I think some people are missing the point, intentional or not, that this article brings to light. Assuming that this article isn't some subtle Microsoft propoganda, it serves to show the thought processes of an average (non forum going) gamer and the level of gaming knowledge they possess. Even though this guy percieves himself to be slightly game savvy, he clearly isn't and we have to consider he's not even an extreme example.

I've seen several people on this site and others present arguments weighing the relative values, game libraries, controllers, metacritic scores, online services and ancillary features of the various consoles and arriving at conclusions why one manufacturer or another is going to continue to dominate or reverse their fortunes.

As this article shows it's all for naught because realistically the majority of people out there really don't know about half of what you are talking about and their decision to purchase is based on a few, very basic facts such as cost and games that appeal to them and their friends/family.

Do you own the most best or most expensive watch, jeans, shoes, car, TV, house, PC, etc on the market?

Well the watch guys are laughing at you because you don't own an Rolex, the car guys wonder why you opted for the Ford over the Lexus, the designer guys laugh because you aren't wearing Gucci.

The point is that we buy products that we feel are worth the price. Gamers might feel like the PS3 is worth the money, but there are plenty of people out there who aren't willing to spend the extra money.

(Well, true gamers know that we need all the systems, so you should own all of them by now.)

Sony is evil? I see.