I can't remember turning down a handjob, but I've never signed up for an Indian Burn!  

LOL....

2006 - "ps3 is dead"....nope
2007- "this time im sure ps3 is gone".....not
2008- "this is it ps3 is gonna die this year".....nopey
2009 - "ps3 will die just w8"....

Lol.  On a serious note aren't those gone already?  And the PS1 profits?

Ps3 only failed once and it has never stopped failing since then.

(And I mean only saleswise if you start flaming on me)

^^hasent microsoft lost 7.5 billion dollars? on xbox alone

can someone post the profits thread?

I've said it from the start, they should have had Blu Ray drives as an option, not automatically built in. They could have launched the PS3 at $300 and totally dominated MS and Nintendo. The $500 price was what killed Sony's reign this gen, IMO. If I was them, I would have launched it without, and offer the periphreal attachment like the 360 did with the HD-DVD, and explain that some PS3 games would need the Blu Ray drive to play due to size.

^^no, Blu-Ray JUST came to china to be made, if they had done this earlyer, the blu-ray drives would have costed 80-100$

no i am not."a sony leader" why is it when someone say's anything remotely + about the PS3 or Sony they are already viewed as a "fanboy" you did not say it but you implied it. as my post history i say good thing's about all the systems so i am far from being a "fanboy"

I am just pointing out people's myth's about the blu-ray format and why Sony did include it an pretty much had too..

and no Sony did not have a choice as a matter of fact because of a few reason's:

1) Sony like the majority of Optical drive manuf. have invested into "Blu-Ray" since well before "HD DVD" WAS EVEN IN THE DESIGN STAGE, and to top it off

IF your company spends money into R&D and building more production plant's so at the last min." well lets just drop this format and go with the new format that does about the same thing's but our format hold's more data per layer. and has already been on the market already "3 year's before even the first HD DVD prototype was even created" with a recordable function already where as HD DVD did not have that on the market but Blu-Ray already did. in 2003

2) HD DVD was released to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray , because the "BDA" chose Java over Microsoft's "IHD" control scheme for the software layer of Blu-Ray

yea spend all that money on a format that's an evolution of standard DVD alL Blu-Ray player's still play Standard DVD's . AN which 11 of the largest manuf. all agreed on in 2002 to support Blu-Ray except for Toshiba that is just so they can loose all that investment money on a format like HD DVD that had no recordable function for the market yet when the format was released.

yea that would be so smart.

But..but they could have just stuck with DVD..yea they could have but the same could have been said about HD DVD.Microsoft could have just ignored HD DVD and just stuck with DVD only. or Microsoft could have put HD DVD in from the get go if they felt that strong about the HD DVD format.

but but..its about choices yea maybe for the consumer it is. but for companies that invest million's of $$ into advancement of technology's that they have to plan for in year's ahead. there may be no other option because they already have spent their money for good or bad they have already went with the direction they did. In the case of Blu-Ray not just Sony but 11 of the other's did also in support of Blu-Ray.

since Blu-Ray is doing very well They made a good choice In my opinion.

Hell even Microsoft made a good choice to slow down Blu-Ray adoption i would have done the same thing it worked did it not?

did it stop Blu-Ray's adoption..? my opinion no but it did hurt Sony market wise so from Microsoft's stand point they did what they set out to do.