@d21Lewis: We're all going to die! At some point...

Obviously your a salivating PS3 fanboy ... from reviews I have read, The Orange Box does not run as well on the PS3 as it does on the 360. In fact, most multiplatform games do run and look better on the 360. I have found this to be true as I own both systems and find the 360 versions in general look and run better.

My suggestion to you is not to let hate cloud your judgment ... you really come off as a fool you know lol.

You Sony fanboys are a laughable lot. You talk of things you know nothing about ... I am really ashamed I own a PS3 when I observe the likes of you. Your arguments (?) are nothing but rantings and ravings of ill-tempered little children who suffer from massive insecurity. Your grammer is atrocious and your spelling begs a return for some remedial upgrading. This has to be some mild form of retardation; I can think of no other cause for this blatant disease called fanboyism. When I read this drivel I return to my 360 and its vast collection of superior software.

The 360 will continue to have some wonderful exclusive titles at least through to 2010 when Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 2 are released (not to mention Halo 4 and Perfect Dark 2 somewhere in the middle there). Things to look forward to between now and then include at least a year of slightly superior multi-platform games, the next Viva Pinata, Too Human, BK3, Fable 2, Gears of War 2 and maybe 3 in 2010, Alan Wake, new IP, PGR5, Forza 3, and the probably excellent Kameo 2.

And until Final Fantasy hits (and perhaps even up until Versus), the Xbox 360 will continue to have easily the highest quality library of JRPG's.

Also something Legend11 said in another thread just made me think, we may even see another Conker's Bad Fur Day on the 360

Long story short, my Xbox 360 will continue to have a wealth of quality games to play, and it will remain the highest quality game line-up/catalogue of any console for at least another year or two until the Wii takes over (assuming third parties really do get to grips with the control system).

Whilst the Xbox 360 will not sell gangbusters this compelling software will result in it having a reasonably long and profitable life, moving a fair few systems at mass market prices.

 1) For a console that had the market to itself for the first year, its sales were rather dismal. Outside of N. America, they were horrendous.

2) the 360 would have had a better chance of keeping its lead had it not nullified ever advantage it got by launching early. 

3) It beat the Wii for one month in N. America only, and that required Halo 3. Of course it's going to sell significantly more than the same month of the previous year when its biggest franchise is released.

4) This is trivial at best in and of itself and because we're talking about very small numbers. 

5) Again, 15% doesn't really mean much, and neither does 3.5 million over the Xbox at this point in its lifetime. It's the same as adding a few million more onto the lifetime sales of the N64 or Gamecube.

6) Those games will probably sell well, but to the userbase. None of them are proven system sellers, and one is a brand new IP that could end up being a flop.

7) The 360's best-selling and most popular games are shooters, sports games, and racing sims. It has a few token games in the other genres, but nothing to write home about. Every RPG on the 360 has been an unmitigated failure as far as sales and/or notoriety is concerned, it's just now getting a respectable action/adventure game(Devil May Cry 4), and after more than two years on the market, it still doesn't have a single platformer. 

All that being said, I don't think the 360 will face any doom in 2008, but its hardware sales will probably stagnate.

What I find interesting is the paradox of game library and lineup. Last years winner by far had the weakest lineup of all three, and had the least variation in titles. The 360 didn't win last year in spite of having the hands down best lineup. You can talk about your best titles on the other two consoles, but the truth was Microsoft had many more high quality titles. They also had the greatest variation and depth.

That didn't slow down Nintendo who couldn't even come through with their holy trinity, or kill off Sony which couldn't seem to get its big exclusive games out the door even for the holiday season. So if lineup is so critical to success why is it that perhaps at best it was a secondary consideration last year, or at worst wasn't even a factor for most consumers.

When someone tells me that the PS3 will dominate the competition thanks to its lineup I ask this question. Why should it matter this year if it didn't matter all that much last year. I only saw two sales surges last year in regards to games. The first was Hot Shots Golf in Japan which pulled the PS3 back from fabulously dismal sales. Mock Microsoft if you like they have more of an excuse. Then there was Halo 3 which really boosted Microsoft's sales up until the holiday season. Both titles moved hardware. Beyond them however there wasn't much. You couldn't even argue that Mario moved hardware, because its quite possible that the machines would have sold without him.

When I look at the probable lineups for this year. Which I admit is speculative until Nintendo, and Microsoft announce what their exclusives will be for the second half, and until Sony commits to release dates. Well I am not seeing any player lacking in software this year. The lineups are at least comparable. The quality gap that existed last year probably won't be seen this year.

For example if you said last year Microsoft had twenty, Sony had eight, and Nintendo had five. Sony might have twenty this year, Microsoft might have sixteen, and Nintendo might have twelve. The difference is not terribly significant when compared to how large it was the previous year when it didn't seem to matter all that much.

I will tell you what seems to have mattered the most last year. No it wasn't system specifications, or the game libraries, nor was it a name brand. What mattered was the advertising. How stoked your advertising could get undecided consumers about your product. Nintendo marketed a family togetherness gimmick meets martial arts in your living room. You know what it worked really well, and on the other end of the spectrum for the first half of last year Sony had perhaps the worst advertising, and you saw how their machine was selling during that time. I don't think its a coincidence. Then there was Microsoft's media spectacle that was Halo 3. From non stop commercials to cough syrup flavored cola.

That might be the most important thing about any game lineup is conveying its power to the ignorant masses. Trying to sweep them up into a fervor of needing to have it even if they have no clue what it is. All Nintendo or Microsoft has to do is spin what they have into marketing gold.

@Dodoce

That is an interesting point. Whilst Sony's big guns this year are fairly high-profile, there is no reason to think they will do much more for the PS3 than the Xbox 360's line-up did for it last year.