i want to say : the ps3 is better , u guys get a three years warrenty and so u buy it and say it;s better
i get one year so ps3 is better :)

Some?  I thought it was Microsoft that is laying siege to Sony console dominance this gen.

The only tower I see crumbling this gen is the one Sony used to sit on.  They lost market share to Microsoft and Nintendo this gen.  The GameCube 2 is essentially kicking Sony butts in all territories.

As interesting as Home looks, assuming Sony EVER releases the final version, consumers aren't realistically going to buy a console to fool around with the equivalent of Second Life unless they were already set on buying a PS3 for the current library, Blu-Ray, or any of the currently existing reasons why people presumably own one.

It's a very nice addition to the PSN, nothing more.

Most consumers are simply waiting on the right price for the PS3. I've been hearing that from Joe Average consumer from Day 1 when he choked on the $600 price tag.

So no; HD market share is not already determined a mere two years later.

Only when hardware sales plateau, and no subsequent catalysts change sales trends, is anything determined.

The article is flawed but he's got a nice point here and there, it's done in the optimistic tone for Sony's end which is a bias in itself, when you look at just the facts 360 has hit a few bumps but if thats so PS3 fell on its face out of the gate and has been trying to stumble over itself to recover ever since, they're both great machines and there's a little bit too much bias in the article by not nailing PS3 as hard as 360.

A. This article claims LBP is a casual game. False. It's actually a bridge title.

B. This article attempts to marginalize Gears of War 2, with Resistance 2 and Killzone 2. Ignorance.

C. This article fails to mention DLC for GTAIV and Fallout 3.

D. This article mentions that MGSIV is "still exclusive" as if it were a failure on Microsoft's part, yet marginalizes other large exclusives MS was able to steal.



This article is written with a basic premise of truth. The 360 is losing ground to the PS3. However, it ventures off its path in attempts to justify and explain that truth. Though the article makes small attempts to also include the Wii, is appears to be very positive about the Playstation 3. In doing so, it does injustice to the Xbox 360.

The article and its writer are pro-Sony. The conclusions are correct, but the path there is full of presumptive fanboyism. Anyone who reads this article, and still claims it is an unbiased look at the current landscape is either in the tank for Sony, or has a poor understanding and comprehension of the article or the facts and opinions that it attempts to portray.

That'll do 'er.

I always like your posts, ZenfoldorVGI. And your avatar too.

seems a quite logical argument to me

@Zen What the hell is a bridge title. You just invented that correct?

Besides Arstechnica is definitely not pro Sony. In the first year they killed it. And the Wii is completely irrelevant to the article unless you simply want to say something against the Ps3 or 360.

Apart from that you are not wrong

I believe I'm the one who had this discussion. If I recall, we both presented very excellent arguments for our perspective sides.

I feel it loses something in the telling, however.

If one was so inclined to rehash such an argument, I would simply point them to my posting history, as reopening such a well argued point would be nothing short of redundancy.

Were I to search ZenfoldorVGI's posting history, I think it would be best to start by searching for the term "Geometry Wars" about two months back, and they will eventually come upon a large list of games not available on the PS3, that are available on the 360. The reading of the thread containing those comments would be the best bet to find well argued expression on both sides.

Now, as for the argument that the PS3's library is catching up, in a way, I agree. Soon, the sheer number of available games for both consoles will make the absolute number of those older non-PS3 games seem to be only a small percentage of those available. However, this advantage is actually a magicians trick of scaling. Its number should remain fairly absolute. I feel the PS3 and 360 are recieving games not available on a competing home console at a nearly identical rate, or perhaps the 360 is even getting games slightly faster.

I normally don't agree with using metacritic or gamerankings to prove library, and I'm not doing so here. Instead I'm only putting it up for consideration that I feel it is very unlikely that the PS3 will ever catch the 360 in percieved advantage based on metacriric or gamerankings, respecitively, on the front of sheer avaialble games above "x" percentage score. That's a fairly common assumption that this article fails to mention, despite its assertion that MS is losing in the games race due to PS3 exclusives, which is by and fact, absolutely ludicrious.