Some of us might think that the difference between xbox360 and PS3, is more or less xbox vs PS2.

Don't get me wrong...at the moment it looks like both systems graphically look similar, but I just think that over the course, the PS3 is a step ahead.  Maybe not the leap from PS1 to PS2 or PS2 to PS3, but a "half gen" or so.

Xbox looked graphically better than the PS2 initially...then when the PS2 kicked off it started looking better over the course.

Although I'm in the UK and the difference between £399 and £150 for the PS3 and 360 respectively seems miles apart and not value for money at the moment. 

I think that this is a good idea in theory, the advantages being that developers would of had more time to work on killer looking launch titles therefore giving everyone the impression that "hey if this is gen 1 titles imagine the potential" and make everyone believe that the ps3 is really more advanced than the 360. Unfortunately sony see the the ps3 as more than a console and as the next vcr or dvd player and that is why they released early (or late?) and will fail this generation

În theory you could be right, in reality it wouldn't work this way. Companies don't have the money to zhold titles as long in development as they like. In the end everything goes in the direction of money: how much money will this development cost me and how much money would this make me.

In fact if they would have thought more about these problems, they probably would have dropped the Cell. It makes the development of games hard and therefore expensive. In fact it limits the reusability of code severly.  Either you haver more consoles sold than your competitor ort you must have a system on which the development is easy enough to reach the break even. Without any of these factors, you have a problem.

Not the theoretical limits of the hardware are the important factor, but what the devlopers can get out of your hardware for a certaihn price.  

 I disagree with you in almost every possible way.

 1. PS3 is not vastly superior to Xbox 360 (nor Wii in my opinion, but if you only look at horsepower your claim would be valid there). A machine usually is as powerful as its weakest link, so even if it has the upper edge in some departments, to be vastly superior you need to have it in every single department. I don't think that is the case with PS3 and at the moment there is not 1 game that proves that PS3 and Xbox 360 are not of the same generation.

2. PS2 is still selling well, but for how long? When PS2 starts to feel outdated and with a growing library of Xbox 360 games more and more PS2 users might be tempted to jump ship. And once they bought an Xbox 360 already, will they still put out 400-500 dollar to buy a PS3 once it comes out?

 3. With delaying PS3 the userbase of Blue-Ray would not grow yet, which only increases the chance of HD-DVD winning. That increases the chance of PS3 ending up supporting Blue-Ray which only is used in PS3 anymore.

4. They will not have a bigger library of games when they launch later. You don't seriously expect developers to just put their finished games on hold until Sony finally launches its hardware do you? I rather expect them to change platforms so they can make money as soon as possible. Also they will not enjoy the idea of having 100+ titles available at launch... too much competition which will result on bad sales on average.

5. They will not have huge supply if they want to take advantage of lower costs, if they want to have massive supply they need to start producing the units early 2007 while prices of components are still higher than they will be at the end of 2007. But even at the end of 2007 I don't expect prices to have dropped that much for them to be able to sell PS3 for 450 dollar without losing money on it.

6. By the time PS3 launches at your suggested retail price of 450 dollar Microsoft and Nintendo will be able to respond and just lower their console by 50 to 100 dollars, which means PS3 will still be expensive in comparison with its competition.

Sony just made a gaming device which is too expensive at the moment, and they have to fear PS3 will have to suffer the consequences during its entire lifetime. 

Yet it can't download in the background. It can't continue interrupted downloads. Its online presentation is inferior to Live. Its SIXAXIS is inferior to the Wiimote. It's not fully backwards compatible. How is it a generation ahead again? I missed that part.

the whole wait a bit to out do the competition with new tech has never worked great...

I don't think delaying any longer was an option for Sony.  From a simple hardware standpoint delaying may have saved money on unit costs but would have cost money on lost sales and interest costs.  I don't see how they could have wrung more than $100 out of each system and the company would have been hard pressed not to use that $100 to reduce the profit loss on each system.  True the hardware problems limited supply but its not like that limited supply wasn't enough to meet demand as it is.  Even if Sony could have launched at $500 then, the 360 could be $300 and the Wii $200 each with install bases of around 15 million.  Adding in the question of whether 3rd party devs would wait that long I don't see how that's an improvment.

The PS3's technical advantage, as I understand it, is limited to the Cell.  It has the same amount of RAM but unlike the 360 its not unified.  It's GPU is actually weaker due to memory and bus issues.  The Cell is far more powerful and also far more difficult to use.  It's hard enough programming for the 360's 3 SPE's, but 6?  I imagine most 3rd party multiplatform games will look the same on the two since they will only use 3 of the PS3's SPE's to make porting easier.  Which is all why I said on the "what Sony should have done different" thread that I always thought they should have scrapped the Cell and RSX when the problems began to mount and pull a Microsoft, just grab OTS parts, say a Core Duo 2 GHz CPU, X1650 graphics card with 128 MB of RAM, and 256 MB of system RAM, make some minor adjustments and put it out.  It'd still be capable of 720p/1080i (though not 1080p which neither system really is anyways).  The difference between the PS3 and 360 would have been the same as the PS2 amd Xbox.  They could have launched on time in force world wide, with a low price, under $400, and rode the brand name and 3rd party support to victory despite inferior graphics again, for the 3rd time.

Another thing to consider, even if the PS3 is more powerful, with 2 years of devlopment under their belt software makers on the 360 would be making it look its best with every game.  Since the 360 games look equal to, or in cases better, than the PS3 versions with only a 1 year head start how much worse would it have been with a 2 year head start?  Since Sony and its fanboys think graphics are the reason d'etre of the PS3, who would have bought it with a $200 cheaper system having games that look better? 

Yes the PS3 can download in Background....the Sixaxis is not the same as a Wii remote (I am glad for that no dis on the Wii but I like the Playstation remote For "regular"games.The PS3 is more backwards compatible than the 360(mine is completely backwards compatible)and for online have you not seen what PShome is bringing?Honestly if we are talking about"next gen"game systems does Nintendo count?Didn't they themselves claim not to be in direct competition with 360 or PS3 really if you want a Next gen game 360 and PS3 are the systems to choose.If you want a game system that doesn't push Next gen anything but is fun for most people then Wii is it.  

Well...I guess I am behind on my PS3 news. Scratch that one from my list. What I am trying to get at is he is claiming that the PS3 is so awesome that it surpasses both the 360 and Wii. I don't see it as being that great, other than blu-ray. I've seen HOME before, it's called Second Life. HOME is not out yet, LIVE has been out for years. So please don't claim their online presentation is better when it's not even available. Yes, you're right, Nintendo did say that they are not in the same league as Sony and MS. But don't try to tell me that all three companies are NOT competing for the same consumer dollars. If I want the same old thing with pretty graphics, I will get a PS3 or 360. If I want a new experience, I will (and already have) a Wii. 

I will get a PS3, since they still have some games that will be available only on PS3. Right now, to me, it's an overpriced movie playing machine.