I am an enthusiast PC gamer, but I must admit that too often the PC platform creates obstacles inacceptable by most console gamers, for example I wasted more than one afternoon to find all patches necessary to get rid of Planescape: Torment's worst bugs (and the last official patch wasn't enough, as the SW house failed long before fixing every major bug) and some other time to find and apply a patch that makes it exploit and look good on wide screens.
Unreal Tournament has been stable as a rock for a lot of years now, but it took a lot of patches before achieving this.
GPL is one of the best realistic driving games, but it was buggy as hell and while it isn't anymore, patching it isn't easy, the best way to do it isn't simply the official patch, but choosing and applying one of the many fix-packs put together by skilled fans.
PC gaming suffers more from bugs and is less immediate, it has its 100+ million and growing user base, but it can't appeal everybody.

^^ I agree.

I also think the one downside to PC gaming is every gamer's system is different. Each one has different specs, and every game that is released requires something different. Different graphics card, CPU speed, memory requirements.

With a console, the games are made for the consoles specs which are standardized across the board, which is the one real benefit to them I think.

With limitations like its old video card, 256 megs of RAM and a lack of hardware upscaling the PS3 isn't future proof in any way. I doubt that even with well optimized code Crysis wouldn't run at anything higher than medium settings at 720P and 30 FPS.

 The thing has 256 megs of system ram and 256 megs of graphics ram with an outdated gpu behind a hellish architecture. How can people expect it to be future-proof unless future means a couple of years at most. Did you notice they did not mention GPU and RAM the least bit? Funny, yeah?

If it's future proof, won't every new Sony product just be a downgrade or the same thing?

What about the Lame GPU they crippled the poor thing with.

What about the Memory bottlenecks.

They think Blue Ray = future proof!

The GPU is so weak its not even funny,Sony should of stuck something more powerful in it like 6800 gtx that would of owned 360 GPU no doubt,but still.

Seems like Sony made the PS3 to try be like 360 GPU,When really the 360 GPU was made for the 360,not just some random GPU picked out last minute.

Whats the benefit for a company (Sony) to have a future proofed system, which is not marked proofed?

From my gamersview, the PS3 can't do anything the X360 can't do, too. Yes, sometimes you need two DVDs instead of one BD, but if thats all, I can life with that.

The PS3 technology is still to expensive to gain some marketshare from M$(Wii is at the moment out of competition)

@Crazymann:

That Killzone video looks great, but do you really think thats only possible with PS3s "futur proofed" technology? I doubt.

I agree with all that you say and I wonder if you are an economist given the Greenspan quotation at the end :) Man, he said it right back in 1967!

@Freedquacker: This is offtopic, but i don't see what's so special in the quotation that it's said 40 years ago. People weren't any dumber in the 60's that they are today, despite there being so many hippies back then. That would be like saying there's something special in theory of relativeness coming out in 1905, or a Stirling engine being invented in 17th century, or a water ram being more than 200 years old invention. Humans haven't evolved much in their menthal abilities in the last 10 000 years and as long as mankind have traded, the same financial rules have applied.