And how exactly is that relevant towards the consumer and the PS3? Exactly, not relevant at all..
@MikeB: I don't think those comments are "harmless". Sony has always been bragging about the power of the PS3, but in actual games, the majority still looks better on the X360. And before you give me the exclusive argument, most games are multiplats, and if the PS3 was definitely more powerful than the X360 it could easily beat it without the need of optimization, just like the old Xbox and Gamecube beat the PS2 with easy on graphics. But yeah, what I say is probably not harmless, but if you say that the PS3 is superior, it suddenly is.. Talk about having double standards.. And yes, it's still the case.. Look here:
http://misterslimm.wordpress.com/360-vs-ps3/xbox-360-vs-ps3-head-to-head-face-off-results/
And to tackle your oh so harmful comments towards the X360, here goes:
"However I did criticize Microsoft for claiming the XBox 360 was more powerful than the PS3"
Why? They had good arguments. It wasn't bashing the competition, unlike Sony was doing with its move recently to Natal and Wii Plus.. They said the PS3 hardware made more sense for other things than gaming, which basically is true.. Also, Sony said the Cell is three times more powerful than the X360 CPU, but then, someone from IBM, the designers, said they were actually pretty similar and will outperform each other in different situations since they're built for different purposes.. But again probably, you'll find the Sony comment "harmless" and the MS comment "extraordinary".. Right??
"claiming anti-aliasing would be free for XBox 360 HD games"
Technically, it is "free", because it does not limit the bandwidth to the memory of your whole system nor the GPU itself, but that's only so up to certain resolutions and without HDR. So they did not lie. They just left a part out, but come on, that's the way advertising works. You don't hear McDonalds saying "our hamburgers are only one dollar but will make you fat", you only hear everything before the 'but'.
"claiming XBox 360 failures were well within industry standards"
Well, they were wrong, and they offered a 3 year warranty for that. So what? Look below at the price point for further explanation.
"claiming HD DVD or Blu-Ray would be optional on the XBox 360 but that HD DVD is "the high definition format of choice""
Of course it was for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have released an add-on. What's wrong with this statement? Do you expect them to say that Blu-Ray is better if they support HD-DVD? Do you expect MS to say Wii motion is better than Natal? Do you expect Sony to say Wii motion is better than Move? Your bias is showing...
"claiming 6.8 GB per disc is more than enough for HD gaming"
It is. As a few examples on the X360, Assassin's Creed II is 5.2GB, Grand Theft Auto IV is 6.4GB (and actually runs at HD res unlike the PS3 version), Oblivion is 5.9GB, FarCry 2 is 3.6GB. Those are a few of the largest games this gen, and they don't even reach the 6.8GB limit. The reason the PS3 uses so much space is because it uses lots of space for pre-rendered HD videos, and puts some files multiple times to lower access and loading times. Pre-rendered videos are nice, but not needed for games. And besides, what's wrong with having two discs? It was a mistake not having a hard drive out of the box to go with the console, but there's nothing wrong with the DVD format by itself. So if there's a claim that's harmless, this one should be it.
"I would have bought a PS3 at launch even if over 1000 Euros, it would still be by far the cheapest Cell based solution out there."
You certainly don't represent the average consumer out there... Most people don't know about a cell based solution and probably couldn't care less about it. The statement that it would sell anyway despite the price, bit them in the ass until they reduced the price. This is basically the same story as MS saying RROD is within industry standards, but being basically forced to increase the warranty duration.. And yet, according to you, the Sony one is harmless, but the MS one is not? Again, your bias is showing.
I don't care if you prefer a console. Hell we all have a preference of some sort, and I prefer the X360, but when discussing something, I want to remain objective and not be clouded by my preference. Sure, the PS3 can be more powerful, I honestly don't know. Actually, none of you do, you assume it is because you like it more. Sure, the exclusives look great, but I don't go around saying the PS3 is weaker because those games look better on the X360, and that's what you usually do with X360 games.. You say the X360 is too weak for this and that, and look at what the exclusives on the PS3 are doing and look at the features on the PS3 which are superior to the X360. And sorry, but I have a problem with that.
