i have been reading all your posts in the thread. Aw cant take a little innocent slagging?You are quick to tell people their oppinion is flat out wrong, you always want to be right. and when someone calls you up on something, you are quick to ban, a little unfair i think. I love it,its like being back in school. When someone says something bold about you, you tell the teacher.Well when i get unbanned i will continue this with you.

when its all said and done i believe ps3 ll surpass 360.It stupid to ignore the fact 360 launched earlier a year,year and a half, but say this gen ends when next console launches.Every1 ll look at overall sales.ps3 still has to hit 199,99$ points while 360 has only left 99$.its ridiculous but many people still find ps3 a luxury.

I might be wrong but at current ration ps3 outsells 360 400,500k per month.It something doesnt boost 360 sales(price cut,natal)and ps3 keeps this momentum i say ps3 ll surpass it by summer 2011.

ps3 bought 4 blueray cant be compared to 360 bought as replacement.EVERY1 i know with 360 bought it 2 or more tiems,including

myself

In your head they may be wrong but i got my "assumptions" purely from your posts on threads. I didnt one day decide, hold on i will annoy this guy. Remember someones opinion cannot be wrong because it is an opinion at the end of the day. Yet you say to people that their opinion is wrong. If you never reported people in the past, why go down to their level and start now??

I have nothing against you man, you seem like an extremely intelligent guy, just the way you prove your point by putting other peoples opinion down seems wrong to me. Thats just my opinion, i know ill be banned for saying all this but thats the way it goes on this site.

Multicore is the future - but does this mean you believe only the PS3 is multicore? The PS3 has a number of specialized cores, which is very different from the 360's identical cores. Identical cores are easier to program for, and are what computers use - so I reiterate that nothing is moving towards the cell.

As for 100GB games, first of all, even next gen I expect a relatively small number of games to be that large. The ONLY games that take up anywhere near the space of a Blu-Ray are ones with tons of pre-rendered cinematics. I expect the future, having more processing power, will take an approach more like Mass Effect 2 - very few prerendered scenes, and cinamatics done in-engine. This could easily keep next gen games under 25gb, with some RPGs and such as exceptions. Also, internet speeds get faster and faster, so why not? Currently I can downloada normal sized game in under an hour, and what's more, you never have to worry about swapping discs. Also, faster load times. Heck, I install my games on the harddrive anyway.

Why does it matter? As long as the PS3 cannot beat the Wii it changes nothing;p

Nothing beats the Wii... ever. :>

It doesnt really matter because wii has it in the bag, but being the console that comes last will feel bad for the company i presume. I feel 360 will keep the lead over ps3 but only by a margin. Halo: Reach i feel will not be a system seller because anyone who wanted halo wouldhave bought an xbox for halo 3. But you never know

400k a month was when slim/pricecut was new and during a holiday season. It's not maintaining anywhere near that at this point.

Also, launching a year earlier carries as many disadvantages as advantages, by this point, it should be ignored. If the 360 launched a year later, it would have better specs (which would likely give it the edge over the PS3) as well as better construction, and no RROD. If the PS3 was not the fastest system (but still launched as the most expensive) and 360 had no RROD holding it back, that would hardly have been to the PS3's benefit. (Especially since the 360 only sold 5.5 million units that first year)

I love debates and arguments and I never get offended when people disagree with me so im not one of those people you talk about.

I think we started on the wrong foot so im gonna start again.