RT Wasn't 'made to target the ARM platform' anymore than Windows was initially made to target the x86 platform.
Originally Posted by Adolfmay
Every low-power mobile device targets ARM (find me a single competative mobile device that doesn't use an ARM based architecture) It would be more approriate to say that Microsoft targeted the tablet market than it would be to say that they targeted ARM. Yes, the target market is the same as Android, and Apple iTouch, that is a completely different market than the Windows OEM. However, you have to consider this is one of the those marketing implementations that they apply for secured computing platforms - like eReaders (that sell for a discounted price) or game consoles. The devices are tailored for a very particular genre of application - which is why it is acceptable for them to be closed platform. They are sold cheaply because the content that is sold for them is well regulated.
Well I say that RT targets the ARM platform, well because it was designed specifically for that platform. Just like iOS and Android was. You can also say they are targeting the tablet market but certain tablets aren't ARM based. So your claim is even more disingenuous than mine. It appears to me and many others that windows RT was more of Microsoft's take on iOS than a pure business or secure OS. They could've made it just like Android and still meet the same target market, hell using Windows 8 would have been better, but you see the restricted store and strict cert requirements are more draconian than iOS. They aren't discounted devices either considering the Surface RT costs more than a Nexus 10 (at least in Au it does).
Cross-platform play is dangerous, put simply. Microsoft doesn't feel comfortable giving developers control over the network traffic to a client and - in an sense - programmable code flow to clients via servers that aren't under their control. It is precisely that these servers are deployed and maintained by developers that gives Microsoft unease. WoT is working under the same restriction and it is only fair for FFXI to do the same. PS4 is more comfortable with giving games access to remote servers 'uncontrolled' by Sony.
So your saying that Microsoft isn't comfortable with a practice that has existed for a long time, a practice that their number one competitor is fine with, and has successfully implemented in the past. That's forward thinking to you? FFXI isn't running under any restrictions. It has been working flawlessly on both the 360 and PS3 for a number of years.
How many developers\small dev. teams do you think could afford to independantly work and fund a project for an initial cost of $10 thousand dollars? Yet people complain about needing Microsoft as a publisher for their software (which is infinitely cheaper and more practical) and free upuntil the final stages of the project.
Umm, shitloads I guess. Right now for just the PS4 there are over 500 signed and running devs including published and self publish deva. There are a plethora of indie games on the PSN. I don't know about you but if I was serious about making a game 10g is a small investment especially when I don't need to pitch or source a publisher and I can set the retail price of my own game. Also can you provide a source for the claim that using Microsoft as a publisher or sourcing your own publisher, pitching your game, then developing your game being free? From what I've read and seen that is not the case at all for any XDK development. Perhaps you are referring to the indie kit that only has a dev subscription cost but your games retail pricing is limited to a maximum of $5. A stark contrast to the PS dev model.
I can't predict what the cost of the PS4 SDKs will be, but naturally I suspect them to be around the same price, if not more.
I expect the full devkit (debugging console and extras) to be at a similar cost if not a bit cheaper (due to the console being more akin to PC's used for debugging in the first place), but multiple devs and reps have stated that a devkit is not required to develop games on the PS4 nor is it required to meet the self-publish requirement. In fact I'm pretty sure a number of games at E3 were built using only a software kit and not the devkit (Octodad was one of them I think).
I am trying to tell you that the bottle-neck isn't hardware so much as it is cost now.
And I am telling you that costs are not directly associated with either Microsoft or Sony.
You can't make make a statement that compasses an entire organization and claim it to be true in your perpsective when you haven't experienced more than a very small portion of it. It is at least an entirely meaningless statement to make.
I most certainly can. Unless you are saying I am not allowed to form my own opinion on a company. Again the number of products I've experienced is irrelevant considering I am making a subjective observation and not an objective analysis of the company. I'm a consumer not an auditor Jeremy.