I prefer a replaceable battery but I'd much rather have something rechargeable included rather than dealing with disposables. With the exception of our smoke detector and included remotes which I don't use, I think my 360 controller is the only thing left in the house that takes regular batteries.

I figured with rising hard drive sizes, MS would have added that as a feature in on OS update. I mean Halo has had the theater for what, 5 years? Same tech, just make it a global feature of the system.

My PS3 controllers still hold a charge and I have 2, so I can always have one plugged in and charging while I'm using the other one (except for the very rare occasion when playing 2 players locally). Works fine for me, but I guess if it stops holding a charge, I'll be pissed that I have to drop coin for a new one.

Maybe it is because we have 4 kids, but we have tons of stuff that requires AA and AAA batteries. I have like 60+ recharable batteries.

That'll be sweet if they can manage to get game studios to stop raping YouTube and getting footage taken down.

Agreed on pretty much all of these, especially number 4, my index finger starts to slip off of the top triggers if I play too long. I got the real triggers and it solved that problem, until I dropped my controller the other night on the way back from a friends house and lost one of the real triggers in the street for good. The main reason I have always purchased for the 360 first is the controller, but now I just use the 360 controller on my pc connected to my tv and it's the best of all worlds.

Really? Disagree.

The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were already using out-of-date hardware by time they were released. The problem is Microsoft and Sony decided on a "ten-year" cycle for their consoles and the hardware wasn't designed to last more than five-years, let alone ten-years. The biggest piece is Microsoft and Sony will have to launch hardware out the door that is setup to last the next decade and never feel "out of date." This also will come at a significant cost as the hardware will be a steep loss leader until they move enough consoles, sell double-or-triple the software, or the hardware becomes "out of date."

Games with native 1920 x 1080 resolution needs to be a guarantee on titles on the next-generation consoles. Games being able to output at 60 FPS needs to be a guarantee on titles on the next-generation consoles. 3D is unnecessary as most don't utilize it. 7.1 surround sound is a want, but not a need. I personally want Microsoft and Sony to utilize Bluetooth 4.0 and-or USB Audio Out on their consoles so we can have amazing wireless headsets rather than the over-priced expensive shit companies like Turtle Beach puts on the market.

Hardware, software, and technology rapidly develop and grow within such a short time frame. Microsoft and Sony need to build a console that can adapt throughout the next ten-years rather than just survive. To be fair, Sony has been better at this process on the PS3 (through the use of firmware and software updates) than Microsoft, but we'll see what happens.

The controller isn't a selling point to me as the DS controller has always sucked, but Sony needs to also focus on its software catalog. Sony had shit compared to Microsoft, and even Nintendo, when it came to first-party titles and exclusives. You can have the best hardware out of the three, but without content, you're fucked.

It seems like people don't know you can replace the battery on the controller. I believe they cost less than $10. You just need to open it up and switch it out.

Is this real life?

God of War? Gran Turismo? Heavy Rain? inFamous? Little Big Planet? Resistance? Uncharted?

That's an amazing list of winners right there. You must be the life of a party if you consider those games entertaining.

I don't see how you can even make a 10-year console, unless we're able to upgrade things like the CPU and graphics chipset. Even with PCs, you can't keep upgrading the same core system forever, because at some point you need to support new buses and peripherals on a basic level. Firmware updates are nice, but they're essentially updating the OS while leaving the hardware alone.

Compared to what? Halo, Forza and Gears Of War? You can argue a lot of things, but the PS3 has a far better set of exclusives than the 360. It's really not even close. 360 has some good exclusive FPS games. PS3 has solid exclusives in just about every genre.

That's not a bad list at all. You could even add Journey, Killzone, Ratchet & Clank. What does Microsoft and Nintendo have that is so vastly superior? Halo or another tired Mario title?

The only positive of MS & Sony stretching out this console generation? Longer stretch between threads that devolve like these.

PS3 also has Ni No Kuni which is turning out to be one of my favorite games this gen.

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

In the next few months alone Sly4, GoW:A and The Last of Us will be out.

Mass Effect and to an extent, Mass Effect 2 (timed exclusives), Bioshock (another timed exclusive), Left 4 Dead 1 and 2, Alan Wake, Fable 1 and 2.

We can go back and forth all day about what has better exclusives, so let's not.

Other than Alan Wake and the Fable franchise, I don't count the others as exclusives. By that logic, all of the DLC for the Call of Duty games are exclusive to the 360 (as they come out one-to-two months prior to the PS3 & PC) and the PC editions of the Left 4 Dead games are far superior as there's more customizations, but most importantly, the DLC has always been on Stream for free unlike that of Xbox Live.

Fable II, Fable III, Forza 2, Forza 3, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Gears of War 3, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, and Halo 4 are all in the top 30 best selling 360 games of all time and have moved over 72M units total. Each game I mentioned is within the top thirty Xbox titles sold. That's not including the Kinect titles (Kinect Adventures which sold 20M units due to it being bundled with the hardware, Kinect Sports also sold another 5M units). That's nearly 100M units sold for "first-party" exclusive titles.

Compare that with the PS3? God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, LittleBigPlanet, Reisstance, Uncharted, Uncharted 2, and Uncharted 3 are the only "first-party" exclusive titles in the top 30 best selling PS3 games of all time and they only moved 43M units.

The Xbox 360 has only moved 2M more consoles than the PS3 (74M vs 72M), but their first-party titles sell more than 3M units more per average.

Your opinion on the games differ, but the numbers don't. If the quality was there, those games on the PS3 would've moved more.

... but the Wii first-party titles demolish all of their numbers, specifically due to that of being bundled with hardware. In Wii's 30 best selling games, only 9 titles are third-party titles available on other consoles. The remainder are all first-party exclusives.

And to be fair, I've gotten more mileage out of some of my Wii games than my 360 or PS3 titles.

Because we all know that sales figures are the best indication of quality, and Avatar is the best movie ever made.

See, that's the problem, you are correlating sales numbers to quality which is a poor or irrelevant measure at best.

Seriously, we're doing this again?

I don't even know what that means. You're being sarcastic but saying something that is perfectly reasonable. Those are great games--I'd add Valkyria Chronicles as well.

My Xbox 360 library dwarfs my PS3 library (which is limited mostly to exclusives), but it's not about game quality. It's because my friends all own Xboxes and far fewer own PS3s. I also like the achievement system over trophies and prefer Xbox LIVE to PSN.

Citing sales figures to prove your point just wastes everyone's time. It's almost a non-sequitur.