PS3 more future proof? How do you figure that? On the 360 side we have seen complete UI rewrites, Netflix HD streaming without a hard drive, lots of secondary controller types available, flexible monitor and HDTV support improved every year, Media Center integration which automatically benefits from each new version of Windows, and so on. All concrete signs of the console being flexible and adaptable, i.e. future-proof.

 I discriminate against the colored. Why would I combined them?

Thanks for the info

I said hardware. 

You could make a lot of those arguments for the Xbox over the PS2 last gen (hardware wise) and that battle shows that it's not just having the faster processor that means it will outsell the competition...sure you could do more and the games looked better (something far more contested this gen) but it didn't last longer or sell more.

the question is can sony sell 3 million ps3s each year for two years ending in 2011? the answer is probably no, and then to win the console war sony would need to sell a little more to be the victor and will this happen, again probably not. HOWEVER i think sony has a chance, this chance in which i talking of is if sony lowers the price significantly, push out some multi platinum hits from now till 2011, and embark on a all out do or die ps3 campaign method. so yea i think ps3 can win or at least even the score but in order for them to achieve this they need to be willing to commit to a do or die mentality na'meen.

Tremble said: Well, You may forget something ... the price! Please guys, 400$ is way too much for average american/european, wait the console to go under the 300/250$ before claiming stuff like that

Ah, but that assumes the PS3 is competitive at its current price. It's not, it would appear, judging by these numbers. It would need a significant price cut simply to compete.

Of course, there are always other factors at work.

I've seen several PS3 fans, bragging about PS3 sales in the last few months, saying, "Imagine how well it would sell if it got a price cut, since it's selling fairly well now."

Well, it really isn't selling well.

You know what I think? Sony doesn't have to make a comeback for second place. Instead they should just do what Nintendo did with the GC: sell console for a profit!
Cutting the price and losing money in this generation is not worth it!
Sony made a choice to make a console that would best the other spec-wise, but that comes obviously with a high price tag on it and ther is not much you can do with that. The Cell chip, with its billion cost for development, and the Blu-Ray with its high manufacture cost are those two choices that cut the legs of the PS3.

If you look at the past a similar scenario was the fight between Saturn (more powerful but costly and hard to program for, so it was hard to take full advantage of that power... just like the PS3) and the PS1 (less powerful, less costly and easier to program for... just like the 360)... OK, Sony isn't SEGA and so on... but that's not my point!

The point is that SEGA cut the price too much trying to follow Sony, with the result of losing tons of money and even losing focus on the games.
Sony won't be in such a financial troble, but then again is not swimming in gold, so I think it would be better on focusing on what they have and capitalize on that.
Also, the money gained from the hardware should help them financing good 1st party games that really take advantage of the machine and show the consumer that the machine really has an edge over the competitor!

See what Nintendo did with GameCube, and in less extent with the N64: making money out of the HW (they never sell for a loss, no matter what!) and with that finance good firts party title that in turns attract enough people to buy the hardware! With the GC they probably didn't make billions, but that combined with great portable sales helped them build the new DS and the Wii (which wasn't beefed up probably because it would have cost too much!), with whom they made a great comeback.

And so should do Sony, which isn't by any mean in terrible shape, trending well ahead of the GC and the PS3 is set to sell at least the double of the 17 millions that is now on, which will be more than enough for third parties to stay on the ship, as Nintendo's Wii won't be the ship to jump on with the kind of titles they are making right now!

Exactly the opposite of my point! LOL! 

I won't argue with that... Just think that if they do they would commit suicide! Or at least they would be wear out so much that even the next generation that will follow will be affected by the outcome of this one!

The question is: will be worth to "win" this generation? do you really think that this generation is that important?

oh mike , why you always have idea that 360 will be discontinue, it will be there even if xbox 720 released, remember xbox 720 will be BC to xbox 360,

and xbox1 is discontinue because MS don't hold the right to all CPU and GPU patent,  xbox 360 is different matter, MS hold all the Xbox 360 IP. so why they want to discontinue it, it is like twisting logic.

oh BTW , what about your PS3 superiority thread and amigaworld.net, yes i'm amiga fan too, long live amiga, or morpos :)

Not having read what anyone's said (including the OP), I have something to say.

I love it when people change their opinions to back up whoever is winning. In the beginning everyone claimed the 360 would have an easy victory (after Sony's not-so-good launch). A year later people were starting to side with Sony and finally, in this year's spring, they were sure Sony was going to win after all. Now that MS has had the price cuts and their effects are clear, people are again sure Sony has no chance.

I'm not trying to tell Sony will win this gen; I'm just telling that things aren't than simple. Things don't just magically change when someone temporarily gains the advantage and someone loses it. Sony might have a chance even if MS is strong right now. On the other hand, MS definitely has a good chance as well since they can compete this well.

The problem is the nature of how console cycles work.

The console who is doing the best (right now, the Wii) will stay on the shelves the longest. The NES coninued long after the SNES, as did the PS1 and PS2. The runner ups usually have shorter life spans. Sega always released very early. The Dreamcast came out really quickly.

Why does it work this way? As the generation drags on, fewer and fewer games are made for those systems. People will buy them less as fewer people were interested in the system. The developers and publishers will move to the first place console leaving the others with less and less. Buyers loss interest. The reason Sony and Microsoft will have to make a new console is to sell units. The PS3 and 360 will eventually peak. All systems will (the ODS is sort of doing this in Japan). Weaker systems will less adoption will have to do this sooner as they peak much sooner. Natually, it has to be.

The 360 will have a better chance of staying on the shelves thanks to great third party support. It will not be able to outlive the Wii however. The system has lots of interest in it and, eventually, will be what developers are making their games on (a shift as been moving towards this). Sony has not gotten the same developer support the 360 has. In fact, one could say it has started to peak out as the 360, once again, beats it in sales.