I'm talking more sales wise, not in profitable success. There's no beating Nintendo on that one, until the other competitors decide not to take big losses on their consoles and try to make it up later in games.

This is really a whole thread in itself (as you've implied). And as it turns out, I actually did start a whole thread about the Playstation marketing model, and whether this generation will see an end to it. Put simply: it works well if you actually do use your lower-than-production-cost price to dominate the market; it's disastrous if you don't. Considering that the market goes up for grabs every 6-7 years, everyone is going to get burned for billions of dollars at some point using this model.

But back on target, I absolutely agree with the N64/Gamecube comparisons -- and just to point out how stupendously awesome I am, this is another case where I actually started a whole thread about the topic at hand. I started that thread as an attempt to soothe the antagonism between PS3 and Wii fans: as you pointed it, even if the PS3 "loses" the generation, it's likely to have a good share of solid, fun titles for it, just as the N64 did (one could reasonably argue that the N64, with Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, and Goldeneye in the first year of release, actually had BETTER titles than the PS1 did).

People like to equate "winning" a generation with absolute dominance: the winner gets all the good games and everyone loves them, the loser gets nothing and they lose completely and nobody likes them anymore. Plus they're fat. It's satisfying to think in absolutes like that, I admit -- it's very much like a sport. Unfortunately, it's also highly unrealistic, as history has shown us.

Edit: here are the two threads I was gloating about.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=2391

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=2652

Nintendo http://www.nintendo.com/corp/report/FY07FinancialResults.pdf

Total Assets ~ 9.5 Billion
Cash ~ 6.5 Billion
Debt ~ 1.5 Billion

This gives Nintendo ~5 Billion in cash available.

Sony http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=SNE&annual

Total Assets ~ 90 Billion
Cash ~ 6 Billion
Debt ~ 27 Billion

This doesn't give Sony any cash really since they have more debt. They also have more assets (like buildings etc) but those would have to be sold to get the $$.

Sony also took out a loan to launch the PS3. Then that battery recall didnt help matters.

So Sony is one of those huge companies that has a lot of cash flow, but they are very vulnerable. If they take some heavy losses (like they are now) for too long they could be in real trouble (the entire company).

just curious, what you people gonna say, when (if):

Killzone 2 will look like e3 2k5 trailer or even better.
MGS4 will look like TGS05 trailer or even better.
FFXIII will look like e3 2k6 trailer or even better.
GT5 will look like real life.
AFrika will look even better.
Getaway 3 also will look like real world.

or that will not matter to you?

i just know, that when there will apper articles like "ps3 is doomed", people will give links to some videos from e3 2k7 or TGS07 and say: "watch this and shut up". But still, what people you will say, or i just need to wait 4 weeks more to see that? =))

Personally I can say "so what?" because they're not games I enjoy playing. Final Fantasy XII killed my interest in the main series. :p

I honestly don't give one f**k what a game looks like. As you've pointed out, you're merely judging a game on what it looks like, in a trailer. If the game looks like a visual orgasm but the game plays like shoving square pegs into circular pegholes, I'd rather play Mario Bros. 3.

None of the games you've listed are going to magically cover up a 600 dollar pricetag to the casual, mass market consumer. Fun is a relative term. You are EXPECTED to have fun with a gaming console, you don't buy it for any other reason outside to have fun. Just because a game looks better doesn't immediately translate into it being more fun, and if Average Joe A can have fun with any one game on any of the three consoles, which do you think he's going to pick? The most expensive of the 3? Not likely.

Regardless, this is discussion primarily based on the history and correlations brought to us by the past in the market. What happens when Microsoft buys out Sony? What happens when Nintendo unleashes its Pokemon-themed giant mech armies to take over the eastern hemisphere? What happens when World War III strikes? Noone can tell you these futures, when they'll happen, if they'll happen, so how can you just assume a few more games is going to suddenly right Sony's sinking ship?

Edit- I say the first paragraph coming from a stint in PC gaming. I remember playing games on the PC that would look like ass compared to what other people's machines could put out, because I couldn't afford the top-of-the-line video cards. But that was never the issue. If the game was fun enough, be it single or multiplayer, I didn't wish for the upgraded card, I just went on playing and being happy with the game. 

It really won't matter to me ...

I may be the only one, but I am so tired of most game series and genres. There is a reason why every version of Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Grand Turismo has sold worse than the previous version; people like me have played so many games like this that nothing can get me interested in them anymore. "Photorealistic" graphics do not make up for the fact that these games are going to be virtually identical to a game I have already played and am bored of.

 of course those dont matter, only old mario and waggle matters.

MGS was all real time, FF13 had real time gameplay.

Psst. Thanks for contributing to the thread. Your 'addition' to the discussion was greatly appreciated.

 Edit- Sorry, I also meant to add, "Troll.", to this post. Thanks in advance.

 got your panties in a twist.

its funny ad hell reading wii fanboys write pages of how FF13 or MGS4 dont matter, how GT is not a big seller and all their BS.