| Sporticus said: Except the PS2 cost $300 dollars, not $600. And how is the long term going to benefit a console that has chased away the consumer and third party developer early on handing over the lead to someone else. Please show me an instance in any generation past where this well-wishing strategy of yours for the Ps3 has ever happened. Developers and Consumers aren't going to just suddenly wake up one day and say, "hey, the PS3 has had better graphics for four years, we should support that now, good thing they planned ahead with good graphics, we obviously only thought graphics were going to get worse over time, never mind that all the games are now on the Wii and 360." This asinine theory that Sony somehow planned for the long term investment is just ludicrous and completely unfounded. All they did was create a console that shot itself in the foot early on by being too big too soon simply to try and bully the competition with short sighted tactics of shock and awe via its graphical superiority. I realize such words may not be prudent for a Sony forum and the PS3 may in fact not be doomed, but you seriously need to wake up and start putting together some more realistic / palatable theories about how it's going to happen because this long term graphical investment theory of yours is the worst since people started comparing consoles to luxury cars. Look at the stuff you're spewing out! Is this a Sony forum or a support group for PS3 owners. |
LOL
Thats some good old Gballzack stuff.
