The 360 was rushed to capitalize on being the 1st next generation system while Sony took their time to create a more developed system. Xbox got most of the next generation hardcore gamers because they came out 1st. Sony came out a full year later and put out a highly expensive machine with all of the bells and whistles but unfortunately they out priced the market. Even though the 360 actually cost more to upgrade to equal that of the PlayStation (wi-fi, network subscription etc.) the sticker price detracted a lot of would be gamers from the PS3 to the cheaper 360 and the much cheaper Wii. Another reason that the 360 maintains gamers after the RROD is from gamers not wanting to replace their gaming collection or achievements on that system. So to say that a machine that has a 33%-50% (at least could be higher) failure rate is better than a system that has a 1% failure rate and plays 95% of the same games is asinine.

If a gamer prefers more online users than the 360 is better choice, if a player wants a more media orientated system than PS3 is better and of course if you like playing more family friendly games than the Wii is the better option.

Mo Diddley the put 2&2 together-er!