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

1. Looking back and seeing how games started out at 1 or 2GB on DVD then how by 4 years after the PS2 they had to resort to dual-layered DVDs got games into the 5-6GB range.  Well this generation the 360's DVD format is a blinking light that says "I'll be obsolete in 4 years, I'll be obsolete in 4 years".  The 360 hasn't rolled over and died after just 4 years, yet, but the fact that they went with the DVD format ensure it's 4 year fate.

Obsolete huh? The PS3 was obsolote even before it made it to show rooms. So long as its relevant im sure multiplat games will be limited to DVD size for both consoles.

Obsolete?  Someone needs to look the word up in the dictionary...  If it's still obsolete why is there games still  released and a lot more coming??  If you were trying to contradict me on that point, you clearly failed.

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.

Never said that; looking back I said I can look forward to gaming with releases leading up to the next 9 years(I bought my PS3 after a year).

Game releases in in 2017 on a PS3? Wow you are a luddite.

The last two PS consoles sold for 9 years, so there is evidence that this one will likely do the same.  Also PS brand has 1st party studios, MS has very few and most releases are at the mercy of 3rd party if they can bribe them which is vanishing option as the PS3 is paced to outsell the 360. 

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.

In case you didn't notice, I clearly state "$499 for 80GB"(which was the situation when I got my PS3), which is backwards compatible.  Not sure how you missed it but my point still hands.

Considering that the 80gb doesn't have BC anymore. That wasn't really clearly stating anything.

Well I said "80GB at $499".  The current 80GB is $399.  When I stepped into the store last November that was the decision I was faced with.  80GB for $499 with BC to 95% of a library of 2000 games.  360 was $399 for a piss poor BC of just 40% and ONLY 20GB.  Rip off.

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.

Again, those comments were made at the time when I stepped inside the store looking for a next-gen console, November 2007.  %30 failure rate.

Nope I think if you want 30% you'd have to look back to the dark days of 2005 on the 1st motherboard revision.

Okay 15%....that is still WAY more than PS3 1%.

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. 

Okay, but whether they market them as much as MS or not,...I can still play them, makes no difference to me.

No refutal?  Atleast you were honest and didn't try to refute me, only to fail.

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.

Okay well I was just pointing out that any 360 game (sans Halo3 and PGR) that isn't on my PS3 can be played on PC, no need for a second console.  Do a 360(no pun intended) and for 360 gamers to enjoy Metal Gear, LBP, Resistance 1 and 2, RandC, Uncharted, they are obligated to buy a second console.  Not me.  Save myself $600 that I would of spent on 360 hardware.

Funny you say that. I mean I see you've got PC/PS3 games in your collection so your obviously don't have a computer to play them on as you've got the inferior PS3 versions. Why don't you play GTAIV, COD IV (Best PS3 FSP btw), Assassins creed etc on your PC?

I'd rather play those on my couch on my Sharp Aqous.  But if it means playing on my 17" monitor on my computer chair I'll gladly do it to save me the $600 a 360 would cost me to get up and running.  Till then I'll enjoy most 360 exclusives on my PC without having to break my bank.  Too bad you won't get access to Uncharted, MGS4, God of War 3, RandC, Resistance 1 and 2, Killzone, LBP on your PC, unless you fork out $499(which is less than I'd have to fork out for a 360).

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.

Well I do and I was commenting on my prespective on this generation of HD gaming.  I need to play online, my PC and PS3 are an entire floor apart.  At the time of my purchase I was faced with 20GB or 80GB.  Yes Xbox live is superior because you can message people playing different games, "cool" but not a "$70 cool".  I know I don't need battery packs, I can just go to WalMart and pay $7 a week for AA batteries for the next 4 weeks.  Hopefully I don't forget a $7 trip and I can make it there once a week because if I can't then I'm shit out of luck...oh wait PS3 has that in the box.

I use a charger. Do you think you could work out how to operate one? Btw hows that Signal strengh? Mines pretty bad from 2 rooms away.

A yes NiMH batteries and when they run out, wait 5 hours for them to charge.  Just sit there watching the charger in my wall till the the light goes green....nah an included charger sounds better.

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.

I didn't say the PS3 would do solo 10 years.  I said "I can enjoy my PS3 for the next 9 years".  To trick me that I'm getting my money's worth?  Well the alternative is to buy an XThing every 4 years, which taking into account that it won't come with any accessories will cost me $600 x 3 = $1800, while a PS console will do all that in one single $499 for hardware leap.  PS1 and PS2 done it.  An Xbox console has yet to pass the 4 year trend and with it's DVD and requirement on more and more compression techniques this one is practicially guarnteed to flop after 4 years.  If I would of bought it last November that's 2.5 years at the most of gaming for me before the FlopBox 360 flops which reminds me of the time I bought a Saturn only to have it flop on me and then bought a Dreamcast only to have it flop on me.  I was pissed, luckily my PS2 was the right path and I've been playing it since 2004.  Looking back the guy working at EB games (Canada's GameStop) was pressing me to go with an Xbox.  Wow I made a good choice.  Imagine me spending $230 plus $70 for Live only to have MS pull the plug on me and watch my $300 investment vanish.  My PS2 was $170, no need to get any extras and it still lasts me.  At the rate me PS2 costs me $42.50 per year of gaming.  A XBox would of cost me $230 per year of gaming.  The cycle repeats it's self again with everything pointing to another 4 year and then.....FLOP, smack on the ground, off the cliff, down the toilet.  Maybe if Microsoft guarnteed my investment would be worth while I'd consider it....nah my PS3 and PC can handle that....no need for a 2nd console.

Get an accountant to do your tax returns dude! You're not so good on the financial maths.

So keen to point out an error in my math, yet you show no error.  Why don't you point it out?  Maybe there is nothing wrong with my math.

$230 + $70 = $300

$170 / 4 years = $42.50

Oh wait?  Did you just fail to refute once more?  My my, this is getting to be a bad habit for you.

PS3 + PC costs less and gives you access to WAY more games than a 360 + overpriced essential accessories + PC.  It's a fact.