I don't think it's a problem with people feeling entitled, as much as it's Sony failing (yet again) to do what they said they would do. Sure, they didn't put anything in writing and they may not have made any "promises," but the implication was made that they would provide some type of upgrade path for existing users. Their continued pattern of misleading customers is what is most troubling and has caused me to take a wait-and-see approach with a once highly-respectable company.

Sony is quickly establishing a reputation for over-promising and under-delivering. If I remember right, the PS3 was originally pitched as having 2 HDMI ports. And it was backwards compatible with PS1 and PS2 games. And Playstation Home was going to revolutionize the idea of online communities. And now, the good-will program for existing PSP users is suddenly ditched.

Whenever Sony announces the next game console, one would be wise to simply not believe them until it ships.

Uh, not all the paintings came true. The biggest one - the explosion of New York - ultimately was thwarted, leading one to believe that HRG can still be saved (which I hope he is).

Alone, they were independently crazy. Together, the potential was unlimited...

There's a clear point that people forget in the console wars - it truly doesn't matter whether Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo sells the most consoles. What will ultimately be the harbinger of success is how the companies behind them fare.

Given the current trend - Nintendo comes out the biggest winner. They continue to roll in profit. Even if they do finish 3rd in this race, they will be the healthiest company.

Microsoft is doing well now too. With IPTV on the horizon, downloadable movies and TV shows showing moderate success, Xbox Live subscriptions beating expectations and the 360 hardware now selling at profit - MS is in a very comfortable position. Even if they don't "win" this console war, they're going to walk away very happy - as will gamers.

Sony however, is hurting. The company is a few breaths short of becoming a junk-bond. They are drowning in debt and each PS3 sold is a financial loss. In order to compete with the 360 and the Wii, they will have to extend the period of time that the PS3 will be a loss-leader, further driving down profits. With the loss of several exclusive games (like Assasins Creed, Devil May Cry 4, etc...) and not enough graphical differentiation to make it stand out from the 360 (at least, to justify the additional cost), Sony will have to be aggressive with pricing over the next several years to regain market share.

So - fanboys, continue in your anti-Sony, anti-MS, anti-Nintendo rants. It's cute and makes for good internet fodder. At the end of the day, though, there may NEVER be a Playstation 4 if Sony can't pull a major turn-around in the next couple of years. And that lack of competition will hurt all gamers.

Well, I just finished Dead Rising and loved it! Can't wait for the sequel (which seems inevitable at this point).

Picked up Saints Row, Hitman, Test Drive Unlimited and Madden '07 for my next round. I'm not sure which I'll focus on next, as my mood and patience will probably dictate that for me.

Lest everyone forget, how would that iPod Video file get on a PC for syncing? You'd have to have a PC with a Blu-Ray drive in it (pretty rare for a while) or be able to connect to your Blu-Ray player through your network. Or, as a third option, the PS3 could sync with the iPod by running a version of iTunes. Uh, yeah...right.

First, don't discount what M-L says. These guys are paid to do exactly this. They know the business on both sides. So, the estimates may not be exact, but rest assured, the y are close.

Regarding the CPU cost and Blu-ray drive costs. Whereas the actual physical parts may only cost a small amount, since they are both new technologies, there is a premium added to them for Research and Development recoupment. Especially the Cell Processor, which will probably have a lower wafer yield for a while until IBM perfects the process. Look at initial processor prices from Intel and AMD when they hit the market. They don't just inflate the price for huge profit - they inflate the price to recoup R&D costs. That's why the AMD 64 FX60 costs over $1000 retail.

Finally, that "missing" $100 is probably associated with "invisible" costs such as manufacturing time, shipping and packaging and storage.