Currently this year there has been much talk about an Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution. These are all good but what is the best one? Personaly i would like to have the Revolution because all the nintendo games, but that also means not a lot of newer games for it. Xbox 360 look really cool, but costing $300 and $400 is just way to much. And the one you really want is the $400 version because of the wireless controllers the hard drive and all of that stuff. I haven't really heard anything about PS3. If anyone has any information about please post it here 'cause i am dying to know. Also post here and give your review on the Xbox 360, PS3, and/or Revolution.

If I buy one, it would be the XboX 360. I just love microsoft. I also heard that 360 and ps3 will support HDTV. It's a shame that this is very expensive here in Europe. I also like some nintendo games. But now i've played halo and some other xbox games, i wouldn't go for nintendo. It's also true that the consoles will be expensive. Indeed the 360, but you get free xbox live with it, that's something.

I'd love to have an XBOX360, PS3 and PSP, but I don't have the money and if I would have, I wouldn't feel like buying a game 2 times (on for console and one for PSP ).
Somebody @ school has a PSP, and relay, the screen is BIG .

I'm not for Nintendo (the type of games they have). I mean, Mario and all the cartoonesk games for children ? Nah, I prefer some good shooter , or something like GTA

I'm not the world's biggest gamer (most recent console in my apt. is an SNES, actually), but of my four sibs, three are really, really into it.

My sister is swearing by the new Nintendo system for certain titles (like Zelda).
My youngest brother is see-sawing between "Ah, I like the first XBox just fine," and "Wow, I wonder what the new one will do?"
The oldest brother is a die-hard PS2 fan, just as he was addicted to PS/PSOne. He's convinced that PS3 will be the best gaming system ever.

So ... if a bunch of people IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD can't agree on which is the best ... that's saying something. Each of the systems obviously has some sort of advantage ... but we usually end up slowly acquiring all three of the new systems sometime after they come out (usually months and months later).

HAHAHAHA!!! But it works out, becasue they'll each buy all the systems! You WIN =D LOL You get the best of all worlds!

Personally, I'm going to wait till all the consoles come out of the gate and see how they do, I don't think any of the games that first come out on the systems are going to be that great. (they don't tend to anyways...) plus everything is so expensive...I still have no idea how they can even OFFER these consoles at these prices...$300 bucks for a basic x360 system? wtf? It should be like $500 at least...but then no one would buy it...

anyways, yeah, so I'm waiting, probably the best thing to do would be stick to PC if you haven't been sucked into the money-eating-garbage-games vaccum that is the console market ^_^'''

Oh wow...you guys must really be in the dark. PS3 will be the way to go. Why? IBM has their fingers in it....And while the xbox 360 will use IBM PowerPC technology, Sony will be using IBM's next-up technology, the Cell processor. Sony will definetely have the hardware advantage over the xbox 360. I'm not too sure about revolution, I haven't heard much about it. I'm not much of a gamer...but I am dying to see what exactly Cell can do...it's supposed to be the next technology that will change computers drastically different than as we know them now.

I like the ps2, so I think I will stick to the PS3 (If I could get it). I like the ps2 controller, I think it's the easiest to use. Also, I don't know why people say xbox has the best graphics. I don't think there is much difference, though I've only seen one game on xbox: halo.

I want to try out the Revolution too. I want to see how good their controller is.

I want the PS3 when it comes, but personal I like my computer mutch better, more games and more things to do.

Sorry if this is a bit non-gamey/technical (I'm a programmer that write code that somewhat similar to games .. best if I don't explain it as it'd bore you guys to death!!), and if it's a bit negative (I'm naturally pessimistic & would love to be proven wrong!!). I used to love PC and console games ... but lately I've begun to prefer PC ones ... not sure why that is & I'm guessing maybe it's just me changing rather than there being any difference in the games themselves.

Everytime Sony comes out with a new console their hypemachine, er Marketing Dept, claim they are aiming for supercomputing-level entertainment. Logically there's no way a 500 Dollar console will ever compare to a 1000 node scientific cluster .. we saw that with the previous generation (hardly anyone created a supercomputer from a bunch of consoles .. a few groups tried but got lame performance cf a modern PC cluster)! Nowadays, even Cray are selling X86-PCs (albeit ones with many CPUs in them tied together in a very very fast custom network bus ... and with a bunch of other expensive custom chips specific for maths/physics ... similar to the VPU idea that Cray started but with more local memory, with full access to system memory and to some extent with greater programmability in the sort of maths that can be done).

The new way of thinking about computing isn't new at all. It is exactly the same design statement as the highly parallel vector processing Crays (and to some extent Alphas) of yesteryear, where there is no compromise on performance. This is a good thing if you want to max bang per buck. However Sony have severely limited the amount of cache available to each VPU. And developers are already complaining that this severely limits the real-world benches (theoretical vector throughput means nothing really .. but marketing like to brag these numbers when the real-world ones are so poor or unknown, as is the case for new architectures like Cell). Sony did give a really impressive demo of the Cell decoding a whole load of HDTV streams .. but this is a limited and repetitive set of tasks .. I'm more interested in games/graphics engines than movies! They gave a whole load of physics demos (the zillions of ducks in a bath tub), but it's nothing a dual-core PC or PC with a PPU couldn't do already. It doesn't seem to be that amazing to me.

As for the linking multiple Cells together .. you need a very fast network connection to sensibly packetise work for distributed Cells because of the latency issue in the case of a real-time game.

I've been looking at the discussions online from various developers who are using the Cell developer kit, and the Xbox 360 Apple-Mac dev kit .. and both seem to be pretty disappointed by the CPU performance. Summarising, they were hoping for enough CPU power to enable a giant leap in AI and physics ... but it turns out that nonlinear ordering of code isn't so easy on either platform ... it's difficult on PCs too BTW, so this isn't an anti console statement. It's just that Sony seems to think they can create a complex piece of hardware and expect developers to instantly make decent use out of it ... whilst MS do all they can to make it as easy as possible to develop for without losing any performance ... this generation will take a long time to make use of the CPU power.

MS's tools look much better .. actually it's pretty impressive. They help you port PC code to the XB360 and vice versa. The next Windows OS (Vista) will even have Xbox-Live and the USB2 Xbox-360 controller (BTW, I too love the PS2 controller .. but I think the PS3 controller looks far worse)! And they are going to encourage developers to develop/port games both ways (more than they had with XB1).

On the bright side, graphically they'll both look great .. they're pretty much equal really, Sony using NV and MS using ATI. I'm really looking forward to the next-gen Resident Evil, and even nextgen Sonic .. but I wouldn't buy either console just for those. You probably figured that I prefer PC games ... not just the usual FPSs, but I even like combat flight sims like LOMAC and I prefer racing sims like the PC's GTR to TOCA/GT4/Sega (although I still love to play the latter for the better graphics & more arcadey thrills)... so may be it's best that you guys don't really listen to my views, I think I'm a very different sort of gamer to the "norm"!

BTW, did you guys notice that the latest Sega arcade board ("Lindbergh") is a PC (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/01/news_6132425.html) with an Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU .. but they have DRM hardware so that you can't simply run arcade games on your PC .. yet!! I don't think the VF game looks that much better than VF4-evo, but the Sonic video looked pretty amazing. Basically if you remember the prerendered stuff on the Dreamcast game, it kinda looks like that (but is in real-time).

I'm really a Nintendo fan, I've got nearly all their Gameboy consoles and a Gamecube but I'm not that keen on the Nintendo Revoution really. I suppose the good thing about it is that it's unique and different from other consoles because of the controller design.

I'm not going to get Sony Playstation Portable either because I'm not really much of a Sony PS fan and also the controller looks like an alien head!

No, I think the best buy is the Microsoft X-box 360. It has lots of memory bandwidth, a large hard drive, lots of space and high resolution. it can also play DVD's, music, CDs and is compatible with X-box Live! Hope that helps people's decisions.