no it just shows how dumb people are.

 lol, that's pretty funny. I have to pay for college, so that means I can buy $3000 worth of PC parts and a new car by that logic right?

You're logic would be correct had I said you can afford a house so a $600 video game system isn't too much more.  To correct your statement with the logic I used, if you can afford to buy a high end $3,000 Alienware computer for gaming then spending $1,200-3,000 on console gaming shouldn't be a concern (which seems a reasonable assumption to me).  My point, since it seems to have been missed, is that if you can afford to shell out $600 on a past time like video gaming then a couple hundred extra shouldn't be too big a deal.  My point is not that becauce you can afford to spend $3,000 a month on necessities like food, housing, bills, education, and a car you should be able to afford however many thousands for some unnecessary leisure pursuit as you seem to think.  There's a major difference between spending huge amounts on required items and spening large amounts on wants.

The thing I fail to see by that logic is that unless you obviously have the money to do that, you're probably going to have to save up or budget it in. If I spent a couple of weeks to save up ~$700 for a PS3 and a game (taxes. . ), I'm not going to have another $250-600 unless I spent at least a week or two saving for it. If I want that $3000 PC, I'm going to have to save up for it and once I get $3000, it goes for the parts and I'd have to save more for anything else.

Now, I totally understand that logic if one were to have a total of $1000 to spend on whatever they wanted, but that's different from the way you worded it. In that case, I totally agree.

I'm not sure how my wording affects my point, but since even after a more in depth explanation my point isn't clear I don't think the wording isn't at fault.  Both of your scenarios utilize the logic I am using.  Yes, obviously, if you have over $1,000 to spend then it's not an issue.  However, if you can save $700 in a couple of weeks for a PS3 then 1 week of savings for a Wii shouldn't be any trouble. 

No that's not always the case, hence "afford to blow" and "shouldn't be a concern".  That is if it is a concern then whether spending $700 on a PS3 is a wise use of your income is the issue.  I'll phrase it differently in case the wording isn't clear, if you can afford to spend $700 on a PS3 but not $1,000 on a PS3 and a Wii then you probably shouldn't have spent $700 on a video game system in the first place. If that's not the case then spending the extra money for a Wii isn't a concern. 

I know most people aren't terribly smart, especially when it comes to money, so I realize that many could save just enough for a PS3 and only buy it.  If they do and they are upset about poor game selection that's their problem and isn't covered in the logic I use.  Again, that scenario is discounted by my use of "afford to blow" and "shouldn't be a concern".  If it is a concern you probably couldn't afford to blow the money to begin with.

I don't mean to be picking on you or being so caustic, just bored out of my mind at a university waiting for my gf to get out of class so I have nothing better to do.

Eh, I'm spending my summer break from college with Mono so the feeling is the same.

The thing I'm really doing is just going from the numbers, it makes more sense to think 'afford to blow $___' gotcha, but then I'd think about the PS3 sales and everybody complaining of the PS3's price and how all these people don't actually have that extra money on top of that $600 without some saving first or if they did, a lot of them were probably the scalpers who had the money to get them and pawn them off. Otherwise, the logic just reflects the low PS3 sales.

The initial thing I quoted didn't mention saving up anything after spending the initial money which made it sound a little like 'if you could buy a PS3, then you can buy other things too'. I hear the argument with TV's too "If you could get a 1080p TV, then you could afford a PS3 no problem". That's where I'm coming from, people talking about the PS3's price like you have to be some kind of rich person to own it when somebody such as myself has no problem saving up the money if I want something.

Merge all 3... PSWii60!! PS3 cell and graphics, MS Xbox Live and Nintendo's innovation and games. Hmm.... Online Virtual Tennis 3 with Wiimote!! Or playing Mario Party online with friends in 1080p. I think this is a system we will all want it!! But 1 company without competitor... I think the system will cost $1600 and we pay $30/mth subscription and the games are like $90-$120 each. Frankly... I will still buy it! lol!!

 Yeah, because its doing soo well that a Sony fan has to create a thread in an attempt to convince people that the PS3 is an attractive platform. 

To be fair, this article was from another website (although to be fair, that was a Sony fan)

If it isn't backwards compatibility what is it? The reason Sony put the chip in the US and Japanese versions was because it enabled TOTAL backward compatibility, so it was basically like playing on a PS2. They then got rid of it to reduce manufacturing costs. Also, have you tried the 'pathetic' SIXAXIS because it performs its function the the very least, although I won't make any comparisons as I have yet to use a Wiimote :P And no, i dont' remember the 'big ass deal Sony made' either. Maybe I was too young, maybe I just didn't care. I can't believe anyone makes such a fuss about it, I even turned it off in some games because it was annoying at times; and my brother never turned it on because he hated it!

On top of that, unless you provide me with an independant nonbiased source, your views on that court case seem a bit squewed.