Americans choose XBOX frankly because Microsoft ran a relentless marketing campaign for the first XBOX.  Something like 450 Million in advertising in its first couple years.  That's unheard of, and part of the reason it was so far in the red for years.  But the way to sell games in America has always been heavy marketing and pushing graphics.  Americans will always buy a game with superior graphics over gameplay.  And if you have enough advertising to tell enough people about it, you'll sell millions of that game.

My god, half of you are morons. Goated, bloody morons. Grats to the OP for raising a stir.

You all do realize that pretty much any argument you make is derived from pre-conceived bias, right? It really doesn't matter who beats who at this point. This generation of consoles is what, four years old now? At this point, we're all winners because our respective companies have not dropped out of the race and quit, but rather are upping the ante a million times over to try and gain our hard earned cash.

There is no "better" system out there. There is a better system for YOU, maybe, but each one has its strengths and weaknesses. Killzone can't hold a candle to Halo. That's fact, sorry. Gears of War is something only found on the 360. But just the same, Metal Gear Solid 4, Little Big Planet, Infamous, and several other games can only be found on the PS3. Yes, RROD sucks, but I'm sure so did forking over 600 dollars for your system on launch day. Yes, Xbox live costs a paltry sum, but boy, there IS a reason why very few people have a problem paying for it.

At the end of the day, I would prefer if Microsoft stayed above Sony, but not because I dislike the Playstation. I personally feel like Sony came into this generation with a sense of arrogance that only now has been retracted. I do not personally prefer the games library, and I think it could do so much more to promote its products. Does this mean I'm a fanboy? No.
I grew up with the original playstation, and I spent my senior year of high school beating the hell out of FF10 and other PS2 games.

Yet, what we have here, is a massive barrage of blind fanboy hate for both sides. Sarcasm aside, do any of you genuinely believe what you are saying? Because if you do, then I feel sorry for you. There is enough evidence on both sides of the coin to disprove "most" fanboy arguments.

"Sigh"

I find it funny your 'message to the blind fanboy rage' is full of quite a bit of things that look like facts masked as opinions.

Not really, Microsoft is still making millions on games and Xbox Live so they shouldn't give a damn. Nintendo shouldn't be worried either with its 40 million copies of Wii sports and Wii Play sales.

I hate this whole Microsoft is using it's money and bully boy tactis to beat down Sony. As if Sony is a small company. They're a multi billion dollar conglomerate! Remember what Sony's money did to Sega? Paybacks a bitch.

What did Sony's money do? If I remember correctly poor business skills and idiotic development costs are what ran SEGA into the ground

Well, that's what run Sega's past consoles into the ground.  Dreamcast was actually their best console and was doing well (comperatively to the Sega Saturn and 32x).  But PS2 came out and well...that was that.

Would Sega have lasted even if PS2 wasn't so successful?  Probably not next to consoles like XBOX and GC (which both would have done even better without the PS2 there).  But the fact remains that the PS2s monumental success pushed Sega out of the Console business.

To me.... not at all. It isn't going to make my games any less enjoyable.

i dont' care that much, but looking at sales data and stuff is kinda interesting.
like how it amazes me that Microsoft is beating Sony at their own game, and how Nintendo went from 3rd place last gen to comfortably 1st this gen.

Correction: Dreamcast was the 2nd best Sega console. Sega Genesis/Mega Drive was awesome. The Japanese division of Sega deserves some of the blame for hindering the confidence of consumers, retailers and third-party developers but there was no way a tiny company like Sega was going to survive against Sony. Last I checked, Sega had about $1.64 billion in annual revenue last year. I doubt Sega was bigger than that back in the Dreamcast days. Nintendo by comparison is at around $20 billion+ revenue wise ($3 billion+ in profits), Microsoft around $60 billion+ revenue wise ($16billion+ in profits) and Sony around $80 billion revenue wise (though they are in the red). Sega is so tiny compared to these behemoths. Back in Sega`s glory days (16-bit era), Sega had to go up against the goliath that was Nintendo but the size advantage Nintendo had back then (I`m sure their revenue and profit totals weren`t as obscenely large then as it is now) wasn`t as significant as the size advantage that a huge conglomorate like Sony had over Sega. So back in the day Sega had the opportunity to outsmart the bigger Nintendo in Europe, Brazil and in North America (for a period of time). Kalinske (Sega of America rep at the time) was a marketing genius. Dude sold me on the Genesis. From the standpoint of a young boy growing up back then, I saw Sonic as the cooler mascot and Sega games as the cooler new alternative to kiddie Nintendo games. If Sega of Japan wasn`t so incompetent (jumping the gun with Sega CD, Sega 32X and the Saturn because they weren`t pleased with Mega Drive sales in Japan and completely ignored how awesome the platform was doing in the Americas and Europe) and just let Kalinske and Sega of America call the shots, Sega would have won the 16-bit war in North America and Sega probably would have grown enough to be reasonably competitive with the big three.