Which games require skill exactly? I can't remember a game that has actually required effort in teh past 10 or so years. They practically all hold your hand.

 I would say Rock Band and guitar hero are more difficult than the MGSs and Ninja Gaidens they put out today. It requires a better sense of timing. Well maybe you mean strategy well that is pretty much any game. Don't even try to say the Final Fantasy series is hard, the only hard part is making sure you go to the right places and amaybe a little grind.

Many WoW people consider their game hardcore. They certainly play more than you or I but that game is like a casual version of EQ1 which was hard not because it required skill but just because it was about coordination and luck and tons of grinding for little gain....not really a hard game and neither WoW nor EQ require skill more so than just strategy.

Your definition of "Big Boy Games" is easily translated to "Super Hyped Games". BTW I love the games too, but this doesn't tie me to a console in particular. When I was playing "Shadow of the Colossos" I liked the game but probably would of prefered to play it on the XBOX because it was straining the PS2 graphics.

Quick note "Big Boy" is a term only really used by a few groups of people. Neither of them woudl I consider hardcore gamers.

I just wanted to comment on this paragraph.  Firstly, any gamer can claim they're Elite regardless of what games they play.  You can take pretty much any game and put a challenge on it to put yourself above all the other players of that game. 

Secondly, I fail to see how Silent Hill, MGS, FF, Gears, H3, etc. require more skill or ability than games on the Wii.  Sure they're fun, the styles are usually darker, and for the time being there is an easier way to compare skill/ability through online multiplayer in some of them, but what makes them so different that they require more skill or ability? Most genres require a different kind of skill, but who is to argue which requires more?  I'll just stick to PC games for an example:  Half-Life 2, Starcraft 2, and World of Warcraft players may excel at their favorite game and thus probably be very good at other games of that genre, but may suck at the others.  There's no reason to call a FPSer more skilled than a RTSer or an RPGer or vice-versa.

I don't think I could have asked for a better illustration of my point. 

Perhaps the reason you feel my "put downs" were "done in a nice way" is because insulting you was not the goal of my post.  My goal was to explain the childishness of classifying games into "big boy" vs "girly" based on your own personal enjoyment, and the childishness of insulting others based on your classification.

Ahh, another thread about PS3 market share reduced to name calling and non PS3 market share conversation.

Oh thanks Andir... I got lost in thought when I made my last post and forgot what I was going to say on topic.

I think PS3 may dip below 20% once Japan numbers come in, but I bet it will climb back over the hill again the next week and most likely stay there(stay as in remain above 20 not locked at 20).

If you play professionally, you are a PC player. That's a fact. The "Big boy" games are on the PC, not the PS3, if that's what makes them...."Big Boy" games.

QFE

I don't feel that PC games are better than console game, but I've never heard of professional console gamers who actually get paid.

From what I've heard, PC gamers basically get paid from sponsorships, and a lot of it is tied to the hardware that goes into their gaming rig. You can't do that with a console, because everyone has the same damn equipment. 

I hate to break this to you, but you can play DVDs on your Wii.  All you need is a mod chip.  Nintendo just withheld the firmware to do it.  It would be nice to just have to transport the Wii instead of an additional $100 "top of the line" dvd player, since you need an upconverting one that will not be $20 unless you want a piece of junk.

As for the lifespan of the system...I've played all of my DVDs in my PS2 for years and it still works fine unless the discs are scratched.  I'm already having trouble playing scratched discs with my Wii (I rent games and people can't take care of discs).  The PS3 has no problem reading discs due to blu-ray discs being unscratchable.

Also, even if a "top of the line" dvd player cost only $20, the manufacturing costs would obviously not be nearly that.  I hope you understand how profit works.  Nintendo likes it, certainly, because they are currently getting away with ripping people off on the console while Sony loses money on their PS3 sales.

But hey, as long as no one cares about having dvd player functionality, I guess it won't matter.  Same goes for online play, no hard drive, slow copying to sd cards, terrible battery life on controllers (basically forcing you to buy Nyko Charge pack or spend hundreds on batteries over the lifespan), and lack of graphical increase from last generation.  As long as no one cares, Nitendo doesn't much either.  I'm a sucker, too, since I bought a Wii.  I'm just glad I have my PS3 for everything the Wii lacks. 

Sponsorhips AND winnings. Fatal1ty, who is number one on the winnings list, did winnings of over 200k $ this year alone and more than a million lifetime. On a sidenote, it can be said that his winnings are only about 1/3 of his gaming earnings. 

When you combine that with the prediction in his sig:

Lifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015

you get Wii Fit sales of over 100 millions which is 2.5 times more than the best selling video game ever (and it was bundled too).

Not what I would call realistic expectations.

I hope we see you before as it is going to be increase more and more slowly as it approaches the 360's percentage so 30% will take a long time (I seriously doubt the PS3 can hit it without overtaking the 360 which won't be this year).

I am not sure that I would call MGS and FF tired franchises but they both went from 7-8 millions selling games to 5 millions selling games between their first and last release on the PS2. As it is their first realease they should do comparatively better on the PS3 but they also have a smaller install base to work with so it could work against them.

As for what I have bolded, it strenghtens his argument that they are not system seller as you are basically saying the same thing people were saying about Halo 3.

I personally expect both of these games to have a similar effect on the PS3 as Halo 3 had on the 360 in that they will sell systems but it will have little impact on the long run (maybe 500k-1M difference which is nice but won't change much).

The title that had the biggest chance of changing things was GTA4 as it was last gen's biggest system seller bit since it is multiplatform it will help both (360 more in US, PS3 more in Europe).

Sure but it barely sold more than the 360's first year. If it wants to catch this year like you said it will have to sell twice as fast not just barely faster. 09 is a better guess for it to happen at this point but this probably will change when normal sales level are resumed and it definitely will change when price drops hits (on either side).

At their current annual rythm, while the PS3 sold half of what the 360 sold in its first year it will have sold in its first 2 years a bit over 2/3 of what the 360 sold, a bit over 3/4 of what the 360 sold in its (the PS3's) first 3 years... slowly getting closer to the PS3 but nowhere near fast enough to overtake it in 08.

How is it price fixing? For MS to do price fixing on the 360 they would need to agree with Nintendo and Sony to keep prices the same/similar which is obviously not the case.

Dropping your price because of marketplace influence is not price fixing, it is the normal process of capitalism; colluding with your competitors to keep them high is.

If what you call price fixing is actually selling at a loss then isn't sony even more guilty of it?

EDIT: saw your comment on predatory pricing and while I would say it was closer I still don't think that MS can be accused of it unless they drop the price from around 300 euros to around 150 euros (premium) or less. if it only dropped to 200 euros it would still only have dropped as much in 2 years as the PS3 in less than 1.

How is that good for the PS3? If PS3 games need a 360 version to have a high likelyhood to break evenit means that you will have fewer exclusives than the 360 as 360 exclusives don't really need the PS3 to break even.