@ MCPO_John_117 and other Xbox fans... Well... Xbox didn't entirely nab them (FF and MG). They're multiplatform games, sure. But that's different them being exclusive to the Xbox. My combination of gaming system for this generation is PC and PS3 and the only things I am missing out on is Gears (awesome game, I grant you), Forza (I'd prefer Gran Turismo or even Burnout), and Halo (which is junk compared to the good PC shooters). Splinter Cell, Left 4 Dead, and basically every other "exclusive" 360 title you can get on your PC... and generally get superior controls (keyboard and mouse FTW). If you don't have a PS3 you are missing out on Uncharted, Wipeout, Little Big Planet, Flower, God of War, Infamous, Killzone, Valkyria Chronicles, and more. Feel free to try and counter my list of truly exclusive titles any time you can come up with a list...

I'm pretty sure braveheartofg was being sarcastic. Console FPS and TPS games have to compensate for lack of a keyboard and mouse either by slowing down the pace of gameplay (Halo or Gears for 360), allowing a host option to prevent keyboard and mouse players from joining (Unreal Tournament III for PS3), making levels very two-dimensional in terms of gameplay (Halo or Bioshock), gimping keyboard and mouse players (Shadow Run for 360/PC), the way in which enemies are spawned (Halo or Earth Defense Force for 360) or adding copious quantities of auto-aim (every console FPS ever). This isn't to say console FPSs are inherently better or worse than PC FPSs as many would have you believe, simply that the target platform must be considered while the game is being designed. If you're looking for precision in an FPS, keyboard and mouse is the way to go. If you are less picky, the games mentioned above will play just fine on a controller.

@ itsnivlem - Though blu-rays have increased storage over DVDs, the read speed of them (on the PS3) isn't as fast as DVDs (on the 360). This means developers must use an alternate method to keep load times down. They can either use "data-mirroring" (which means putting the same information on the disc in multiple places to keep search times down) or they can use the HDD for caching and installs. If a game for the PS3 used all these tricks, it would load faster than its 360 counterpart... but most multiplatform games likely won't due to the time cost. @ m_dison - the PS3 does have more potential and more straight up raw power. While it has less internal memory than the 360 (a fact developers do often struggle with) it also has the Cell processor, which gives it an astronomical computation ability. The thing is, its easier for programmers to work with the 360 since its architecture is similar to a PCs. This means that when a game is developed for multiple platforms, the 360 is the "lead" platform and the PS3 gets a port. This is extremely problematic, since it is very hard to strip the code from the 360 and break it down into the many SPUs that make up the Cell. If you look at exclusive titles (and not ports... or Haze), the 360 has little on the PS3, since developers can just focus on optimizing for the Cell (which, again, is stupidly powerful). Also, if you have a decent computer, the 360 has even less of interest, since every good title eventually comes to the PC in superior form (Mass Effect, Gears) or just hits the PC at the same time to begin with (Bioshock).

Okay, this PC vs 360 argument must be settled. The bottom line is this: for sheer horsepower for dollar, the 360 wins hands down; for sheer horsepower, the PC wins hands down. The reason the 360 wins on a dollar for hardware level is because console manufactures take what is called a "loss-leader." This means they sell their consoles at a loss (they lose money) so that they can have a large installed base. They then (theoretically) make their money back on software sales. Computers don't do this, everything is marked up so that each part manufacturer can make a profit on the sales, not to mention parts retailers. Consoles aren't marked up, so sellers make little to no profit on them. Again, dollars for hardware the 360 wins. (Though the PS3 would easily win this category, it's loss-leader is over twice that of the 360's.) The PC wins hands down for raw horsepower, however. People who claim Bioshock looks the same on the 360 that it does on the PC obviously haven't done an apples for apples comparison, so to speak. If you look at Bioshock running on a 1080p television through a DVi or VGA connection outputted from a PC it will decimate anything the 360 pumps out to that same TV (even via HDMI). It's a good looking game on any platform, but unless your computer can only run it at 640x480, it will look better on the PC and maintain more stable framerates.

@ crashdummie Cheapest way to upgrade your computer (and easiest) is RAM. The components that matter the most are RAM, Processor and Videocard. Of course, you have to make sure you have power supply to run them and a motherboard to support them. You'll find there is no substitute for doing research to make sure your making the right decision!

Well, as everyone has already said, Sony lies. It's simple: they flat out lie. Either that or they are naive beyond all repair. That said, these numbers aren't surprising. The delay in Europe isn't surprising. You just have to take whatever Sony says with a grain of salt to begin with. I was planning on getting a PS3 next year sometime and my mind isn't changed. Sure, I could get a Wii and a 360 for the same price of one PS3, but that said... they aren't for me. They never were. People talk about blind fanboyism for consoles, but they often forget that many people don't buy Sony products because they love Sony, they buy the system they like the games for. There is one game that interests me for the 360 and the Wii is designed for casual gamers (I'm not going to waving my arms for four freaking hours of gaming). Sony has always delivered games I want to play, until the other systems do that, Sony is getting my money.