Hmm...I'm not sure I would say from a complete planning point of view that the 360 was rushed while the PS3 was not. If anything, the PS3 sounds like things happened in its development that were a bit more unplanned than the 360. From what I know about the development of both systems, I know that both systems were in development about the same amount of time. However, the PS3's design was changed somewhat at the last minute with the addition of a GPU (originally, as was pointed out, the cell was going to be used for this purpose). In addition the Blu-Ray spec wasn't finalized for quite some time (causing the system to be delayed as a result).
On the other hand, the 360 was planned pretty much from the beginning to have everything that's in it now. I will concede that the 360 has an exorbitantly high failure rate (after all, it's pretty obvious), but this has nothing to do with the spec design; this was a mistake in the physical case design and their failure to put a better heat sink above the GPU (which thankfully has been addressed, and it seems the problem has been taken care of for now (new consoles have a much better heat sink in them)). I wouldn't call the system rushed per se because everything was planned from the get go; it's just they underestimated the heat generation and they skimped in these cooling categories (read: they were cheap here); and as a result are paying for these mistakes now. However, nothing about the design was changed at the last minute like the PS3, and this why this point about the PS3 being "rushed" comes up (although I would say "rushed" isn't the best word for it...because they were planning on making the system all along...it's just they changed its design somewhat last minute (i.e. late '04 when the system was planned to be launched late '05)).
It should also be pointed out that the PS3 should have launched in late 2005 when the 360 launched (go back and watch the E3 2005 pres-conference and you'll see this). Therefore their specs were essentially locked at the same time the 360's specs were locked. The only reason the system was delayed was because of Blu-Ray's specs not being finalized. I won't comment on whether this was a mistake or not, because it's far too early in the generation to make such claims, but often people forget that the PS3 was delayed and should have launched in 2005 at the same time as the 360. This is a somewhat important point because it shows that the technology of the actual innards of both consoles date to about the same time, and therefore nothing about the PS3's design is superior to the 360's because of the PS3 being designed later (that is, the argument that the PS3 is more powerful because it came out later really is not a good argument for this reason). This isn't to say the PS3 isn't more powerful because I think it's pretty obvious it is; but it's not more powerful becasue it had more time in development and came out later.
Additionally, you might wonder why I keep harping on about "the PS3 should have been launched in '05"? Really it's because it shows that the first generation games for the PS3 had a lot more time in development than most people realize. Because the system was planned to be released in '05, some developers were developing games at the same time 1st generation 360 games were being developed. And so, even with that much time, some games still did not really impress upon release (although I gotta say Resistance rocked; almost as much as Halo CE did when the XBOX came out). This really speaks to the fact that the PS3 is difficult to develop for, and although the 360 is easier to develop for (and probably will be maxed out first) it's still an important point because it'll take more time and money to max out the PS3 (which is good and bad...good in that there will be awesome games maxing out the system in the future from wealthy publishers/developers (such as KZ2, which has a gigantic budget), and bad in that there won't be a lot of these games because there won't be that many studios willing to put forth that kind of budget and time).
In the end, I don't think anybody doubts that the PS3 is the more powerful console overall (it was after all 600 dollars at launch compared to 400 for 360 and 250 for Wii, so I would realllly hope it's more powerful if you're paying that much for it). I think the major debate here is that the consoles are more even than most people think or want to believe. There are differences yes, but I wonder if we'll ever truly see those differences amount to gigantic leaps. In other words, I'm not ready to say these differences in design will lead to gigantic and very pronounced differences in game quality. Yes, the PS3 has some amazing looking games coming along; but so does the 360. Because the system is more difficult and more expensive to develop for, this could prove to be a very important factor. I don't doubt that we'll see the PS3 maxed out eventually; but will people still care enough about the system when this finally happens? I really don't know, and I'm not going to make some sweeping prediction. But I do know that it's a possibility and it's something that developers certainly are looking at; and it's also probably a major contributing factor to loss of some major PlayStation exclusives to the 360.
I really want to see the PS3 at its full throttle because I love video games, but I wonder when it'll happen, if people will still care, and if it the leap between the systems power will be as big as some people are expecting it to be (because no matter what any wanna-be know-it-all on here thinks, no one really knows the true differences in real world performance between the two systems). I do know people were claiming the PS2 and XBOX were being maxed out early in their life cycles, but one only has to look at games like GOW1 and 2 and Chronicles of Riddick to see that this certainly was not the case. I also remember this happening with the Dreamcast, PS1 and Saturn before. I think often when developers make a game that is a giant leap they want to feel like they used everything in the system that could possibly be used; but common sense will tell you that the longer you have to work with something, the more time you have to perfect the algorithm, make better compression tech, and overall just make a better product that runs smoother and pushes the system further. For this reason, I truly doubt we have seen all the 360 has to offer yet (this is kinda in response to people quoting the Epic guys "we're using 95% of the 360's power"), and I know we definitely haven't seen all the PS3 has to offer.
Making things even more complicated is that because these two system designs are so radically different, it is extremely difficult to come up with adequate and fair (key word here) comparisons between of two systems. It is really an "apples to oranges" situation. I think one only has to look at the mixed opinions developers have about their preferences between the 360 and the PS3 to see that even they're not sure which is better (some like 360 better, some like PS3 better). If the developers can't all decide in a uniform way, how can we on this forum truly make fair conclusions? Put simply, we really can't...and the best part about these arguments here isn't that people come here wanting to learn which is better; rather most people come here with their minds made up on which is superior and are willing to argue this no matter how many fallacies and irregularities exist in their logic (that is, they only see the positives and refuse to or can't see the negatives in their arguments). I guess this is just how the internet is with any topic though.
In the end, however, it all comes down to games (that is what we love about video games...right??). And if this generation is proving anything, it's that the competition from all three companies is at an all-time high. It's great to see such fierce competition from all sides, and I know because of this it's a great time to be a gamer. The immense quantity of quality games coming out from now until March 08 is astonishing; and it's all because we have two very powerful consoles that are both dueling it out to get the top spot in the HD-gaming market (we all know Wii has the actual next-gen 1st place locked up). I don't own a PS3 yet, but I certainly plan on getting one. Anyone who calls themselves a "gamer" and has the capability of affording a PS3 would be silly to deny themselves of getting one eventually because the system will get some great games in the future (whether it has great games now is somewhat of a subjective debate on how you define "great"...I would put the games that recently came out on the border of "good/great" but not in the "great" category simply because I doubt those games will move a large amount of systems...games like MGS4 and FF13 would of course fall into the "great" category (assuming they live up to their expectations, which they should)).
And so, with all that said, I think we all need to calm down a bit on how much these systems are different from each other, and which one is more "powerful". If the games are awesome, who really cares? I know I don't...I'm looking forward to the next few years of gaming because it's going be to great. Thanks for reading.
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
