This was a thread created 2 years ago, and Let's see how well my statements fare today. Ok, The title should be changed to "Unbiased Facts About the Current Consoles Revisited" now maybe but I just wanted to be consistent with the title.

People were throwing a lot of crap at me then  but look how things turned out.  The causes could be controversial at times but the results are clear. People try to "create sense based on a limited and often flawed information". There are many other variables which our "way of thinking" might forget/fail to include, either because there are just too many of them, or just people can't or don't want to see them.

Here are the facts that I had predicted and let's see how they turned out to be.

Fact 1 :  High Price Consoles never win!

Well, PS3 is not winning and 360 and Wii are selling more, right? Check!

True-ish

Fact 2 : Sony's Technical Specs are always vastly exaggerated and Claims Never Come True!

Well, it was the case with PS1 and PS2, and PS3 can barely compete with 360, and only several first party games can surpass the 360 after loooooooong periods of development. Check!

Not true. UT3 on the PS3 looks better than Gears 1 and UT3 on the 360. Gears 2 had extra engine upgrade time but doesnt have that much of an improvement. There are also a ton of other games that are technically better than theirm 360 counterpart. Say DMC, Burnout Paradise, Call of Duty 4, and a few others.

Fact 3 : Always the Weakest Console wins!

This is not a reasoning, this is just a twist of fate, it happens to be so. And guess what? Wii is the weakest console and it is winning, by and large! Check!

Cheapest always wins. Wii started cheapest.

Fact 4 : Sony is Notorious for the LENGHTY LOADING TIMES.

Unfortunately so.  And now what happens? They put "mandatory installation" to match the loading times of 360 or wii. The additional hard drive does not make it better than other machines. NXE on the other hand shortens the loading times of 360 considerably, making it faster than ps3 on equal terms. Check!

False. It has been proven in many games that laod times are even without install and with install loadtimes are significantly better. All NXE does is make the games install content which is exactly what the PS3 games do. This argument is bunk.

Fact 5 : PS3 has a greater speed as potential.

This potential is shown occasionally with games like Killzone, but not too often or drastic though (which is why it's "potential"). I'm still firm in my opinion that Xbox's superiority over ps2 was much greater than ps3 over 360. Check!

For this being called "unbiased" your seriously being a troll in some of these. See Fact 2.

Fact 6 : Xbox360 has More Memory and a Better Memory Structure.

No question about. Despite improvements on the ps3 side, this is still the case, will remain so. 360 simply has more memory and better memory architecture as admitted by many firms. Check!

Mixed. The PS3 has faster RAM. The 360 has a few MBs more.

Fact 7 : You cant win globally if you fail in either of those two markets, Japan and America.

This is why 360 is not winning (and can't possibly win) this generation. Check!

True, it is also why it will be in 3rd at the end of this gen.

Fact 8 : Wii is picking up and gonna take the lead soon.

That is what exactly happened! Check!

Not a shock...

Fact 9 :  PS3 sales are far from building a momentum.

Yes, there is some sort of increase in sales but a momentum needs more than this. PS3 was surpassed by both other consoles in all 3 years now, so we can't talk much about momentum! Check!

Yes, so outselling the 360 for more than 3/4s of last year wasnt momentum? Also the PS3 hasnt been out for 3 years.  Neither has the Wii. Learn to check your facts.

I don't think that you are arguing against it, but just to clear things up for those that may get the wrong impression from your post, the xbox was superior to the PS2 in practically every way. You won't find a single competent developer that will argue otherwise.  Now that we have that cleared, the reason why a PS2 game can look better than an xbox game is because more effort was put into the PS2. It's that simple. If the same effort had been put into the xbox game, it would have looked more amazing. There is no secret PS2 trump card or anything, it is just effort.

Although the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360, Killzone 2 is a result of effort, not because of that power. Sure, it helped, but had that much effort been put into an Xbox 360 game, then it would have looked amazing as well. Sony wanted to have one game that tried to match the hype it had so it sank a lot of money into it. 

I know it's a little bit of a rant, but I just don't want any fanboys to get the wrong opinion when it comes to PS2 vs Xbox.

@ssj12

Fact 2 :  This is indeed true. Sony has ALWAYS over-promised and under delivered. Toy Story graphics on PS2? Toy Story graphics on PS3? No. 2 Teraflop powerhouse? No. 3 gigabit ports and the ability to act as a router? No. 1.8 Teraflop GPU? No. I watched in horror as the PS3 went from the powerhouse Sony promised into the pitiful (by comparison) machine it is now. Still more powerful than the 360, but pitiful compared to what Sony promised.

Fact 4: You are also incorrect here. There is no such claim. It is an accepted industry fact that the PS3's data transfer times average out to be slower than the Xbox 360s. 

Fact 5: Also incorrect. The PS3 has more potential power than the Xbox 360. This is not myth, it is a fact. However, how much power will actually be extracted it another story. Give a developer 10 years and they will extract more power out of the PS3 with every game. So this is indeed true.

Fact 6: A lot of developers use XDR ram to store video textures since the PS3's GPU ram is not enough, something which slows down XDR a lot. And "a few mb" is actually a lot. Don't try to underplay it, it is one of the PS3's biggest weaknesses against the Xbox 360. This is another reason why the PS3 requires game installs. The Xbox 360 can hold more of the game in memory while the PS3 has to copy it and load it from the hard drive because loading it from the disc would be too slow. Slow read speeds + low memory = required use of hard drive.

Fact 7: You are passing your bias and unlikely opinion as fact. Nice try, but no. So far, the numbers point in the other direction.

Please don't enter a technical discussion without any technical proof. Thanks.

Fact 2 - He was talking about the games in his comment, I hit back with games. I didnt even say anything about the technical side did I? nope.

Fact 4 - I have seen and done load time tests on some 3rd party games. Its a toss-up mattering the games. Still you cannot denie the fact the NXE allows the same installs that the PS3 does.

Fact 5 - Again, it is a game comparison. Pervious attempts show promise. Yes in 10 years we will see massive potential but its the games leading up that shows greener pastures.

Fact 6 - True but HDD use is better than Ram use, another reason why digital distribution is far superior to physical mediums. RAM + HDD > RAM + CD/DVD Drive.

Fact 7 - Goto Chartz than Hardware from launch. Compare current week PS3 is on versus the week the 360 had in its life. Also look at the fact that the PS3 is 50 weeks younger than the 360. Fluctuating gaps due to price drops before the holiday season does not make a sturdy ground to predict the future. What will happen if Sony drops the PS3 $100 this holiday and outsells the 360?

Gamecube says hi.