You don't mind if I take this apart do you? I'm not a fan of either console.
"Videogames have skyrocketed above music and movies as a new medium of expression for developers that can be appreciated through the interaction of its users, or in other words—a new form of art."
That's not why developers make video games. Video games are a business, and artistic expression was not the reason the PS3 or Xbox 360 were created the way they were.
"his collection of ideas is best expressed on the current generation of consoles: the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 because both systems are packed with the best graphic capabilities to date (unless you want to pay $1,000 for a fully upgraded PC rig)."
A PC of the same raw power as both consoles can be had for a similar price, because both use outdated tech. Also PC games are chaper due to lack of licensing and devkit costs.
"The failure rate is ridiculous on this system; at one point it was as high as 66%--meaning for every 3 consoles purchased, 2 would break."
No one has ever claimed that. Citation needed.
"There are minor differences because the Xbox 360 was easier to develop games for and as a result to cut down costs, developers make their game for the Xbox 360 and copy it over to the Playstation 3 (or in other words port). This copy ends up looking slightly worse as a result."
Why would developer costs influence the choice of system? Not all games look worse on the PS3, and it surely has to be decided on a game-by-game basis by the end user as to which version is preferable. You can't just say "PS3 is worse" and move on.
"This name is the Red Rings of Death (RRoD). When the system breaks down, the failure is displayed by three red rings in the power circle."
I doubt a single member of the audience you're writing for needs this explained to them.
"But Sony made sure to spend millions so that games made exclusively for their console through 1st party developers (companies that they own) look slightly better than the best looking games on the Xbox 360"
And Microsoft doesn't do the same?
"When it comes to games, the Playsation 3 has a few amazing games, which is different from the Xbox 360, which has many great games."
Extremely objective here. Again, shouldn't the choice of system not be based on games in general but instead on which platforms the games the users wants are availible? Buying based on potential library is a stupid idea.
"The service is very high quality so it is a worthy investment"
Sony's service is equally high-quality. It certainly has all of the features that people actually use. To anyone but a dedicated fan, the services are identical.
"you can talk and compete with people around the world, you get access to exclusive content to buy for certain games"
Sony does these too. This sounds biased.
"You can also create a profile with a customizable avatar to present yourself to the world, kind of like Facebook and MySpace, except it’s packaged in with playing games."
HOME does a very similar thing to this.
"The Playstation 3 online service has nearly every feature the Xbox 360 has with the exclusion of several games"
How can you bash the quality of the online services for games that aren't on the console? Why doesn't that apply to Microsoft (i.e. LIVE doesn't have Killzone 2)?
and being able to stream movies from Netflix."
So the Netflix subscription is basically included in the LIVE fee. At least Sony give you the choice to play online and not subscribe to Netflix. Why should Netflix get money for every LIVE user when most LIVE users do not use it? Use the saved money by not paying for online to subscribe to Netflix yourself.
"The Playstation 3 is best for people who want to show off their high definition television by having a Blu-Ray player"
BD is overpriced and not yet widely used. MS still offers HD gaming (which is the point of a console after all) and Netflix provides HD film content. In some ways the MS model is better as you don't need to handle discs.
"and a reliable game machine that plays some of the best looking games."
The Xbox 360 also plays 'some of the best looking games'. I fail to see the Sony advantage here. You said above that PS3 games look worse anyway.
"Xbox 360 for the great software titles, cheap price, and the best online service"
You haven't given evidence for any of those three points yet. You haven't proved that the X360 library is likely to appeal to a greater number of users, you haven't proved it offers better value because you haven't compared similarly featured models, and you ahven't proved at all that MS's online significantly exceeds Sony's.
"I will admit that I am an Xbox 360 fanboy"
Thought so.
"Are there things that I should add when trying to inform people which system is the best one to buy?"
Yes; you've missed lots of important points. I shall list them:
1. The Wii. It has an online service and unique games, as well as market dominance. I fail to see why it should be excluded from an essay claiming to help people choose a system.
2. Your essay hasn't talked about gameplay at all - how do the systems differ in actually playing things? Graphics are not the reason games exist.
3. The controller. This defines what it is like to actually play on the system.
4. The OS and inteface. Sony and MS differ a lot here, certainly a lot more than the online.
5. Backwards compatibility and intefacing with handhelds (i.e the PSP).
6. Downloable content - XBLA, PSN.
