Wow... just wow.

Completely ignorant and biased.

But your talking about 5 to 6 years before the PS3 is going to be priced for the casual gamer? Do you not think that there will be wii 2 hd by this stage, and possibly xbox 720 which will be priced as compeditively? Can any product have anti-hype around it for 2 years or more years and come back? Is the boost in sales temporary while people try and get the last few that have there price cut (the 60gb ones).

 I think the PS3 is an amazing piece of kit, and obviously the most powerful console out there, but I am a little more sceptical about PS3's future. I'm trying to be objective, though i have to admit i have a wii and have looked at buying either a ps3 or a xbox 360. The premium xbox is not far off half the price of a ps3 in ireland at the moment, and considering you get a game with the xbox and component cables, it would seem to be the more attractive option right now. Though if money was no object i would probably go for the ps3.

Anyway I would like to hear your thoughts.

If I wasn't at work right now I'd break down the original post. It's just flat out bad. There are so many mistakes its not funny. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do so right now. I may do so later on, if someone else doesn't beat me to it by quitting time.

Snipped in the interest of brevity. 

Fanboy much?

Yep. The OP needs to spend some quality time reading up on hardware, why it works, how it works, and why it is easy or hard for devs to tap into its potential. Then he needs to check his obvious bias toward Sony products before ever starting a thread with the word "truth" in the title.

If I had more time, I'd tear that post up. There are glaring inaccuracies in it about every machine's hardware. The Wii is 3x more powerful than GC? The 360 is just another PC like the original 'box even though it runs entirely different architecture with a customized chip? The Cell is another EE even though it runs different architecture, uses assymetrical cores, and is manufactured by an entirely different company?

To quote Kyle's mother, "What-what-WHAT?"

Well now that we are in unanimous consent that this annalysis makes no sense, I'd like to ask you (you being KBG29) about your sig's predictions. Your predictions for NA of PS3 6 million, 360 10 Million and Wii 8 million means that from now until christmas the 360 will sell 3.25 million, the Wii 3.76 million and the PS3 5.13 million.

Any reason that you expect the PS3 to sell almost 2 million more units in NA than the 360 or Wii this holiday season?

I'd like to take this brief moment of time to point out that, much to the ignorance of fanboys around the world, the PS3 and 360 processors are actually based on the same chip and are really first cousins in the computing world.

They're both Power6 architecture by IBM and run at approximately the same clock speed. The main difference is that the 360 has three (somewhat stripped of cache) identical cores while the PS3 has one Power6 core with 7 SPEs attached. From initial observations, the performance seems to be frightenly close to one another.

"The PS2 had a 2,560 bit wide bus between the two chips which gave them the ability to work in unison unlike any other platform."

Sorry, but you got this very wrong. I know this number of bits sound HUGE, but it doesn't means anything. Also, you are talking about the Embedded DRAM on the GPU here. The bandwidth on the main memory was 3.2 GBps and on the embedded DRAM was 6 GBps. It was somewhat faster than the GC's for example, but it had a huge latency that hindered it's performance. In overall, the PS2 had the less efficient memory management of the last gen.

"This means each can help the other."

This, was not an advantage, was a way to address a flaw. The GSX lacked the pixel shaders abilitys the GC and Xbox had, so the Vector Units on the Emotion Engine made that job. It also lacked Transform and Lighting technology and S3 Texture Compression. This means that anything on the PS2 could be done bigger and faster on the GC or Xbox.

"(On Xbox) No matter how fast your chips are if they can not comunicate with eachother, they are just being wasted."

Again, wrong. The Xbox had a very efficient memory. The Xbox used DDR SDRAM that gave it good speed with low latencys. 6.4 GBps, slightly higher than that of PS2. It didn't had an embedded RAM on the GPU like the other two, but it never needed it.

"(On 360) but yet again it has very bad comunication"

So, you mentioned the embedded DRAM bandwidth on the PS2 as a huge advantage, but you mention the one on 360 as a little advantage?. I guess 256 GBps of bandwidth on the embedded DRAM of 360 mean nothing to you.

"The CPU and GPU share 512MB of RAM with 22.4GB of throughput to split 2 ways."

It doesn't works like this. You have the 22.4 GBps to the GPU, then the GPU has a bandwidth to the CPU of 10.8 GBps write and 10.8 GBps read. So you don't really have a flaw here.

"The Wii is a Gamecube with more RAM and 3 times as powerful chip set as the Cube. Not many specs have been released on the system..."

How can you know that the Wii is 3x the GC if the specs have not been released?

Also, why you don't even mentioned the Cell has 512KB L2 cache and the Xenon has 1024KB?

"Motion controlls are very possible on all three systems"

So, Sony is going to phase the traditional gamepad+joystick and make motion controlling the standard? Yeah, right...

"and price is not going to be an advantage forever"

Like when most people bought the PS2 when it was way cheaper... completely ignoring the fact the GC was way more powerful (just like you said) and cheaper.

"The PS3 has the most room to grow in graphics, controlls and price deduction"

Graphics? You are telling me the RSX, without unified shader architecture has more headroom than the Xenos? Yeah... and why controls huh? In that case, 360 has exactly the same amount of room to grow on controls. And on prices, Wii and 360 don't have less room to price cuts. The 360 is cheaper to produce and with a 65 nonometers process on the way, I see another price cut. Nintendo is selling the Wii with profits right now, so by default that gives them room to price cut... and I'm ignoring the fact it must be cheaper to produce by now and that a 65 nm process is likely.

"PS3 will win this generation"

That's what you wanted to tell us right? Why took the time to make a super long post to say it? You can add it to your sig.

"heck even the last gen systems could do it"

Hahaha, good one. Seriously, pure gold.

"Wii will have its time in the sun but its days are numbered and its power is its weakness."

Yeah, just like the ill-fated NES, SNES, PSOne and PS2... stupid companies that don't give use the most powerful systems... good thing all of those failed.

Seriously, this thread is full of fail. 

You guys are serious? You are actually shocked that KBG29 made a totally biased post? Every post KBG29 makes is not only utterly biased, but usually utterly misinformed. The first time I read one of KBG29s posts my first instinct was to mark this poster as a shill. Someone paid by Sony to say these things. Quite frankly for me the book is still out. The posts seem so poor and contrived it is like someone is working too hard to sound too average and far too common.

Now as for the potential arguments I have heard the same arguments for every console that has failed, or had mediocre sales. For instance I heard the same arguments for the N64 with the cart format no load times there. See Nintendo had a major technological edge. Unfortunately for them the proprietary format and extra space most developers did not use killed that. They had a valid point load times really suck for gamers.