it's a little to early to tell who will take second place. We're not even sure how long this generation will last. Some say another few years some say another seven. If it lasts a decent amount of time and sony makes some price cuts and some other features, microsoft doesn't fix RROD completely etc. then its possible for sony to be number 2...basically my point is that it is still early so just wait a little while until we know more

First of all I would like to congratulate the original poster for being in line with reality. I expect to see many more such posts by the end of the year. There is a point where determination wanes into outright stupidity. You will at least not be the last man standing on the other side. Now you can relax, and watch as the others twist themselves.

Second the propaganda needs to stop, and I think a great many of you know it is propaganda, and if you do not then I truly feel sorry for you. Sony never promised a ten year lifespan they implied one, and even had they promised you would not or could not coerce them into honoring that promise. A lifespan is not of a manufacturers choosing it is in direct response to what the market dictates. When the console stops selling they stop supporting the console. Yes it is that simple, and given the performance of the PS3 it has little success on which to expand its marketability. The longest legs will probably belong to the Wii, and the 360 will probably outlast the PS3.

A generation does not end when you wish it to end. A generation begins with its generations first console, and ends with the first console launched in the next generation. Sales beyond that take place in another generation, and thus are irrelevant as to how the last generation ended. This nonsense about us tallying the score in nine years is borderline retarded at best. At worst it is without honor. Your being terribly self centered, because you do not want to concede to something you argued against.

Technological superiority is a fictitious notion. The parameters are relevant to perspective alone so we should never state it as a fact. In the real world in order to obtain something you must sacrifice something in return. To excel in one area you must accept sub par results in another area. This is called a trade off, and every console has a myriad of trade offs. Such as was the debate in regards to Carts versus Discs. Many of you probably do not even remember this.

I still call it nearly 50-50, Sony seems to have the advantage during the non-holiday quarters when people generally buy for themselves and MS during the holiday quarter when people are stingy and buying presents.

Earlier this year I would have called it for Sony taking second but with the financial crisis (likely to make people more stingy) has swung it back and its pretty much even. Perhaps slight advantage to Microsoft as they have the momentum.

To be honest I think its Japan thats hurting Sony the most, MS was never meant to do well there but Sony was. Now that Sony isn't doing well there, the Japanese developers (who matter much more to the market than the Japanese console sales themselves) are starting to swing towards 360/PS3 multiplat or Wii exclusive.

I completely agree price is extremely important .

Heavenly Sword wasn't a catastrophe. And I believe it was Phil who first claimed Killzone 2 would be better than Halo, an opinion which several people now share, after thinking that Phil was crazy just over a year ago.

I agree that Shuhei Yoshida is excellent. He's certainly better than Kutaragi in his 'crazy' phase, and certainly Phil Harisson with his "4D Graphics" thing (that was him, right?)

And let's not forget Kaz Hirai. Within a few months of his takeover, he turned the PS3 from a failure into a system that competed with, and often beat, the Xbox 360.

I never understand why people care about "war" so much and use so many strong words concerning consoles. Both Xbox and PS3 can co exist they get all the multiplats ,and both have few exclusive just accept the sales and enjoy gaming.

Oh god, people are still talking about this Xbox Live "OWNS" PSN.. Once Home comes out, I can gaurentee PSN will be just as good as XBL, IF NOT better.

What i find really sad about the ps3 's history up until now is that fans have been more committed to the console than sony it self, i mean people have made an effort of buying a 600 or 500 buck console, but sony is concentrating on profits so they are willing to give up on not only sales but the reputation of the PS brand, before the PS3 sony has been a winner with every console and now they have become the worst of losers. They will never reach the 360, not because of the 1 year lead but because they loss so much money on the ps3 already that they cant lose more so they cant keep up with MS's strategies.

I know, it's kind of a paradox.  Sony included a BD player capability in the new PlayStation to beat Toshiba handidly with their HD DVD format, and now because of the significant added cost this adds to the PS3, it's almost like their strategy backfired in the console war.  Really, it's too early in the game to tell.  But I do wonder how low Sony can go without running themselves into the ground?  I know it doesn't help them that stand alone BD players are $100-$150 cheaper than the PS3 now.

Then again, the BD victory will probably be more profitable for Sony over the long run anyway, so while they may not be able to dig themselves out of the whole this generation, the huge profits from the BD format may justify the sacrifice over the long run... that is unless streaming video destroys disc based movies.  Who can know such things?