the second part is the reason I posted in the first place, highlighting doesn't render the whole post irrelevant, I only highlighted it as I didn't think Sony ever said that and considering your proof made it even more funny, you commented under the same gist, I never once said Sony admitted that, I threw you a bone  to move on

ever heard someone say "ok assuming that is true", yeah same thing, I'm not saying it's true but to move one I'll pretend to accept said point

and you've never proved Sony said that either, your clinging to a personal achievement P.R. statement and your own made up assumptions, because you know, if the PS3 lived up to Sony's expectations it would be a success, and well we can't have that now can we...

and you responded with this:

"http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/110438/Kaz_Hirai_Sets_150m_Lifetime_Target_For_PS3.php

It was all over the internet in July 2008, so this was well after the PS3 was off to a rocky start."

to which I responded

"clinging to a personal P.R. statement......made in 2008, that's just bloody sad"

the reaction (Because somehow it flew right the fuck over your head) was: REALLY... THAT'S where he got that from......that's just bloody sad

in which case you tried to prove with every subsequent post that somehow that was their realistic expectation, all of your logic being backed up by no proof only assumptions that of course you would have hence the "and we can't have that can we", they spent a lot of RnD on PS3 to get the technology out there hence the part of my post you ignored

you try way to hard to be clever man, it's ok though, I still love you bro...

You really think that after the PS2 and after Sony leaders said amazing things like "people will get two jobs to buy one" and the phrase that was something about selling 6m in first few months or similar... point is, in 2005 and 2006, they didn't think it would? I'm sure Sony was very confident that PS3 would match or beat PS2. It wasn't until late 2007 they probably realized a $600 price tag was killing it.

stand alone Blu-Ray players on the market were 2 to 3 times more expensive than the PS3, it would have been crushed had it not been for the console

and yeah it won't have a cell processor and it will have DirectX 11, can't wait for that MS owned goodness on mah PlayStation  lol "

dems aint baseless rumors son, those be factz yo"

and it's because they DON'T use facts, and the never have anything substantial to back up their arguments... see above

now back to the original issue, do you understand now? did blatantly spelling it out help you any? I hope so because I don't what else I can say :/

shiiiiiiiiiiiiit yo, wait till he finds out how much Sony was paying for the thing, minds... they will be blown

and lol at more PR quotes, that stuff must have really hurt you guys feelings didn't it, gawddamn shame

c'mon man

it's ok, they didn't mean it

I love it when people come to the realization that they were clearly wrong in the beginning and then resort to making it all a joke, not a big deal, and we should all just move along.

Fact is, you were arrogant and tried to mock/laugh at me when clearly you were the opposite of your username.

Rol first made you realize the stupidity and then I, not seeing his replies, went to reply to your original quote and now you're all red-faced and trying to forget it happened.

Then you make a new comment regarding its cost... huh? Do you really think I or 'he' ?Sony didn't know it had over a $800 cost to Sony? Son, I guarantee you I know this industry and its details far better than you know your momma's titties.

If you really meant to discuss my point regarding PS3s overall success even though it didn't reach original sales expectations, we can.

"...selling 80m over its lifetime and ensuring bluray's success still means its job is done."

There is also nothing wrong with that statement. I didn't say 80m was its max (I have before, as in years ago, but now I think it probably will do a bit more as it had a later surge than I originally expected) and I did say it directly ensured bluray's success. To me it selling a decent amount and fulfilling its secondary purpose of propping up bluray means it was successful. I do also agree with rol on bluray though... it already had a better market footing and support from bigger studios. It probably would have won without PS3's help. Additionally, you're wrong about standalone bluray players costing 2 to 3 times what PS3 did at launch. In fact they were already cheaper than PS3.

These guys have to release new consoles, anyway.  The tablets are getting closer and closer to 360/PS3 graphics.  If they make a generational leap it will delay for another five or six years the inevitability that dedicated game consoles are no longer necessary.

I mean... at least your post are funny

"I know this industry and its details far better than you know your momma's titties", I can't say I didn't lol

Personally, I don't want the next home systems to come just yet. With people's money being tight the way it is now I don't see how people could want it either. We've seen a ton of studios close down these last couple of years due to cost alone.

What do you think will happen when new systems come along?

Taggedy-tag-tagged