had to end up using the cells to do some of the GPU bound work. This limited them in other areas that could have drastically expanded the ability of the platform. Just like the Xbox ran a tri-core, it's major downfall was when HT was on the chip apparently down clocked. I believe to keep energy requirements within spec, still at half the performance cost.
To put it bluntly, both consoles had hardware limitations that weren't originally foreseen. Even to the point where one company ignored a hardware flaw until a class action was brought to their attention, both companies basically lost a lot of money. So we saw them milk their product, because of their own failure. Which I think is absurd, we pay for their blunder, anyways. After both blunders, we see both companies move to traditional tried and true hardware. This time they don't want to waste the money on R&D, and they won't.