.........which has nothing to do with what Gearbox said OR what I replied.  Plus, I'm pretty sure that 6.5 number is not quite accurate.  Not to mention that MS is now making profit on every machine sold, and the widely reported 600% sales increase coupled with the permanent price drop taking the Arcade down to $199 surely WILL rile the stockholders.  In fact, it already has.

Sony has absolutely no wiggle room to come down in price on the PS3 right now.  They have indeed priced themselves out of the race so far.  In the business world, that is what you call "bad".  Trying to point out that Microsoft has had losses too does not really improve the situation for Sony.  So nice try, but that logic doesn't quite work.

Any reason I had to buy a PS3 went out the door when Silent Hill 5 and Resident Evil 5 went to the X360.

Quite a few 360 owners buy a 2nd 360 before thinking about getting a PS3. But I think the market is pretty much saturated now with 360s. The next thing to buy if your a 360 owner would be a PS3. The PS3 market will saturate as well, but it will sell more, having a bigger market than the 360, due to it being a Blu-ray player. It will be on two markets, instead of the 360s one. Now, there might not be as many gamers on the PS3 compared to the 360, but it will sell more.

As for me, I have two 360s, one PS3, one Wii, three PSPs, one DS

Hell No, NEVER.

The argument that "everyone who wants a 360 already has one" is hilarious to me.  People have been saying this for a year, yet the 360 keeps selling.  If the market were saturated with any of the three consoles, they would no longer be selling.  That logic is just plain incorrect. 

You are right about the BluRay thing, but the question is how many people actually want BluRay?  I'm still amazed by how many people don't even know what BluRay is!!  I think everyone in my family and circle of friends right now has an HDTV.  Not one of them has a BluRay player or a PS3, and not one of them has a desire to get either one.  I really think that digital distribution and on demand viewing through the cable companies is going to hurt BluRay's case.

I'll be getting one. I'm very excited about some of the games coming out for it that the 360 won't see, and I love movies also so Blu Ray will be nice. I'll still buy all equal multiplatforms on the 360 because of the Gamerscore League, but I would have my eyes on MGS4, Disgaea 3, BlazBlue, Heavy Rain, Little Big Planet and maybe Resistance 2 if it turns out spectacular. God of War III, whatever Team ICO is working on and Twisted Metal all have my attention for more far out releases. It's just a matter of when I can justify the purchase.

I really don't get people. A XBox 360, plus control chargers and XBox Live pushes the price of a 360 to the price of a PS3. Add WiFi and you've surpassed the price of the PS3 by almost $100. %70 of the games on the 360 are also on the PS3 and the exclusives(which aren't exclusive, MS fanboys just call it that) can be played on a PC. PS3 exclusives(which number more than the 360's) can't be played on PC. It's clearly obvious which is the better buy, in the end it's like the PS3 saves you the $100 and more or less throws BD in for free once you add the over priced accessories that the 360 lacks out of the box.

I could pay $499 for my PS3 with a whopping 80GB, BD, charger, WiFi, PSN membership, backwards compatibility to 2000 games and just play Gears, Viva Pinata, Mass Effect, BioShock and all the other fake-360 exclusives(sans Halo) on the thing I'm currently typing on, my PC without having to buy a second console and play for 9 years.

OR

I could of paid $399 for a 360, a tiny 20GB, with no BD, no charger, no WiFi, no gold Live membership, backwards compatibility that plays only a mere %40 of a library of just 500 games and then have to fork out another $225 for WiFi, Live and a charger and then to enjoy PS3 exclusives fork out another $499 because PS3 exclusives are more numerous and can't be played on PC. What are we at....$1125 and still no HD movies or motion sensing and in the end the tiny DVD format they settled with will leave my $625 investment obsolete in 4 years which seems to be a trend for Microsoft's consoles???

$1125 or $499??? I'd rather pay $499 plus save the headaches of having to send it in every 3 months for repairs and the 4 year obsolence that the Xbox brand is known for; PS3 just makes to much sense.  Pay $499 play for 10 years, rather than pay $600 for every 4 year generation that seem to plague XBoxes.  In 10 years I'd have to rebuy the same 4 year cycle for MS 3 times and I'll have to buy $200 worth of accessories.  Over 10 years that's 3 XBox consoles I'd have to buy putting me at $1800.  The PS3 covers me for those 10 years only having to cover $499 of hardware costs.

1.  The four year cycle is hardly a trend since there's only been one other Xbox model before the 360. 

2.  The ten year cycle for PS3 does NOT mean that there won't be a PS4 in that time period.  It means that the PS3 will still exist when the PS4 comes out, much like the PS2 still exists with the PS3 out now.

3.  The Xbox 360's partial backwards compatibility beats the PS3's complete and utter LACK of backwards compatibility in current models.  You can't convince people to go out and buy PS3s based on backwards compatibility, since it no longer HAS that feature.

4.  The RRoD has decreased considerably.  Any models made during or after summer of 07 should be fine. I hear it mentioned more by Sony fanboys these days than 360 owners.  Falcon beat the RRoD to a bloody pulp, Jasper should all but completely kill it off.

5.  The PS3 does have some good exclusives.  Unfortunately nobody outside of dorks like us knows what they are.  There doesn't seem to be much that gives the PS3 an identity, and Sony's marketing department is not doing a good job of letting people know about them. 

6.  I used to game on nothing but a PC.  I have built some massive gaming rigs in my time, and I have spent a lot of time playing on them.  This year I got an HDTV and a 360.  It's all the things I like about PC gaming, some of the things I wouldn't have gotten on the PC, and a big HD screen with surround sound.  Plus, I don't have to worry about upgrades, compatibility, framerates, etc.   A lot of people go to consoles from PCs because the PC gaming hobby on the whole is expensive and time consuming outside of the time you spend gaming.

7.  You don't HAVE to have WiFi to play online with the 360.  You don't HAVE to have controller battery packs either.  And the main 360 model is now a 60 GB hard drive, not a 20 GB.  You do have to pay for Xbox Live to play online with your buddies, but in many peoples' opinions, Xbox Live is the superior service, therefore they don't mind paying for it.  Whether you agree with that or not is immaterial.  People are willing to pay it because the Xbox 360 experience is greatly enhanced by having the Gold membership.

8.  I have to go back and reiterate the fact that you are comparing apples to oranges here on the console life cycle.  There WILL be a new Sony console before the PS3 ten year life cycle is up.  The ten year life cycle is a PR trick to make you think that you're getting a lot more for your money.  Sony knows full well that the PS3 will not be the flagship console for ten years.  That's absolutely ridiculous and it would sink them for sure.

it is good not to see sony anymore in the next gen

i own a ps3 already... i like 360 owners, less fanboyish