I don't care about online, so it's online stuff doesn't matter to me.

And when Sony offers 1/2 of what XBL does, then I'd agree that I wouldn't want to pay more. However, the 360 has an insane amount of content - new XBLA games every week if not more, every game or nearly every game has a demo, downloadable TV/movies, game trailers, ect, ect, ect. MS forces nearly every game to have online in some form or fasion, it's merely giving back to MS for what they've done. Kwaad, stop pulling numbers out of the air. Not everyone has or uses online. I can't get broadband where I live, and am forced to go into a town to hook up my 360 to download anything. And FYI, the silver membership (ie, the free one) is fairly good. You can't play games, which sucks, but you can do everything else, which is still very very good for the wealth of content that the 360 has. About the PS3 Euro-launch: I am certain that the European launch will do well. However: By march/april, the 360 had sold around 3.5m units worldwide. If the PS3 has, on VGcharts.org, by april 15, that it's sold 3.5m units, then I'll consider the worldwide launch of the PS3 very good. However, if it does not, then it's considererd not as good as the 360. I think your trying to compare the 360 vs. PS3 too much - they launched in different years, with different numbers in different nations. Either way, if Sony really has shipped 4m units and only 2m have sold, Sony is doing horribly. However, if its closer to 2.5m shipped...It's okay. At this time last year, 360s were still sold out everywhere in the US - just like the PS3 typically is. What will matter is where the PS3 is in March-October, when the 360 averaged 240-270k units. If it does better, then it'll be a more formidable US compeditor. Also, your trying to argue a system that SHOULD sell MUCH BETTER versus the 360. Again, even at $600, Sony should be doing even better considering where they've been before this system in terms of sales and revenue. However, at this point, between only 2m sold and losing so many games to multi-dev on the 360, one can question them. However, again, I will re-iterate my beliefs: The PS3 has done well (not great, not horridly) thus far. It's about where it should be at a $500-$600 price tag + considering the difficulty of manufacturing such a complex system. However, you can't really answer the question of the PS3 vs. 360, because Sony is only 3-4 months into their sales vs. 360's 14+ months. We have to see how long the lifecycle of each system is. If the PS3 goes as long as they think (6-7 years) and the 360 is the average (5-6 years), then the launch data is semi-imporant. However, if the PS3 only lasts 5 years like the 360 will, then its near-moot, as 360 has a huge lead on the PS3.

Here I am with Kwaad ,I dont want to pay for online .I am more of a single player gamer .I like sometimes a online match or session but thats about it .For me and the users like me the X360 is more expensive than the PS3 .Plus ,the PS3 online will improve over the time ...for example we have heard today rumours about the Playstation Home with Mii-like avatars and Achievements .PS3 Online is very good being free and it will improve over time .

Seriously, saying that the XBox 360 is a $700 system is like saying World of Warcraft is a $500 game because it has a monthly fee ... Or that the Wii is a $2400 system because after you spend $250 for the game, you will need to buya steady supply of games for 5 years ... The logic behind this makes me justified in saying the PS3 is a $15,000 system because you will need a top of the line TV and Surround Sound system in order to take advantage of the system ...

What happens with the games for the ps3 that are $60, and the ones for the 360 are $30 like fight night and such (especially since the ps3 version is just a port of the 360)?? on average, ps3 games are more expensive too, so think of it this way: you pay an extra $10 per game for a ps3, and say you buy a game a month.... thats just like buying a game for the 360 and purchasing a month of online play, and your STILL saving a buck or 2.... PS3 is way overpriced and overrated.. I suggest everyone reads this article: http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm its very informative Also, @Kwaad.... if a person doesnt play online at all really, then i guess that would make the 360 is still a $400 (or $300 for the core) system.

OH AND ONE OTHER THING..... 10 times as many PS3s were bought to be SOLD ON EBAY.... so put that into your head when you think about ps3 sales. ALOT of people were not buying it to play it, they were buying it to make money off of it

Look ,the money is money .If you spend 1000 dollars in a MMORPG between the game ,the fees and some add-ons for it to work in your computer is 1000 dollars no matter what .That games cost money we take for granted ,and nearly the same for the three consoles .But the associated costs also matter ,and in associated costs you have in the X360 the online play that like it or not marks some difference .A user that has been paying the fees since the original Xbox Live started and until the end of the X360 lifetime will have paid effectively 400-500 dollars for 6-7 years ,just about what a Playstation endures in the market . To Xbongox I wont answer ....he is such a fanboy !!

My point was: The price of the PS3 is $500/$600 + costs associated with Personal Preference The price of the XBox 360 is $300/$400 + costs associated with Personal Preference The price of the Wii is $250 + costs associated with Personal Preference Certainly, over time the XBox 360 could end up costing more, but the upfront costs are much lower. What many people (myself included) have meant when we say the "PS3 is too expensive" is that the upfront cost is too high for most people to purchase the system ... A little story to explain further ... One of my co-workers bought an XBox 360 core-system several months ago to the shock of all of us; after all if you're going to spend that much money on a system why not get the priemium. His reasoning was simple, the system came with a couple of games so he could buy it and the price was inexpensive enough that his wife would not get upset; over the next couple of months he bought extra controllers one at a time and the hard-drive under the nose of his wife. At $500/$600 there is no way he could have bought the system without his wife's permission, and knowing how many women think the $600+Game could be better spent than buying a toy.

Remember that Xbox 360's were not readily available until March/April, while PS3's have been available since the last week of december. Sony did a much better job of producing them to prevent any supply constraints and sold a few more units then the 360 which just couldn't keep up with production. In other words, Sony overestimated demand and had more units available for sale then the 360. Since they were able to keep PS3's in stock at many of the stores, they sold more. Micro$oft, on the other hand, underproduced the units and it cost them some sales. One thing that I notice when you run the PS3 vs 360 sales chart is the huge spike in 360 sales the week following the PS3 release. It looks as if a large number of people were waiting for the PS3, but once it came out, they bought either a Wii or a 360. I think that Sony had a great launch. I was very afraid that the PS3 was going to see another delay, but they got production started and were able to keep up with demand. Since demand didn't exceed supply, everyone who wanted a PS3 got one. That is a good launch. Of course, Sony would have loved it if demand exceeded the supply, and they could have been the hottest toy of the season and gotten a great deal of publicity. But Wii all know what happened!!!

Kwaad - If the PS3 sales exceed expectations in Europe, I will admit that the PS3 might have a chance in this generation of consoles. I still believe that the PS3 will not sell out on it's first day in Europe xbongox - Actually I think the PS3 games are cheaper in Europe then 360's. Also, you can't compare Fight Night 3, it's just been released as a "Platinum Hit" for the 360.