PS3 for me because it usually has a variety of games kind of like gamecube.
But we cant really tell yet.

I think the 360 will have the best third party support, but I think Revolution will have the best first party ' quality' software. Plus, you can download all the old Nintendo games, which adds quality, and quantity. As for PS3, it doesn' t even deserve games it' s such a mess, and why would anybody want to make games for that pricey 360 clone??

As for PS3, it doesn' t even deserve games it' s such a mess, and why would anybody want to make games for that pricey 360 clone??

Because that " 360 Clone" is likely gonna dominate its competitors once AGAIN and wind up with the most 3rd party support

" better" is debatable

.

Yeah, I have some over-rough feelings for PS3. And I don' t think it will dominate. The Xbox 360 trumps all the Playstation 3' s capabilities, but will probably be more developer-friendly. Now that I look back at my first post, I think I was being a bit rash asking ' who would develop games for the system' , because this is afterall Sony, and it has plenty of third party supporters, but I think after developers experiment with PS3 hardware, comparitively along with the 360, I think they will flock over to Microsoft.

Is that okay? Or should I get ready for another attack concerning my diction...

It all depends on the type of games you like, and the system you' v got in mind.

but I think after developers experiment with PS3 hardware, comparitively along with the 360, I think they will flock over to Microsoft.

But they didn' t do so this generation so why should they do so next-generation? I believe developers will flock to where they feel the money is at. Sony' s PlayStation brand is incredibly popular and is on the mind of many developers and gamers.. Despite the 360' s headstart it' s hard to imagine Sony not coming out on top next-generation unless they do something really stupid like delay the PlayStation 3 until sometime in 2007 and release it at $650.

They will do so this generation because Microsoft has that little golden nugget we like to call timing. Microsoft can persuade developers that instead of supporting Sony' s pricey system, they can make games for a cheaper, more developer-friendly console, enter the 360. I think ties between Sony and the Merry Men will be broken after the onslaught launch of the 360 and the innovative developer-friendliness of the Revolution.

Time to pass the throne, Sony.

Sorry for the double post, but I have to say this..

I believe the Xbox brand and the Playstation brand are pretty much equivelant in the United States. I won' t talk about Japan now, but in the U.S, The Xbox and the PS2 brands are equally strong. In the past months, the Xbox has even been outselling the Playstation 2, which means that during those months, people chose to buy the Xbox instead of a Playstation 2, which says alot.

Microsoft can more than handle itself in the U.S; it' s in Japan where it' s going to get eaten alive by Nintendo and Sony.

I' d love for either Microsoft or Nintendo to come out as the top dog next-generation, mainly Microsoft since they' re the hardworking newcomer, but both Microsoft and Nintendo have a steep uphill battle ahead of them. IF Sony can' t find a way to provide the PS3 at a more consumer-friendly price-point by the time launch rolls around then of course that' s a small advantage given to their competitors. But do you have any idea how many people will sell their entire families AND their arms and a leg for Sony' s console? So many poor shmucks were paying $650 and up for a PS2 unit at launch when stores were sold out, so I don' t think it' ll be much of a shirt off their backs with whatever price the PS3 comes in at. Sony has that kind of luxury and mindshare over many of their consumers.