siedod el tema es que la evolución gráfica se daba casi cada año, no había estancamiento en ese sentido
Sabéis que esa falsa evolución gráfica fue cosa de Sony?
Sony hizo PS2 (y PS3) complicadísima de programar y con poca documentación a propósito para que se notase una evolución constante, de forma que los usuarios no pudimos disfrutar de todo su potencial desde el minuto uno, y los programadores se comieron la cabeza muchísimo, una buena parte del desarrollo era investigar como aprovechar su hardware (al nivel más básico, aparte de que luego puedan haber nuevas técnicas que aprovechen mejor el hardware), y eso fue un proceso de años
Para quién quiera saber más sobre el tema:
https://www.denofgeek.com/games/playstation-2-difficult-to-develop-retrospective-legacy/#:~:text=It%20was%20the%20input%20that,new%20to%20all%20of%20them.&text=That%20leads%20us%20to%20the,the%20console's%20absurd%20learning%20curve.
If another gaming platform let you go from “A to B,” the PS2’s architecture asked you to go from “A through A1, A2, A3, and A4 to get to B.” Even if you got through A-A3, a failure at A4 meant that there was a chance the whole thing probably wouldn’t work or at least wouldn’t be utilizing the full potential of the console. Every part of the PS2’s architecture was a new, moving hoop, and developers had to usually navigate all of them successfully in order to get even simpler processes to run.
“You are handed a 10-inch thick stack of manuals written by Japanese hardware engineers. The first time you read the stack, nothing makes any sense at all. The second time you read the stack, the 3rd book makes a bit more sense because of what you learned in the 8th book…There are so many amazing things you can do, but everything requires backflips through invisible blades of segfault. Getting the first triangle to appear on the screen took some teams over a month because it involved routing commands through R5900->VIF->VU1->GIF->GS oddities with no feedback about what you’re were doing wrong until you got every step along the way to be correct.”
many early PS2 developers found ways to simply skip parts of the process and take a shortcut from “A to B.” Sure, they weren’t getting as much out of the console, but at least their games were reaching the PS2’s massive audience.
Not only was the PS2 obviously designed to be more “complicated,” but Sony seemed to embrace a “figure it out” mentality in the PS2’s early days
Sony hasn’t exactly denied the implications that they intentionally made the PS2 and PS3 difficult to develop for. In fact, here’s what former Sony Computer Entertainment head Kaz Hirai had to say on the matter in an infamous 2009 interview:
“We don’t provide the ‘easy to program for’ console that [developers] want, because ‘easy to program for’ means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do. So then the question is, ‘What do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?’…So it’s a kind of – I wouldn’t say a double-edged sword – but it’s hard to program for, and a lot of people see the negatives of it. But if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer.”
Essentially, Hirai is saying that Sony felt the PS3 would have a longer shelf life if it took developers more time to “figure it out.”
PD: PS2 besó el santo por venir de su éxito de PS1 (y por tanto poder mostrar cosas como el trailer del futuro MGS2), el éxito del DVD, que Sega terminase de morir con Dreamcast, que Xbox y GC saliesen tarde, que ninguna de las dos tuviesen un mando "como consideramos estandard hoy en día", que Microsoft no tuviese presencia en Japón y que GC no confiase en los DVDs y no apoyase los productos multiplataformas y casi nada de cosas etiquetadas como adultas
Porque en sí los desarrolladores estaban muy cabreados con programar para PS2, ni punto de comparación con GC o Xbox, que por eso le sacaron punta desde el minuto uno, pero fueron muchos puntos a su favor aunque el desarrollo fuese basura
