Way to avoid dealing with the points listed above your statement.  BTW, I've never owned a Playstation before now.  Your post completely fails.

No, the general goal of multiplatform games is to offset the costs of development and to reduce risk by releasing a game across as many platforms as is possible; if a developer can increase the texture detail or polygonal detail on one of the consoles while retaining their framerate/resolution, or can increase the framerate/resolution on one platform they will do it ... In most cases in this generation the added detail would cost nothing because the assets aleady exist for the PC port.

The reason why exclusives don't work is because it is entirely subjective on whether Killzone 2 is more graphically impressive than Gears of War 2, and there are countless factors which influence the visuals of the game which are not controlled. Examples of these factors are budget (if you have the money, you can optimize all game assets in the game to improve the overall impressiveness of a game without hurting performance) and developers making tradeoffs to improve one element of a game at the expense of another (for example a racing game with fully deformable cars will not be able to have as efficient of models and will look less impressive with the same polygon detail).

Believe what you want to believe, but you have to admit that any advantage you attribute to the PS3 is pretty pathetic given its year later release date and much higher price tag.

Yeah...

Wrong.  For instance, to leverage textures in the PS3, you would need to add a streaming system to your game engine.  That means more development time for the 3rd party developers that are having a hard time writing good code.  The PS3 is a streaming console.  Of course, if it was just a matter of going from 40MB to 80MB for textures, THEN it would be done.

It's NOT subjective on whether Killzone 2 is more graphically impressive than Gears 2.  That's what PDFs are for.  It details what they did.  EVERY implementation has a PERFORMANCE COST associated with it.  It's call having a FRAME BUDGET.  The X360 CAN'T have 350 dynamic lights in Gears 2...no less Killzone 2 with the tons of other things to account for.  Plus, 7.1 audio is mixed on the SPUs as well.  We also know that couldn't be done on the X360, etc, etc.

Just stop trying to through up smoke screens.  It doesn't work anymore.  Just stop lying to yourself and admit the technical superiority of Killzone 2.  Your delusions aren't helping anyone.  I, also, noticed you didn't address the titles I mentioned above.  I guess you need more time to make up some lousy excuses for those as well.

BTW, none of the games I mentioned are on the X360 (obviously), so what's with the "year later release date" crap?

System sales drive the quanity and quality of software on a system.  The top system usually will get the best titles.  Factors such as price, distribution, and other marketing factors.  At the core, a system has to be superior in key areas that consumers want to get in this position, and then deliver on software of sufficient quality.  This goes all the way back to Atari 2600 days:

1. Atari 2600 was top dog.  It has the most arcade games for it, and arcade games mattered.  Atari was the maker of most of them.

2. The NES was top dog.  It ended up producing the right mix of arcade quality graphics (at the time) at the right price point, and had the third-party software model worked out so that it was profitable, and maintained quality.

3. The Genesis was top dog a bit, then the SNES eventually won.  Nintendo hit the RPG and graphics right, and got the last hurrah of arcades done right here.  It was able to do a superior Street Fighter II, complete with better music and sound.

4. The Playstation (original) ended up top dog, because it did one thing the best: pump polygons.  This was the polygon era, and Sony won it.

5. The Playstation 2 won.  It was the first with a DVD player in it.  This counted.  Then throw in Sony's marketing muscle, and you had the winner.

6. The Wii is winning now.  Nintendo guessed right that having an accessible controller best suited for interactivity (the waggle) was what people were longing for.  So Nintendo came up with the Will controller, which can be used for a lot of games like this.  It does what people want.  It wasn't graphics.

And you can look at the handheld market also, into why consoles win.  Nintendo got the killer app in Pokemon, but also said battery life was king.  and they were right.  Now they are, with the DSi, spectulating camera interface.  Will see how it goes.

As for the other question on "threatened by PS3".  It is more like, "Annoyed by Sony".  Sony ends up doing a $600 system and presumes everyone will buy it, just because Sony's name is on it.  All this arrogance (right down to Riiidge Raaacer), burns in people's mind, as was seen ing E3 2005.  No company has a right to be top dog, or presume it.  Sony taking a beating and coming back humbled is what a lot of people want to see.  This at least tends to flush annoying Sony fanboys out of the system.

I would say more people feel threatened by the Wii "destroying" gaming than the PS3, to be perfectly honest.

The 1st bold line is not true beyond a certain point and, in some cases, not even beyond that point.  According to your theory, the PS3 shouldn't be getting the ton of games it's getting this year from 3rd party developers.  Yet, the support is there.  ALSO, according to your theory, the Wii should have the best quality AND quanity of software.  This is clearly not the case, therefore your theory fails utterly.

Now, it's funny how you are annoyed by Sony, but not more annoyed with MS.  It doesn't make any sense.  The "arrogance" to sell people a console it KNEW to be faulty to people AND expect them to just roll with the punches.  THEN, they said that they would STILL rush the X360 to market, if they could do it all over again!  I would say that's a LOT more arrogant than Sony selling a well built high end product to customers.  The ARROGANCE of MS to think my time is not as valuable as their's by forcing MILLIONS of people to constantly send broken consoles back to them MULTIPLE TIMES (and for all the lost gaming time).

Then, there is the arrogance of trying to pass off 576p, 600p, 640p upscaled to 1080p as a natively rendered resolution.  The sheer gall of them, huh?  Let me feel your annoyance towards MS for doing this to you and me.  If not, you should really be quiet about being "annoyed" with Sony.

Personally, I was afraid the Wii would end up pushing down the gaming experience for the next generation via changing companies' outlook on pushing technology forward.  I'm no longer afraid of that, though.

I still think that a lot of folks feel betrayed by Sony, and need something to lash out about.

Maybe because as you stated above the generation actually isn't 'decided' ?     The PS3 very feasibly could outsell the 360 at the end game of this generation.  (It has thus far).