@CassadyH I agree. Working in the film industry, it's really just expected that we're all going to get "laid off" at the end of a movie. Our jobs are first and foremost as contractors, and I don't really understand what the fuss is about when these guys get "laid off." It's been explained by developers several times that, unfortunately, these workers are on for the project. Just because that project takes 24 to 48 months doesn't mean that the situation is all that different from if it took 2 months. At the end of the project, most of the people are going to be let go. That's just the way of freelance contracting. And $81K a year? Man... I'd take a few months of 7-day weeks for a cut like that.

The optimist in me hopes that we'll get systems that are much more capable, with huge RAM and other techno-wonders. That optimist then goes on to hope that, instead of worrying too much about making the "graphics" any better, that instead we'll get things like better controls, more options in combat, deeper storylines, or other things. The pessimist in me, however, is all too familiar with how developers seem hell-bent on satisfying the lowest common denominator, and how what we're probably going to end up with is pretty playthings with the same-old, same-old stuff. There are so many possibilities to be had, and so many missed. While yes, the Big 3 need to work on their newest hardware, it still seems so early to be moving on when there is a lot of life left in the current generation.

The fact of the matter is, "censorship" is not the issue that this article has with the US. You're looking to compare government-sanctioned censorship against marketing-sanctioned company policy, which is just unfair. You can't just brazenly hold each country up to a different standard of your own choosing - it weakens your position, and shows a pretty heavy bias. Just because politicians are looking to utilize an anti-gaming platform doesn't make their ramblings law. You're just talking about public opinion, which unfortunately is beyond the scope of any legal binding. People are going to think what they're going to think, and they're going to believe what they want to believe. The best that we can do is advocate for change, but when the law is on our side, what exactly more do you want?

The Xbox looks better, I agree completely. The reason? Any multi-platform game is designed for the 360 first, and is then ported over to the PS3. In the process, of course you lose some detail. Of course you lose some graphic fidelity. It's part of the process, kind of like when you fax a picture. It looks close, but not quite as good. The power of the PS3 comes in only on PS3 exclusives, because when a game is designed for Sony's console, they don't have the same constraints that the 360 has. They can fully utilize the cell-processor, and so you end up with graphical presentations such as Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, or even as far back as Metal Gear Solid 4. But as has been said before, none of this really matters. "Ooh, I play only my 360, because the PS3 sucks!" "Ooh, the PS3 is so much better if you look at the shadows in the pictures!" "Ooh, I feel that I have to laugh at other people because their tastes are different than mine!" It's all so stupid. Anyone who posts that one is better than the other is a complete and utter idiot. Just shut up and game, already.