bdbdbd, sorry I also does not agree with kbg29, but do you have to call his posting bull shit? And is it necessary to call him a fanboy? If you disagree with him and feel the need to tell anyone, then reply to him, take the points you disagree and make an argument. Everybody can see that he had make an effort to lay down a good argument with a lot of text. You are saying, that it is bullshit and he is basically a fanboy, and all you can come up with are that 3 sentences? And insults?

I hate cellery, how's that for an insult. BOOYAH

Great post KBG29, you layed everything out perfect. The PS3 is no doubt the most powerful console the wii is the weakest. But you must remember that most gamers are not very smart about technology. You can tell them that the PS3 can turn water to wine and they would think that it can. You tell them the DS prints money and i don't think they will know it doesn't.

It will take atleast 2-3 years for the rest of the gaming community to feel that the wii can not match the PS3/360. Then the sales of the wii will steady and the sales of the PS3/360 will grow like crazy. When you can get a $200 xbox, not the core one, and a $300 dollar PS3 the systems will move like crack on welfare check day

Cautious, must be very cautious.

On the 360:

"At the end of the day you still have a straight forward CPU GPU chipset that can be easly learned and taped out very fast by devs. The Devs will greet this with open arms as it gives them the ability to rake in the cash, but it is not the best for gamers."

I don´t get it, how does this let Devs rake in cash ??? This is no where explained, if anything the Wiis lower dev costs would justify such a statement, but since 360 games cost about as much as PS3 games this does not make any sence at all. How could easier programming be good for Devs but bad for gamers ??? These are just claims with no explanation. Any benefit for developers will be handed down to gamers. Better games can be made faster and at less cost, how is this bad for gamers ???

Lots of stuff in the article make sence and are known facts but stuff like this make no sence at all. Eventhough its an interesting read I don´t care fore the style and bias that it offers.

basic commonly held blockbuster cost estimates. Wii: $12-15mil 360 $20mil PS3 $25mil

I thought we already knew the PS3/360 could do anything the Wii could? The question is: why aren't they doing it? Because they would sell a lot more reaching out to a broader demographic like the Wii does, even if they would still cost $100-350 more than the Wii.

And I hate to ask it, but are there still rational people who think the entire gaming population will once open their eyes and say: screw Nintendo, graphics rule and why did I buy a Wii in the first place? Even if it did happen(and believe me, it won't) it would be far too late.

I think your perception of the power of the systems are quite biased towards ps2 and ps3. It also seems that you don't actually possess any great deal of education or understanding in hardware systems or software engineering to back up your sometimes weird claims.

And of course you will defend yourself with "what do you know", and I will answer that I am on my third year of a Masters in Computer Science and Engineering, and probably have a slightly better understanding than you. You could also have a similair education, but from what you have written, that does not seem to be the case. I do not claim to have full understanding of the subject though as there are many details I probably have overlooked and don't fully understand.