I don't think the Xbox360 or the PS3 will be as powerful as hyped. PS3 had better deliver though. Xbox360 will eventually show us a lot of actual in game footage so we will have a measuring stick for the next generation. If Sony finally shows the PS3 games and it doesn't deliver what they showed at E3 they will be shooting themselves in the foot. If it ends up being close to the Xbox360 games then why wait when you can play that stuff on the 360 now?

Here are my reasons

PS3 doesnt provide any info on the hard drive so that could mean anything with the loading space.

Sony always overprices their stuff.

Xbox is all about gaming and interactive gaming. Sony still can accomplish this and i doubt it will.

like i said, i will still get both but i still trust XBOX for my gaming

Indeed, that is the one way launching early can help MS.

It doesn't affect me as I see little more than the same FPS/Driving/Sports game lineup that we saw on the X-box, so I have no problem waiting for similar (or even less powerful) machines from Sony and/or Nintendo that have more games in the genres I like (Platformers, RPGs, Adventure).

It will have a 2.5" hard drive slot. It won't come with one built in.

Sony always sells their consoles at a loss. Not sure how you can say they are overpriced.

Eyetoy is the most interactive gaming device on the market.

While there aren't alot of 360 gameplay videos out there, there are several that show off what the system can do graphically with launch games.

Watch the video of Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion HERE.

MS sells overpriced buggy operating systems for far more than what they're worth. Worth is also a subjective thing.

Sony nor MS's other products fit in with these because both consoles will be sold at a loss. Saying either of them are overpriced, especially when prices haven't been announced is nothing more than speculative.

Add ons never work. I seriously hope Sony changes this spec.

Trying to quantify interactivity is subjective. One can claim that a puzzle game is more interactive because it requires more thinking/problem solving.

It's definately the most physically interactive peripheral on the market.

Too bad there aren't any good games that utilize it.

If Xbox showed us anything about hard drives, is it that they are highly underutilized. Most games only used it to cache data, which is why they are including one now. Additionally, by the time the PS3 comes out, flash memory will be cheap enough to be a better substitution.

Many would argue about the quality of games on EyeToy, but none will argue about its interactivity. I think you are misusing the word 'interactive'. "Acting or capable of acting on each other." I think me pressing 'X' on a controller, and the controller telling the character to jump is much less interactive than me jumping and the character jumping. In fact, I think the only way it could get more interactive would be to physically be placed inside a videogame (TRON!).

I think neither console was overpriced compared to the others this past generation, Sony and Microsoft were always pretty even in price, so I don't see how Sony could be overpriced. I would also say that PS2 games could be had the cheapest, many Sony first party games were $40 msrp at release.

They are both guilty of overpricing in other electronics/entertainment.
I don't quite understand what this is supposed to mean. Neither Sony nor Microsoft is all about gaming and interactive gaming. They both tried this gen to make their consoles all in one media centers, with dvd playback, and Microsoft with mp3's a hard drive, etc. I don't quite see how either one is all about gaming while the other is not.

Taking PC gaming as an example, there aren't many PC games out there that use a HD for anything other than cacheing either. Cacheing makes large seamless worlds with no load time possible. They also facilitate content download.

If flash memory is a viable alternative or will be cheaper than a hard drive is yet to be seen. I have my doubts about a 20 gig flash memory card being as cheap or as fast as a hard drive though, in terms of gameplay vs saves.

I am not misuing the word interactive. If I'm misusing it, how can what I claim be less interactive?

Using "I think" in your statement makes it a subjective statement.

I'm not saying the Eye Toy isn't interactive, I'm saying that calling it the most interactive is subjective.

A better argument on your end would have been "They can make puzzle based games for the Eye Toy so your point is moot." or read my statement correctly "Eyetoy is the most interactive gaming device on the market."

I overlooked the word device. :P

Using your mind more won't make it more interactive - unless you are controlling the gain using brain signals. Interactivity is your ability to act directly on the game, and the games ability to act directly on you - not what part of your brain you use to play the game.

The player is object A; the controller is object B; the ingame movement is object C. Using a controller to move an object means that A -> B -> C. EyeToy removes the "middleman" and thus A -> C. It is more interactive because you are more directly acting on the object. The fact that you are physically doing what you want the on screen action to do is also more interactive. Other similar devices would be a light gun or steering wheel.

The fact that EyeToy places you in the game means that you are no longer interacting with a character who is interacting with the environment, but rather you are interacting with the environment. That is more interactive, when you can get rid of the "middleman".

I'm really try to think of a more interactive device, but I truely can't.

I'll give you that my comparison to a puzzle game was poor.

It might be more physical, but not neccesarily interactive. The amount of action taken has no bearing on the end result.

As per the definition of interactive, something is either interactive or it isn't. The only way to quatify interactivity is by the number of ways you can interact with it.

This all boils down to the software. There are set movements or botton presses that corespond to certain in game commands. The only difference is it requires more energy to jump than press a button. End result is the same.

I have yet to see an Eye Toy game that let's me do more in game that what I can with a controller.

The Eye Toy is the middleman you claim that it eliminates. You interact with the Eye Toy and it does the same thing as me hitting the X button. It's just another controller but with a more limited interface(due to software).

I disagree. I believe interactivity can be easily quantitative. I believe it is possible to make things more interactive by innovation. One of those innovations would be EyeToy.

Which goes back to my orignial statement of interactivity being subjective.

Although I think we've hijacked this thread enough with our petty yet fun debate.

This thread is a bit redundant anyway, this thread is better: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=422759