the old Xbox and the PS3 are very very different... The PS3 has so much big multi-million budgets games in production... GT5 from PD, Team Ico's 2 games, Naughty Dog and Drake's fortune, Wipeout , Killzone 2, Ratchet & Clanks, Motorstorm 2,The Getaway, 8 Days, God of War 3, MGS4, FF13, FF13 Versus, White Knight Story, Games from Cellius, Tekken 6, Lair , Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Little Big Planet, Afrika, and games we dont know yet...
These are not cheap games... Square, Konami, Namco, Level 5 , Sony Worldwide Studios, Insomniacs, etc...

Sony's 1st and 2nd party are working hard on the PS3 hardware to show that there's more power in it than the 360. And it's logical... even just the HDD in every PS3 can make a great difference.
And with years if HD content and HD-TV are selling great the BD+HDD will be the minimum to make a complete HD game like FF, White Knight Story,Silent Hill and all games based on story and content.

If we look at the 360 we see a lot of UE3 games... Gears of War, Bioshock , Lost Odyssey, Halo Wars, Mass Effect, Strangehold... All UE3 games... That's the easy cheap way to make a game that looks nice but without all the optimisation and personnalisation of a 100% non multi-platform engine... Every game on that list coud work on PC or PS3... And maybe they will come to PC in fact... I dont see there as much potential as a game from big studios with more personnalisation in the Engine... There's Halo 3 ( graphics on the beta are not that great ) and Alan Wake with no UE3... but they will be on PC too one day... So Im sure I will be more impressed by Killzone 2, drake's fortune, ratchet & clanks, GT5 , MGS4, FF13 than all those games with UE3... and they are more mainstream than FPS games.

Really the lack of game on the PS3 is temporary... the only problem for Sony is cost reduction to win this generation.

I really don't know why Sony had launched the PS3 so fast.

PS2 is still fun sell still a lot they could have wait a year it would be cheaper (maybe) and have a lot of games..

 The problem with the third world countries markets, are as you've stated. The amount of money made by the average person is lower than other countries. (Though they all currently make more money than me.) I think part of the solution to these problems would be to have console makers actaully manufacture a small portion of their product in these areas. 

Secondly, companies would really have to take losses to get their foot in the door of smaller markets, because they would have to cut the prices down to make sure they could hit levels comparable to the mean market average compared to other countries. I think the best way to do this would be, again, have some of these products manufactured there. Making a lower-cost, market-specific model might help lower the prices for less wealthy markets, but it'll probably still hurt the wallets. 

@albhum

I can see 1 and 2 of your points. 3, I doubt Home's going to be enough to draw people to paying 600 dollars, not from what we've seen of it. Maybe once it's gone through a few revisions and they tune it up to do something interesting, sure. But it sounds like it's just going to be a 'hip' way to try to sell microtransactions and ad space.

 Motion sensing is in no way a fad. This technology is going to be here next gen. Now, the big thing is, will companies go the Nintendo route, or will they make a hybrid between complex controller and motion sensor? I'd just go ahead and nix motion control from the PS3, I don't see it being used nearly as well. The controller shape just doesn't really fit into true control in that sense, but it could have some cool uses.

I also don't see the Wii killing superproductions, at all. There are still going to be companies that want to make large scale, storytelling style games. They just won't have to spend so much to make them on the Wii, and they will be aiming at two consoles for the more graphical 360/PS3 route.

Yeah I agree with you ampillion. Big games will still be made even with the Wii in the lead, they just won't be big games with the most beautiful graphics ever. The Wii has the same game size capacity as the 360, and better graphic and processing capability than anything last generation by a good amount (despite popular anti-Nintendo opinion). The games will focus more on gameplay and depth than graphics, which tend to make up the majority of development cost. The Wii can run a lot more than you think. It's even capable of running the Unreal physics engine.

Mentioning Home as a selling point while comparing it to Second Life is flat-out silly.

Second Life is FREE. It runs on most computers that people already use in their homes. It's largely populated by casual "gamers" (using the term "gamer" very loosely in reference to these people). These people WILL NOT pay $600 to play a cut-down version of the game they're already playing for free.

Could we please shut the f*** up about this? While it's a nifty addition to the PS3, it's not, nor will it ever be, a system seller.

There are plenty of other points to make about the success/failure of the PS3. Leave Home out of it, it just makes your argument sound stupid.

/endrant

 Home is relevant because it makes Xbox Live look last gen.  Its the comparisons to MS that matter, not the comparisons to Second Life.

It only makes XBL look last gen if it works better. None of us know if it does.

My point is that Home, while a neat addition, is not a system seller. Some of the people here are under the delusion that it's some kind of Godsend when few have even seen how it works, much less whether it actually improves gameplay or the console experience.

 How so? Because it's got a graphical interface and avatars that walk around a virtual space? You have to provide something more than just a virtual representation of what you can already do on another service. Why would anyone want to jump through some hoops of creating a goofy 'lifelike' avatar, just to do the same exact things you can already do on another service?

Here's how I'd of done Home...

1) A surreal 'future world'. Give us a place to walk around that looks like something out of a sci-fi movie, or an anime featuring a futuristic Tokyo setting... and let us make crazy avatars. Human? Sure. Some cybernetic stuff? Go for it. Futuristic angel (Too Human-like) wings? Sure, why not. Wanna be not human? Sure, go for that too. Let people design their own futuristic (or classical/contemporary) outfits. Put up storefronts, so I can visit a real store online through Home and buy things. Amazon, eBay, Pizza Hut, etc, all make custom interfaces for these 'websites', make them feel like they are a part of this future-world (And let them create new, futuristic advertisements to fit in as well. Harkening back to those days of movies like Back to the Future II.)

2) Make it all about the virtual arcade. Make every demo, every downloadable game part of the fabric of the Home experience. A VIP room would contain all the games out there that require you to pay to download, while a Free Arcade houses all the smaller games (and games that slowly move from pay to free.). These arcades would house in-Home tournaments, with people not in the games themselves able to peek over their shoulders in an 'observer mode'. These tournaments earn you free credits towards purchasing a downloadable game, or winning unique pieces of decor for your house. 

I'm not knocking Home since I haven't tried it (Probably won't get any chance to for awhile.), I'm just speaking my mind about it. It's got to have more draw than 'Oh, a virtual place to walk around and do some stuff like Xbox Live' to actually draw buyers to the PS3 specifically because of Home. 

 You assume things will play out just like last gen, which there are key reasons they are likely not.

There's no law says MS has to anbandon it's console, and the Sony will support theirs for a long time. Just because it happened one time. 

Number one, the console maker who is in the lead and making profits off software while the hardware has paid for itself is the one who doesn't want a particular generation to end. In the last case, that was clearly Sony and the PS2. However in this case, it's much more likely to be MS and the Xbox360 taking the PS2's role. The one with the vast install base and the tons of software and the paid-for low priced hardware.

Number 2, Xbox 1 was cut off abruptly for some very specific reasons, namely that it was built on a money pit hardware licensing model, that was changed in the 360. Long story short, Nvidia and Intel owned the IP rights to the chips in Xbox 1. As such they could pretty much charge what they wanted for them (led to the MS-Nvidia royalty dispute...) which led to very high hardware costs. Xbox 360 is built on a different model, this time MS made sure they owned the chip IP. They can shop around the chips and have them produced wherever they want. This will lead to much lower costs over time. Oh it also didn't help that they had a built in hard drive.

Basically at the end of it's life with Xbox 1, MS was still losing money and no end in site at $149. THAT is why the project was terminated so quickly. 360 is a whole different story.

If anything, Sony has the more expensive, difficult to cost reduce hardware this time around (although it's not based on the terrible Xbox 1 model, it still has a lot of high costs like Blu_Ray, Cell, and built in HDD). 

All these factors line up to make it most likely that 360 will be far longer and better supported than PS3. Especially given that PS3 appears to be falling behind in the race for third party support. 

 You probably shouldn't make up games when trying to prove a point.  God of War 3 and Motorstorm 2 haven't been announced and if the last eight months have taught us anything, things change.  I would let the studios announce their projects before you start counting them.