wrong thread sorry for deleting my post

 Your a fanboy, by it's purists definition. You are not an unreasonable ass, so please don't think I am insulting you. When it comes to sports, I am a fanboy. Everyone in one arena or another, is a fanboy. This it seems, is yours. I will explain.

Being a fanboy is nothing more then having a love for something, and then not being able to be unbiased because of it. It's not a bad thing in itself, provided you conduct your self maturely (and you do).

You have had a bad experience with Sony. Most people who have had experiences with both companies, find Sony to be less negative. Your personal opinion is when it comes to Sony vs MS as a company MS wins. When projecting sales based on company names. Sony wins this area (yet you believe they don't).

You find gaming on the 360 to be more entertaining. I own both systems, and the exclusives on each warrant their purchases. Personally, I put my top 4 games this year as CoD, R&C, BioShock, and Uncharted. You have every right to feel that PS3 exclusives are not entertaining enough for you to purchase it. Where this is a failing is then thinking that's the norm. Personally, I can't find a single reason outside of SMG to buy a Wii. That in no way means I think the Wii has no games worth playing. Obviously, they do. Just none I want to play.

You dropped $200 for an HD-DVD player, and you enjoy it. If you own any (and I know you do), you have broken your rule of $15, as every HD movie you have has also been released on DVD. You only now feel the HD movie movement is "not worth it" because Sony (and company you dislike) is about to control it.

If you consider we both paid $200 to watch HD movies, then I got my PS3 60 gig, with wifi, and HDMI for $400, and that was in 2006. I also got an HD player that will be useful for new content for years to come. How can anyone look at this as a bad investment? Only someone who dislikes Sony.

You use your personal feelings about a company and a product as factors when predicting how successful a product will be globally. That is the definition of a fanboy.

Let's just get one thing straight.

Here's two definition of fanboys -

From wiki - Fanboy (sometimes spelt fanboi) is a pejorative term used to describe an individual who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors (often including logic) that differ from their point of view.

From urbandictionary

Fanboy:

A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture (e.g. sci-fi, comics, Star Wars, video games, anime, hobbits, Magic: the Gathering, etc.), but who lets his passion override social graces.

A person who is completely loyal to a game or company reguardless of if they suck or not.

A pathetic insult often used by fanboys themselves to try and put down people who don't like whatever it is they like.

Based on those definitions, I am not a fanboy. You, however, see very little wrong in Sony's actions and defend them wholeheartedly.

As for the rest of your post, my opinions are mine. However, I am a small biz owner and I have an excellent grasp on what it takes to be successful. As a gamer, I know based on past performances, what it takes for a console maker to succeed. Combine both of those and I have a very detail perception of what to expect from companies.

And truthfully, Sony shot itself in the foot several times - and then, they dropped rumble (due to an Immersion lawsuit) and called it 'last-gen,' and then dropped full BC to limited, then dropped last-gen BC for PS1 emulation? And let's not talk about how many SKUs and price cuts Sony had in the console's first year. I sell iPods and MP3 players - and have been since 2004. I would only drop the price on a player to get it moving. If I sit on a player too long, I lose money. Sony was already taken a massive hit on the PS3 from jump, then, when it wasn't selling even close to what they thought it should be selling, they rolled out the 80gb, price cut, another price cut and the 40gb. From a business standpoint, that's an act of desperation. If you want to be ahead, you do things right the first time.

So, MS stumbled. Big deal. They are still selling consoles, they are in second place because of the Wii's wildly popularity and yet are holding the company responsible for the last-gen's champion wholeheartedly at bay. My hats off to Ninny and MS for finding a way to make Sony pause. You and other may believe what Sony's shoveling, but me and a growing number of folks aren't.

And honestly, I will have my new 60gb PS3 by March. The only reason I bought it? Full BC. As far as games, I see a few that pique my interest, but right now, the 360 gets the most action. The reason I got it now? I'll have a warranty, and I can't get that on a used one.

I got my HD add-on only after talking to folks here about it. I had no plans to make the jump, and did it because I paid for HD DVD movies and got a free player. That's it. Even if the format went belly up, I got a killer deal. For my standalone, I paid like $50 for the player. Yeah, I like cutting-edge technology and I work with it all the time, but I am still a thrifty shopper, who wants value evident before I buy something.

And no, it's not worth it right now for someone to pay $300 plus to play movies that are 6x sharper than DVD. And I have told folks considering it to wait to prices drop. Unless you have money to burn or have to have the latest gadgets, it's really a waste of money.

Do I regret my HD DVD purchase? Not one bit - I paid next to nada for both players and I am impressed with the quality. And I have paid under $20 for every movie I have bought (from BOGOs, off highdefdigest.com). I rarely, rarely pay full price for anything (except gas, bills and my PS3).

As far as my views influencing my determining factors if a company will be successful or not? Not quite. I am a journalist, and I have to take a factual view of subjects. Sony is a company that has achieved success in gaming, and because of that past success, they are selling consoles today. But hay, Atari is a company that had achieved success. Now? They are under a French company whose future includes publishing and distributing games. What a fall from the 2600 to selling games. Look at Sega - what are they doing now? The tide can shift if you ignore customers for too long.

I see MS and Sony for who they are. They are big companies who could care less about you and me, but at least MS makes an attempt to appear that they care.

Do you know how fast I would have an Elite? Do you?!?

THAT fast. Shiiiiiiiiiit.

What do you mean by extra content?  Do XBox 360 and PS3 have different versions?

 I have, on these boards, told people that based on their needs, the 360 is the best option.

I do not care about Sony, or MS, or Apple, or any of the other companies that made the products I own. I care about the products. I care about my PS3, my 360, my Mac Book Pro.

If Sony made the 360, and MS made the PS3, I would have the same opinion about both.

Do me a favor (this will change my opinion of you, and I will apologize for my comments if you can do this),

If someone came up to you and said "I don't know if I want a 360 or a PS3" and you asked them what there gaming desires are, what answers could they say that would then cause you to recommend a PS3 over a 360?

If you can answer that without a smart-ass result (like if they said "I want a console that does not play games"), I will apologize :)

Why are you arguing against points that I never made? I never argued that the PS3 was going to come back, as a matter of fact, I've suggested that the 360 probably would remain in second place. Even if the PS3, it really wouldn't matter, because it would just be a distant second and hence wouldn't mean much. That's what the PS3 and 360 are fighting over this generation, basically. Who's not going to have the worst-selling console of the generation.

The gap between the 360 and PS3 is growing? Please. It increased by all of 1 million because of Halo, but for the rest of time, the sales difference has been negligible. For the rest of 2007 including the holiday season, the sales of the two were virtually the same. Both of their sales have been pretty slow across the world with neither one having strong sales across all regions. There's nothing very impressive about the sales of either. Honestly, if the 360 and PS3 had the market to themselves, it would be in serious trouble right now due to extremely slow sales.

Seriously, I'm not even going to reply to you anymore. You haven't directly addressed anything I've said. You've done nothing but make ridiculous claims such as "the 360 has tone of sales", "the 360 was making profits for 2 years", and "MS doesn't make mistakes", and then when I refuted them, you brought up points that I never made and argued against them.

But as far as delusions, you go right ahead and keep up yours about the 360 "selling tons". Get back to me when MS has a console sell well outside of N. America or when the 360 can move ten million units in a calendar year.

The 360 version will get extra missions as exclusive downloadble content.

If I were a betting man, I would say that we should expect a price drop for their more expensive SKU's around the GTA 4 launch.

But we shouldn't forget the fact that they have to recover from the $1billion spent for their extended RROD warranty, so who knows.