Firstly, Killzone 2 only uses a TOTAL of 292MB of RAM (out of 512MB).  Textures were better than Gears 2 (especially considering more of Gears 2 texture budget was spent on the characters and not the ground, etc).

Secondly, PS3 has the best technical version of Fallout 3.  See it here.

It's backed up by this professional analysis.  Uncharted STILL holds the crown for superior console textures throughout the game.  I'm sure Uncharted 2 won't be worse.  So, as you were saying...

Good joke!  DC with a plethora of AAA games and ease to develop for...lol!  PS3 doing most of the copying? LMAO!  The Cell, Blu-ray, HDMI 1.3, a unified rendering system known as the RSX+Cell combo (like one giant GPGPU solution), LS (local store), etc. not innovative? You are killing me!  Where have you seen those things before?  Plus, the PS3 is the visual king in several genres across all platforms.

I'm wondering if you knew that around $70M was spent on Shenmue back then!  That sounds like a damn good budget to me (they just blew it on one game).

Also, the amount of money changes due to inflation. $70M back then is a lot more, now.  If you think Sony has lost money on the PS3, it's about half the amount MS lost up to now (including their newly found profits).

The ps3 is the playstation of this generation. You can tell by it's level of awesomeness alone :P

I'm willing to bet Sega lost less money on DC than Sony lost on PS3.

You're probably right at least up until this point in time. Although we will only know the bottom line of the PS3 when it stops selling. One thing which will be interesting is how much money Sony will make in royalties from bluray. A victory that would not have been possible without the PS3.

ps3 wont b d dream cast of dis gen bt it wont b d ps n ps2 of dis gen either...bt it'll still end up 2nd to d wii

Does it really use more ram than there even is or did someone get it wrong? ;)

And about Fallout 3... Those better 'textures' on PS3 are actually better normal maps and thats trade off for crappier shadows.

Just check those shadows under those roaches:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7867/fallout31ps3rf8.jpg

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/382/fallout31360bew4.jpg

(Normal map vs no normal map, http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8121/008qf5.jpg )

On PC you got em all right, but thats another story. And I think PS3 is even worse than Dreamcast profit wise.

I love when people think they know something...but it turns out they dont.

Dreamcast being easy to develop for and having a huge amount of great games in a short amount of time is a known fact at this point. Dreamcast was on the market for less than 2 years and even on metacritic it still has more AAA games than PS3 which has been out for longer... despite Metacritic ommiting some Key dreacmast games, like Resident Evil Code veronica, Sonic adventur...

Look up any article talking about Dreamcasts success of failure for proof...such as this one... http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=2891

All the stuff you describe (bluray, HDMI 1.3, cell RSX) is completely irrelevant if the games are exactly the same on both platforms. Other than a few exclusives for both console, ps3 and 360 have offered pretty much the exact same gaming experience... Bluray hasn't been able to prove viable in gaming except for manditory instals, RSX has shown to be worse than the ATI conterpart int he 360 and the Cell has demostrated to be needlesly complicated. Dreamcast didn't need any of that stuff to make great games...hence why Sony's business model had to be changed afterthis gen started as it was out of date. Times have changed and hardware hype doesn't drive sales anymore.

dude, that doesn't even make sense!

What are you saying or was this a random walk of some creature over your keyboard?

Anyway, On Topic:

I still don't see what was wrong with the Dreamcast besides sales, and the PS3 is well on its way to bettering those numbers and reaching them in much less time than it took the Dreamcast.

PS3 is the N64 of this Gen!