So Bods are you saying that its justified to say the PS3 and 360 are excusable in having multiple SKUs because their consumer market works like that of the PC market as was the original contested point?

Or were you merely challenging the language used to portray the understanding between the differences of PCs and Video Game consoles?

Bod, just walk away from the thread, you feel better for it in the morning.

Absolutely not. It personally doesn't bother me, but from a financial standpoint I think it's a poor plan. I think the extreme customizability of the PC is something that personally appeals to a tech-savvier consumer such as myself (I built the one I'm typing on right now), but isn't palatable or appealing to most consumers.

Therefore, I expect the customizability of the PS3 and 360 to also be unpalatable to consumers. I'm not sure it's a deal breaker, but I doubt most people find it appealing.   

I wish you would have made this more clear in your debut into the debate, it would have saved much confusion. I also wish you wouldn't have chosen to derail the debate to satisfy your pet peeve over a very trivial matter of distinctions in the language I chose to use.

Here's an honest question to anyone here who seems to disagree with me:

At what point do you personally feel a "PC" and "console" become effectively similar? What does a console have to start doing to be like a PC? Does it have to be more customizable (which again begs the question: since the Wii iis less customizable than either the 360 or PS3, does that make the Wii "not a console?") 

What function or ability is a console currently lacking that makes it fundamentally different from a PC? I've asked this many times, and gotten scant responses. I'm not sure why this is considered trolling. It's a simple question. I'll repeat it one more time:

What function or ability is a console currently lacking that makes it fundamentally different from a PC?  

I really don't feel like it was derailed until you decided to pick a bone with me. I did specifically say -- in my very first post -- that I did not mind the multiple SKUs personally. It's right there! It's the very first thing I said, in this entire thread. That's not edited at all, by the way.

You can insist this is my fault somehow, but honestly, the thread so far still looks like this to me:

Me: I don't mind multiple SKUs. However, this really does make consoles and PCs effectively similar.

You: No it doesn't.

Me: How so? What functions does a console lack?

You: Please don't derail the thread.

Again, not sure why the onus for such a debate is being placed on me, nor do I particularly feel like it's a derailment (side discussions related to the original topic are usually acceptable in forum threads, in my experience). 

This was never an issue in the thread though before you arrive, all you did was take the argument's language out of context and framed it in your own pet peeve derailing an argument you agree with me on yet just couldn't stand the fact I may have been just a smidge overzealous in my language.

The difference in functionality between PCs and Video Game Consoles was never an issue in this thread. It was something you introduced completely out of context. The discussion was focused solely on the difference in the consumer markets and versatility between PCs and Video Game Consoles. We were arguing "A" but you then decided to argue "C". We were only ever pointing out the differences between the consumer philosiphies and hardware practicalities between Video Game consoles and PCs. WHY IN GODS NAME YOU CHOSE TO BRING UP FUNCTIONALITY BETWEEN PCs and VIDEO GAMES is a mystery as it was never what we were talking about.

You were the one who picked a bone with me, not vice versa. Don't play the victim now.

 every 18 months, computer processors become faster and video cards get better. consoles are outdated when you buy them. just look at Wii. It's a top-of-the-line computer........from 2002.

I honestly am sick of the multiple SKU's.

360 should have launched for 350 USD and come with a wireless controller and 20 GB non removable hard drive.

PS3 should have launched without the blu-ray player and a 20GB non removable hard drive. and a dualshock. 

From a customer perspective, the possibility to have any kind of software (and hardware for that matter) running on it without resorting to hacks. It's more about the ecosystem which can be built around those devices than about the underlying electronics (although they also play a part regarding expansibility and stuff like that). A console is a heavily proprietary and limited system.

 I think I'm seeing the problem here now, NJ5, and I think it's something that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on. 

First, there is customizable software on both the PS3 and 360. You can, for example, install several (non proprietary) versions of Linux on to the PS3. You can also download some software off the web, such as videos. That isn't very much customizable software, but it is still some.

Therefore, the difference you are discussing is a difference of degree, not kind.

As a simple analogy, on a scale of 1-10 on "software flexibility", if PCs are a 9 on customizability (there are still som programs that can't work on a PC without jerry-rigging. Not many, but some), then the PS3/360 are probably a 2 or a 3. That's not very high, by any means, but simply being slightly customizable is a huge leap over not being customizable at all (which previous iterations of gaming hardware were not -- without hacking). 

In other words, PCs and high end consoles are on the same graph now. They're rated in the same way. The PC is still much more customizable than consoles are -- whether we're discussing hardware or software -- but they're both still customizable. That means they're effectively the same, but PCs are simply higher on the totem pole than the 360 or the PS3. For good reason: PCs cost a lot more. 

If the 360/PS3 were literally incapable of any kind of customization, as their predecessors were, I'd agree with you. Instead, they are customizable, just not as fully customizable as a traditional PC is. 

Again, I feel there may be a bigger difference between the Wii and the 360/PS3 (the Wii hardware and software cannot be customized in any form or fashion, while the PS3 and 360 can) than there is between the PS3/360, and I don't see anyone rushing to suggest the Wii isn't a console.