I guess it was quite foolish of me to expect a decent thread.  What I was expecting was something along the lines of "I think the console wars are tiring" or "The people that constantly argue about the console sales wars are annoying" but instead I got something along these lines "This is why I think MS fans are hypocrites"

Everybody is a hypocrite (yes even me), and everybody has double standards even if they aren't purposely trying to.

The console wars are stupid.

that's not entirely accurate....or even remotely accurate.  i get that we all flip flop from time to time.  what i was getting at was pointing out an implication of things they were saying.  i wanted to generate discussion based on that, and instead i got much of the usual crap that goes on on this forum.  fanboys on both sides took the opportunity to chime in.

and about using m$...you're gonna take issue with that?  many of you routinely butcher the english language with your textspeak gibberish, and you will begrudge me one abbreviation?   i have seen many fans of microsoft use that abbreviation, so i fail to see why it is the hallmark of a fanboy.  if the only convention for abbreviating the playstation were p$ i would use that.   i would have used ms instead, but i didn't want people to think i was talking about multiple schlerosis.

Alrighty then.  Your entitled to your own opinion.

Is this directed at me?

no, this bloke above you made a comment about dismissing what i had to say because i used m$ in my post.

i've been reading sales threads for some time, and the trends in thinking are quite fascinating.  it is the latest of those that is the subject of this thread.

so the slim is out and dominating beyond everyone's expectations.  the rate that it is outselling the 360 is impressive indeed.  even the release of odst didn't make so much as a dent as the slim continues to steamroll ahead into the holiday season.

now the ps3 fans are shouting their joys at this victory, the response from the die-hard m$ fans is summable as follows, "yeah well when the price drops and natal comes out we will start winning again."

this strikes me as very odd.   for the first three years of the console war ps3 fans have extolled the ps3 as the superior system, while explaining the deficit due to the high price point.   M$ fans looked to the higher sales of the 360 to conclude it was the better system.  vox populi vox dei i guess.

now that the shoe is on the other foot, the xbox response has changed.  the game is on an even playing field.  the prices are the same, the games are roughly the same, and the battle is out of control for them.  what do they say?  we'll do better when the field in not level again.

isn't this argument just a tacit acknowledgement that the 360 is an inferior machine that can't win in a heads up contest?  i think that it is.

discuss.

The PS3 includes, at the same price as the Elite 360, a Blu-Ray player, Wi-Fi and free on-line play.  So, I can only assume, that by level playing field, you really mean, Sony has to include more functionality than the 360 at a similar price to effectively compete?

As that sounds to be your argument (please correct me if I'm wrong); shouldn't it really be the Sony fans tacit acknowledgment that they have the "inferior" machine?  Seeming as it only started performing at high levels when the price was cut to match the 360, while including Blu-Ray and Wi-Fi that the Elite doesn't have?

For the record, I don't think Sony has an inferior/superior machine, it has a different one.  I just think the logic your trying to use to defend your position to be tenuous at best.

that's a good point to bring up, and it needs to be addressed.  how does one determine a superior machine?  since there will always be rather significant differences between consoles, it seems to preclude ever being able to speak of such a thing as superiority.  if one requires the consoles to be chiefly the same, then  the notion of superiority loses its meaning.  in order to avoid this quandary we need to be clear is how we define our terms.  i think that in determining superiority it is relevant and important to consider what each respective manufacturer bothered to bring to the table in this gen.  what i'm referring to is what comes in each box.  sony thought it important to include bluray, wifi, etc...., and microsoft thought it best to include a headset or whatever they put in the box. 

when one boils it down, at equal price points the public prefers what sony brings to the next gen table.   this discussion overlooks objective notions of superiority in lieu of brute sales.  i don't subscribe to this thinking, as i've always thought the ps3 was the best system.  i was just trying to make people realize the implication made in saying the 360 needs to be cheaper and bundled out the ass to be competitive again.