Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
Well, when a company makes shit that works, maybe it takes longer and costs more, ever consider that, genius? It's like Miyamoto's quote about games (release it when it's good), except with hardware. Sony is Nintendo in the analogy, and Microsoft would be like Ubisoft, farting out the 360 like Ubisoft did Red Steel and Haze. As for "domination delayed," you Xbots built that straw man up on your own for the express purpose of burning it and patting yourselves on the back. And by that I mean, had it fed to you by MS's guerilla marketing online FUD machine. PS3 is selling as well as 360 over the same period but at a higher price and with more competition. |
BAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Did you not get (As everyone else in the thread did) that that line was simply a joke at the beginning of a serious post (which you would know if you hadn't edited the rest of the post out)?
As for the last line? You cant have it both ways. Either the PS3 will do fantastically because of the strong Playstation brandname but should be held to account for the beating its taking relative to the PS2 and it should simultaneously be acknowledged that most of the PS3's sales are attributed to brandname rather than console or library quality OR you can say the PS3 is selling well off its own strength but will never catch the Wii, thrash the 360 or match the PS2 due to the Playstations brandname being irrelevant.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
