Why do you assume that the 360 will run better on a crappy TV? Why does anyone assume you have to have an HDTV to notice graphics are better? I have a crappy $200 Walmart-bought TV (they actually have good deals there it turns out), and I can tell that the games look better! For goodness sakes, you don't have to have HDTV to see that! Xbox games don't naturally look better on a standard TV! How would that ever make sense? I can not imagine DVDs looking better on HDTVs because to me they look the same as movie theaters. Now, if movie theaters run the same resolution I'd be shocked. The main need for higher resolution is looking better on a larger space. Huge HDTVs don't look right with low definition content the same way a low resolution video on the PC doesn't look right if you make the video full screen. The more detail the bigger the image can be without distortion. However, at some point if the image looks exactly like it does on the camera that recorded it, how much better can it be? High resolution is just less compression and allows an image to look better on a larger screen. Main point: images from any source that are high resolution do not somehow look worse on standard TVs when compared to an image designed for the lower resolution. Aren't Xbox games cramming 720p and above on DVD9 discs right now anyway? Isn't that why they are adding HDMI to the elite version? Wouldn't that look "better" on an HDTV because it would be bigger and still crisp? I would think so. As for blu-ray. Okay, you don't want blu-ray movies. But I sure can't wait for games to take advantage of the extra space. I'll take it. Well, I came up with it somehow, and I'm a student. Then again, I recognize the present and future value of what I paid for.

Thank you. I'm so tired of the ripoff argument. Every console since Atari is a ripoff. If someone does it better, so what if it's a ripoff?

My gosh. Who in the world isn't familiar with designing a character in a game that looks like you? How long has that been around? Second Life is the only comparison to Home and I'm pretty sure Second Life will not have everything Home has. Miyamoto may be a genius but the Mii concept was not a genius concept. It's a "ripoff" of...a huge list of games and programs that allow you to do that.

My TV does 1080i, and a bunch of modes under 720p - but not 720p (or 1080p). At least the 360 upsamples games that run in 720 (or other modes) to 1080i - but on the PS3 I get lovely 480p quality (for games that run in 720p for instance). Now that's worth spending that cash for. BTW - my DVD player plays DIVX movies off a USB drive/key, and upsamples them to 1080p (or lower). It even came with a HDMI cable. All this for $140AU. EDIT - this entire thread is trash.

Well, I'm sorry you bought an inferior HDTV. I'm sure that was cheap when you bought it. I've played the PS3 games on a SDTV and I find the graphics to be stunning. Upon hooking it up to my monitor so that I could watch TV at the same time, I could not see a noticeable difference in quality when using 720p. Seems to me you could just enjoy the games no matter the resolution. It is entirely possible Sony will add upscaling. Has microsoft had upscaling the whole time? I don't believe so.

Being a college student I can see that typical college students (not sure how typical you are income or more importantly parent's income wise) shouldn't have the disposable money to buy a $600 video game system or HDTV's but most do anyways. I can also see first-hand that college students aren't the best at understanding what constitutes the best present and future value of something though none would ever admit it. At any rate when it comes to market dominance college students don't come close to providing it. The people who provide that dominance are people who have to weigh the cost of a video game system versus their mortgage, car payment(s), bills, endless amounts of food and clothing for kids, etc. This is more so for the lower income European, East Asian, and "Other" markets Sony has thus far owned and where the price is higher. This doesn't mean the PS3 won't see a decent amount of units shipped (20-30 million should be no trouble) but it simply cannot become the market dominator the PS1 & 2 did and that this Sony developer claims it will. Also, good games are good games regardless of their resolution. The funnest (in my opinion and by sales) games right now run on a 256 x 192 screen, well 2 of them.

You don't need an HDTV for nextgen games, and I don't see the value in that yet. However, assuming all college students can't understand the relative values of 2 or 3 consoles is absurd. I've seen first-hand those that can and those that can't, just like every other demographic.

you're more worried with how it looks than with what you're seeing. Sounds to me that if you wake up one day and it's a cloudy morning, you stay at home because "the colors are not rendering as good as yesterday and the contrast is not as sharp".

Just want to point out that you example was a poor choice because CoD3 has sold more on Wii than PS3, roughly 40k more.

First 3rd pary sales is quit good in USA, an attachment ratio of 1.588 for 3rd party games can't be said to be bad on a consol that is four month old. 3rd party games has totally sold more than Nintendo offerings, (Wii sport not included). 75% of the best games will most probarbly not be on the Wii but I actuly think that if I was a western dev which wanted to go exclusive HD-era I would today chose Xbox360, if this could change? Of course it can but the game sales on PS3 isn't that impressive yet. Well actuly I personally think that PS3 is overpriced as a game consol which might affect its possibilities to go mass market as PS2. A final note: This gen is fun because it is different compared to the last. Reason the consols offer different experience, it is not more of the same.