Back so ages ago, when the Xbox 360 was just released, Pachter did a breakdown of the costs on an Xbox 360 HDD.  At that time I think it was 20 GB or it could have been around the time that Microsoft released the 120 GB.  There were actual costs involved in creating the HDDs.  A raw HDD would be shipped to one facility, have the games/demos, music, and videos installed on it, then get shipped to another facility where it would get assembled into the carriage it was mounted in, and then either packed in a blister package or sent to another facility for final assembly in an Xbox 360 console.  All these steps meant Microsoft wasn't making much profit at on the cost of a HDD, though it was making profit.

The Wi-Fi adapter was proprietary and thus more expensive because of how Microsoft designed the Xbox 360.  A portion of the Wi-Fi was built into each console, and a portion built into the accessory.  In fact, it's still done the same way today.  Open up an Xbox 360 S and you'll find a Wi-Fi module that unplugs internally.

The intention at the time was to offer a less expensive console, then offer a Wi-Fi accessory to those people who need it.  Without knowing the demand, I'm guessing the Wi-Fi adapter was always produced in small quanities, making it an expensive accessory.  You can argue that Wi-Fi should have been included all along, but the fact that Microsoft didn't include it and instead offered it as an accessory meant that they could sell the Xbox 360 cheaper than the PS3 and more competatively against the Wii. 

No, Sony doesn't do the best to fund indie games on consoles, handhelds, PCs, or mobile.  Microsoft does a far better job for funding development on consoles, Valve/Steam does a better job for PCs by virtue of being the least expensive to capture the biggest market, no one does a good job with handhelds, and right now I would say Google with Android does a better job than Apple with iOS or Microsoft with XNA for mobile phones.  Could Sony break into the Android marketplace with the PlayStation Suite, possibly. 

The problem Sony and Nintendo face is that unlike Microsoft, Google, or Apple, Sony and Nintendo are direct competators of indie developers.  While Microsoft has always competed in the software spectrum with other development studios, both with applications and games, it openly embraces third-party and independent developers.  So important were third-party developers to Microsoft that back before the Xbox 360 was released, Microsoft gathered up developers at a developers conference and asked them what they wanted in a console.  Even more importantly, developers helped shape the hardware available in the Xbox 360 as Epic and Gears of War are so famously creditted. 

Has Sony learned from Microsoft's example?  It said so with the Vita, so we'll see. 

I don't think Sony aquiring new development studios is done in the best interest of gamers, necessarily.  There are several examples of developers that produced exclusive games for Sony that weren't aquired by Sony and thus folded.  Not to mention, several of Sony's own first party studios that have closed in recent years.  There are examples of where this is the case with Microsoft as well.  The point is, it's business.  Studios that have ownership of IPs that Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo want are purchased.  Studios that aren't profitable for one reason or another are closed or sold off.  Aquiring studios doesn't mean what you think it means, however.

Name a company Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, or EA has bought and turned around and "charged" gamers for that purchase.  That's a ludicrious statement.  Sony has so many exclusive games compared to Microsoft because Sony has so many first-party studios.  If those first-party studios aren't making games then they're costing Sony money.  If those games don't make a solid profit, they cost Sony money.  So, the games have to be good and they have to sell well.  Based on Meta Critic, Sony isn't hitting either of those marks so well.  Their exclusive games haven't been well rated and they haven't done particularly well either.  UC3 being an example that bucks that trend, but a rare one. 

Worse for Sony, having so many first-party studios producing mediocre AAA games that don't sell well puts a strain on their overall bottom line.  In the end that's what's more important.  You can bitch about Microsoft charging for Xbox LIVE or making expensive accessories all you want, but the reality is they're a profitable company and they're in business to make money.  Sony has been doing everything it can to lose money in the last for years.  What is better for gamers?  A company that'll be around in the next 10 years, or a company that has to sell off it's businesses to survive or it goes under because of horrible business practices?  I personally think the former. 

I'm not sure that Sony with the PS3 is at the height of anything.  While Sony is holding strong in Japan and a few other markets, in Europe its marketshare is slowly shrinking.  I'm not debating that it isn't still strong in Europe, just that it's shrinking.  The UK, once a bastion for the PS2 is now a Wii and increasingly Xbox 360 stronghold.  In several European nations the Wii soundly has outsold the PS3 in life-time sales, and the Xbox 360 continues to increase its sales.  Sony's marketshare in Europe is slowly shrinking and the PS3 and it's exclusives aren't doing much to help sell it.

If you were commenting on this a year ago, you'd probably have some traction, but after a year of the Xbox 360 widening the gap Sony is not at the height of anything yet.

Cares more about their gamer's what than Microsoft or Nintendo?  What things?  Saying "gamer's" like that means it is something that belongs to the gamers.  If you mean more period, then that is subject to big debate.

Could not have said it any better Marks. :)

Long Story short. Sony has sacrificed alot more this gen then their competition has, And it was not all just to make a profit, But rather to ensure the PS3 would always have the best possible gaming  home theatre experince out of the 3...

Sorry I have to say this is more appropriate. If Sony wanted to deliver the best possible gaming experience, they wouldn't have made their games Blu-Ray based. When PS3 released Blu-Ray wasn't even the definitive home theatre platform, it was a brand new technology (unlike CD and DVD in PS1/PS2) and a lot of sales were just to people who wanted a cheap Blu-Ray player. Unlike the CD in PS1 and DVD in PS2, the Blu-Ray wasn't on the market long enough to stabilize, and Sony threw it in anyway making expensive home consoles standard play now. No pay for online gaming, but they definatly set the standard for home console costs a lot higher now, and they don't even offer a console with a small hard drive anymore (but then on PS3, you kind of need to install everything, which still makes no sense to me)

This wasn't done to deliver the best possible gaming experience, it was done to help the Blu-Ray industry and to make the PS3 a all in 1 system.

Wow that post you quoted was biased. You critisize the Wii, but how has Sony supported the PSP in the last 2 years? God of War is 1 game, and since then we have seen nothing, and nothing is in the works. Sony pre-maturely abandonded the PSP. Nintendo however continues to support the DS post 3DS with Prof Layton, Pokemon, and Kirby, and Wii still sees some support with Zelda, XenoBlade, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Earth Seeker, Fatal Frame, Mario Party 9, and Fortune Street. The first 3 there are 9/10 + titles, then next 3 are likely 8/10+ and the others are meh (depends on personal tastes).

Sony, like Nintendo now, have also removed Backward compatibility in their home consoles. They did this to cut cost and make a profit (lessen the quality for money). When MS made their 360 slim, the only drawback was that the hard drives were not compatible with old models, but at least on 360 they are interchangable. Nintendo removed BC nearly at the end of Wii's life and it's still not hard to buy a new BC Wii.

As for rechargable controllers, PS3 controllers come with chargers built in, but the cable is what 4 feet long? You cannot play while charging at that range, the 360 charge cable is 5x longer, but it's still a pro for PS3 because you can buy extension cables.

As for new IP's. Yes 360 has less new IP's then Sony, but when you compare the number of exclusives 360 has more (not sure about first party, but overall much more). 360 has been getting less exclusives now, but that doesn't change that fact. Also the quality of the games on 360 is higher. Look by metascore, both PS3 and 360 have 9 games with a score 9/10 or higher, however 2 of the PS3 games are collections (games which should be playable BC), and 1 is 3rd party, where all 9 are 1st party for 360, or published by MS and MS has franchise rights.

Anyway I won't argue, Sony is better then Microsoft for 3 main reasons. Reliability (not only does $1-$2 more tray fix the early disk scratching issue, a $3 motherboard clip fixes RRod because it prevents the Motherboard from sagging), XBL costs, and all the damn ads on XBL.

Nintendo however is the best, Wii is sold at a reasonable price now at the end of it's life, the same can't be said for PSP. Nintendo has given the DS more support then the PS3 and PSP combined, and then add Wii in there too, Nintendo reliability is highest, Nintendo rewards gamers for buying their games with free stuff (club Nintendo), BC has stayed in the console for nearly the entire life of it, and although the number of AAA exclusives on the Wii is less then 360 and PS3, they are arguably far more playable (You can, and likely will, play Mario Kart and Smash Bros for years after release).

Also Nintendo introduces nearly all gaming gadgets and controller schemes, while others copy. Analog sticks, the D-Pad, Shoulder buttons, 4 button ABXY layout, wireless controllers, Wii-mote, etc. 

You can't make a profit on high end TV's? Just ask Samsung! They're laughing all the way to the bank. And yes - Samsung's high end TV's are just as good (if not better in many cases) than Sonys.

And Rich people only buy as many TV's (probably the most expensive  "high end" TV's on the market , because they're y'know - rich and all) as people on 100k a year (I don't know if that's "rich" but 100k a year would make me a hell of a lot richer than I am now!) - have you seen those episodes of MTV Cribs? Rappers with 50" LCD's in every room of their house? A TV (or two) for the yacht, holiday retreats, custom limo/hummer - of course those "poor" people buy just as many TV's right?

He only owns a 360. He has an outsiders view but a quite accurate one. Hes correct that Sony did give us the latest entertainment tech at a low cost (even if they had their reasons), they have the most high quality games (especially from first party) with the least shovelware and have third parties, but dont depend on them. The majority of their games are geared towards the core gamer rather than the casual, even though casual games do exist. Core games do not take the back seat to the casual on the PS3 unlike the Wii and 360. Its not just the free online which Sony beats Microsoft, its most things of actual substance like first party games, variety, tech, and much much more. What Microsoft does better is they have better marketing and Kinect. Seriously...in the gamers eyes who is the steadiest company at any E3. Microsoft and Nintendo always fluctuate and Sony always is the most stable E3. They dont need to surprise, just keep gamers content amidst the lack or abundance of the competition. 

Also, the Wii might have sold the most but has delivered the most shovelware and in the last two years I can barely see what Nintendo has been doing for the actual gamer. I can actually name more games I want from them compared to the 360 last year though. In E3 Nintendo is always the console to be concerned about when it comes to making new and interesting IP's for gamers while Sony doesnt have this problem. Actually Ive never seen an E3 where Sony wasnt at least slotted in either first or second place. A steady company every year.