Games library. But it has to be varied. 

No point having just FPS'/Party games on a system, they need to be equally split...

Wii features games.

Xbox 360 features games.

Theres no difference, right?

I mean you can check the box 'has games' for both.

Still that doesn't tell you anything about the quality of that feature or the compellingness of that feature. Heck it doesn't even tell you about how different people respond to that feature.

Varies between library and major hits on most consoles. PS2, for example, sold on its huge library of games that, in the eyes of the consumer (not the fanatic gamer - you vote with your dollar), were good. Wii, on the other hand, has a pretty darn bad library. It sells on just the occasional massive hit that comes by and is awesome. That changed somewhat this holiday with many smaller games coming out as was always the case with the PS2, but you can see that it did Wii's holiday sales no favours.

Price doesn't really matter unless you ask your consumer for eternal slavery as the PS3 did, just as long as you cut price strategically and keep manufacturing costs low.

ok then, then what feature does xbox have that is of a higher quality and compellingness than what the ps3 has to offer.

also is the feature huge, does it out way all other features that aren better on the ps3, does what ever the feature you speak of make xbox better than ps3.

i could say xbox has a better motion tracking camera than ps3, but that is showing the whole picture. if you add in a controller...

Xbox Live for starters. Either Sony failed to sell their free PSN service or Microsoft was able to make their paid service better than Sony's free, inspite of the cost difference.

The Xbox 360 had more really compelling software when the PS3 featured less, up to the end of 2008 but most importantly in 2006 and 2007, less 2008 and about the same 2009 and beyond.

The Xbox 360 had Netflix etc before the PS3 and captured the early market there. There wasn't the same rush to buy PS3s for Netflix when the Netflix audience, especially for streaming are early adopters.

The Xbox 360s Live marketplace has always been better.

Xbox Kinect offers features and gameplay options not found on either the PS3 or Wii and is unique.

The only thing Sony has and will continue to have is Blu Ray, but not actually coming with a remote was kinda dumb. It wasn't the most user friendly Blu Ray implementation. Probably for most people a $99 player is better because it comes with a remote!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Toshiba - Blu-ray Disc Player/1400058.p?id=1218256072808&skuId=1400058&st=Blu Ray&cp=4&lp=2

Since you're talking about America, note that the majority of American homes with internet get it through/next to their TV so wireless was never a big issue there.

@OP:

I was undecided between Pachter, Malstrom and coloured lights, but you didn't provide any of these all-important options in your poll.

so how exactly is xbl better? i already posted reason why i feel psn is better

xbox did better with games in 2006, slightly better 2007, about the same in 2008. and ur not serious that they had equal game quality in 2009, are you? (Uncharted, infamous, kllzone, and more). 2010 was equal. and 2011 its not even close, ps3 by a land slide.

so what, xbox had netflix first, ps3 still has it (and with the recent up date, it now streams in higher picture and sound quality than xbox) so that not a feature that is better on xbox or one that ps3 doesnt have.

bolded made me lol. what exactly is unique about kinect, what was the eyetoy that came out a decade earlier. and what significant new gameplay can kinect accomplish that the ps eye and move cant. (also kinect is very limited in the games it can do, move is not. it has camera, motion controller, and navcon).

your really reaching here. your really downplaying the significance of bluray. and ignoring ps3 numerous features that A)xbox doesnt have or B) ps3 does better. also all ps3's come with this thing called a controller, it does the tasks of this remote thing you speak of. and actually ps3 is still one of the best bluray players on the market, actually 2nd best according to cnet.com (ps3 got beat out by a $800 bluray player)

thats speculation, but if i were to guess most people have their modems nears their computers, not near the TV. i know many people that but 100ft cat5 cables because they didnt want to shell out $100 for wifi adaptor (again proprietary)

i thought you were a PC gamer anyway, dont u have better versions of xbox games to play rather than claiming xbox is better than ps3

How is Live better? You play online to play with friends, Live has more users and hence more friends online. That is the killer feature of any online network.

Doing better with games when there are fewer games is significantly better than when there are heaps of games. Also having Netflix is better than not having Netflix then when the PS3 gets netflix, having Netflix on 360 already doesn't give you a good reason to get Netflix on the PS3 even if Netflix on PS3 may be better. Getting there early is a significant advantage.

Whats unique about Kinect? Well the fact that its compelling and its already blown past 50% of the Eyetoy LTD sales which proves how compelling it is. The fact Sony did nothing with it this generation means nothing.

You downplay the importance of a remote? Well sure, Sony did too. People like to interact in a way which they are accustomed to.

Finally if wireless was so important the 360 wouldn't have had such a large online audience.

also Final Fantasy VII was the Game that sold the PlayStation and along with further Final fantasy and other JRPG releases on the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 helped to drive home the PlayStation brand as the home of JRPGs.

your 1st point leads back to what i said in the 1st place, your friends and everyone else has it, so you get it. again i dont know how much more users xbl has than psn, but id imagine its pretty close. also theres millions of users for both, so why would it mater if one had 500,000 vs 1,000,000/ according to your logic if wii online had more users than both psn and xbl, then it is the better online service.

again thats the past, and it still doesnt prove that xbox is better. which this whole argument seems to be about anyway. a game library is dramitically swinging in ps3's favor. also it doesnt mater ive netfix was on xbox 1st (it was on my pc 1st for that mater) ps3 has it and its better on it, another reason why i say ps3 is better.

so kinect is unique because of sales.  nice to know, and since when does sales= guality. and dont you think a $500 million marking budget had a lot to do with it. i couldnt eat cereal, go to burger king or watch tv without seeing something about kinect. id much rather play games like killzone with motion controller and have the ability to play pet the tiger games than be forced to play pet the tiger.

really a remote isnt really important, though it would be nice. you can use a contoller just as easy, and that still doesnt take away from ps3 being the 2nd best bluray player on the market only being bested by one that is twice the cost.

also wifi is important (though i previously never calimed it was) but unfotunately many americans are ignorant (not stupid) and probably didnt realize wifi on xbox cost >$100 and was free for ps3. also perception is key as to why xbl is so succseful and why people are still willing to pay more ($60) they think they are paying for better and more features(they pay to use their own internet connection to play a game that uses you as the server) people to this day still claim xbl is superior because when they play on psn they lag or its slow but not on xbl (even though as we know that has nothing to do with the networks but rather the games it self).

pretty much all youve said was xbox had better games when the ps3 launched in 2006, netfix was on xbox 1st, and xbl and kinect are great and better bc a lot of people have it.

and ive said people buy the system that everyone else has, and that ps3 is better because of said features