I don't agree w/ anything on the list. Ninty and MSFT are ahead b/c of cheaper parts and customer choice. Why let a gaming console become everything else under the Sun?

Thanks. 

----------------------

To ruin the pun and have it turn into a point, read below.

After hearing "futureproof" for like the upteenth time, it made me think what "proofing" is like for other things.  In the case of Sony, you price yourself out of the market, if you think you can account for any possible thing that will come down the pike.

Right, but the price of the features is no longer what it once was.  The relationship is not constant.

Since others could choose to integrate the features going forward, they'd have costs far lower than Sony's were in '06.  The presence of the features do not imply the higher price of several years ago, if installed now or in the future  You can't insist that the features will increase the price to untenable levels, therefore.

The features might be great while at the same time it's true that putting them in a console too early was untenable.  Putting them in later may be beneficial. 

People try to knock the features but all they can legitimately say is that some features were installed too early because the price was still too high.  They still might be good features that other companies might want to look at in the future.

I only agree with you on 3 and 6, everything I just kind of rolled my eyes at.

So has one thing the other two do not, World class devs capable of producing many many AAA EXCLUSIVES

They don't need any of those things, they already stole a shitload of Sony exclusive franchises, and that's all they need.

nintendo:
good graphics
good games
better features

microsoft:

free online

only thing MS and ninty needs to look into is region free.

(1) is ridiculous, as many others have said. Even so, there is a point to be made that Sony will benefit more and more the longer this gen goes on ... but not as much as Nintendo.

(2) Sony may have the most open online development scene (I don't know), but it's hardly a crushing advantage. They may be right about XBLA but the only complaint about the Wii's online isn't really -- but a complaint about Wii storage.

(3) I don't see this as a big deal. Built-in rechargeable is nice, but replacement is a pain; replacing AAs is more available for some but more annoying; and rechargeable AAs is a decent compromise of the two.

(4) Sure it's a good idea now that the technology is reasonably priced. I see all the consoles using it next gen.

(5) I don't use this function much but from what I understand the 360 has superior integration of online/DLC and this stuff.

(6) Hilariously, the writer doesn't seem to realize the existence of older 20GB models. Still, standard hard drives are nice and I hope they'll be in all the next-gen systems. On the other hand, it worries me when people talk about 'using that space in game development' since I don't want all these games to be like MGS4, laying down gigantic shits on my HDD.

Ok that I can agree with. That is where the article fails though, because he says they should be in the 360 and the Wii, and we all know these features will continue to be too expensive until at least the beginning of the next cycle of consoles. This is why you can't seperate the features from the price, because if the 360 and Wii had done what the article suggested, and had those features in their consoles, Microsoft and Nintendo would be as broke as Sony is now. The features were mistakes BECAUSE they came too early, not because they aren't awesome.