I have seen this epic debate play out in tangent conversations in other forums.  I have seen this monstrous battles ravage comment boards of innocent and assuming news articles.  I have seen people, rather, fanboys cry their eyes out on their keyboards when technical pwnage comes their way via the hot pipes we know as the internet. 

Ladies and gentlemen (and fanboys too), here is your chance to make your voice heard.  Please no flaming, only intelligent remarks with factual evidence. 

As the group owner of Xbox Live Users it should be obvious that I'm a 360 owner.  Now, over the last couple years I've seen a large variety of arguments towards the 360 which were apparently used to decide the PS3's dominance over the 360.  I will play some of those arguments out and try to debunk them.

Xbox Live is better than PSN (or vice-versa):  There is no collected data on this.  In terms of performance there is little difference between the two (so I've heard at least).  But, a lot of people think too linear when it comes to this statement.  Your online experience isn't solely based off of how well it works.  As with anything, an online experience for a console is based off of online competence (which both consoles have), online catalogues (arcade games and DLC) and capability to interact with other players inside and outside of a game.  Now I am certain that the Xbox Live Arcade has a larger variety of games than the PSN and the Wii store.  I'm also certain that the Live network gets many more DLC exclusives than the PSN and the Wii store.  On top of that, Xbox Live gets updated content every day while both Sony and Nintendo are lucky to roll out two updates a week.  With that said, all that is left is the communication with fellow gamers.  I don't own a PS3 but I do own a Wii.  I'm sorry but friend codes are a hassle and unnecessary.  It is difficult to match up with other former-players and that code is so friggin' long.  The 360 excels in friending, information sharing and even user-rating.  You don't like playing against a certain guy/girl then you can click a button and tag them as person you'd like to avoid.  People often complain that there are a lot of annoying pre-mature boys playing on Live, well this system helps take care of them.

$50 for online play!!??  PSN has it for free!: Going off of what I have posted above, I'd say you get what you pay for.  Now don't get me wrong, I don't think $50 is a great deal.  I'd love to see Live go free but you got to think here.  What is my money going towards?  Well, to be quite frank, I'm getting GTA4 exclusive DLC, I'm getting Fallout 3 exclusive DLC, I'm getting Netflix (streaming video store), I'm getting all the major television channels broadcasting their shows via Live, I'm getting exclusivity in Arcade titles as well as much faster patches on said titles (demos for all Arcade titles as well as some retail titles) than the Wii store and PSN titles, I'm getting other exclusive DLC from other gaming franchises, I have a game-creating community where I can view, purchase and rate indie-made games as well as a place for me to sell my homemade games, and I'm getting an online experience that is supported by all of the major companies in the U.S.-- meaning at my finger-tips I have access to every promotion I could ever want as well as exclusive content from major U.S. vendors.  I don't know, it just seems that I have many more options than either of the free services which takes me back to my original statement, "you get what you pay for."  (Think about it, what do players of World of Warcraft pay per month to play that game.  I'll save you some time it's around $7 a month which equals $84 a year--they're only playing one game for $84 a month (plus you can't play WoW locally).

The 360 hardware is old, out-dated, soo-last gen:  Whoever thinks this apparently is oblivious to a little thing called the Nintendo Wii (which happens to be out-selling both the 360 and the PS3).  It is a little known fact that the 360 chipset is actually what Sony was going to put into the PS3 before Microsoft bought the rights to it.  The creator of both the PS3 and the 360's chipsets has gone on record claiming that though both systems have their clear advantages, their whole-performance makes the two consoles near-identical. 

Anyone who claims that the Blu-ray drive makes the PS3 superior obviously hasn't look into retail Blu-ray drives.  You are buying a PS3 for anywhere between $400 abd $600 dollars.  That is a game playing machine and a movie playing machine for $400-600.  What's wrong with that picture?  Well I will tell you, good Blu-ray players start at $400 dollars.  So, basically you are paying for a Blu-ray player with online functionality and you aren't even getting a good Blu-ray player (they had to sacrifice quality to offset the cost of developing something that actually played games plus the added rights of backwards compatibility for the PS2).  So in-fact you aren't getting a good Blu-ray player you're getting, at best, an ok one.  On top of that what is the number of people in the world who own HD televisions?  Under 2% worldwide.  Probably less than 5% in the U.S.  Effectively, Sony is "forcing" gamers to purchase a low-end Hi-def player for a television that doesn't support Hi-def.  Kind of seems like a waste of money to me.  Not to mention, Blu-ray has its own problems.  Like the fact that it doesn't support some of the most mainstream video codecs out there.  Part of the reason why HD DVD and Blu-ray didn't merge like MMCD and SD did many years ago was because Sony didn't want to add those extra codecs that HD DVD had.  I will say that HD DVD didn't have the possibilities that Blu-ray now does but now certain video types can't be used when programming Blu-rays (one of several problems making it complicated for developers to make games for the PS3).

Avatars are a ripp-off of Nintendo's Miis (Microsoft takes other companies' ideas): You'd be right and wrong here.  First, avatars were in development at Rare studios (owned by MS and put to this task on behalf of MS) way before the Wii was ever announced.  Actually, Avatars were initially planned to be released with the 360 back in 2005 but were held-on-to for various reasons (launching Xbox's didn't have enough internal memory to hold the avatars--MS didn't want to force memory peripherals onto gamers who just wanted a console and a game).  As the infamy of Miis grew, Microsoft silently worked on NXE and memory solutions.  When NXE came out everyone proclaimed they were stealing Nintendo's concept but in all reality they delayed the Avatar project and bundled it with a more elaborate system update.  As for the Lips game title among other various claims that MS is just a copycat I'd have to say that before you claim anything about a particular company be aware of the fact that the things we are just now getting have been in development for quite some time.  Now I say that because I have no idea of the back-story behind Lips or any of the other stuff MS has produced that some say is copied IP.

The PS3/Wii has better games: This is a hard statement to make or debunk.  The matter of who has a better catalogue is completely based off the individual.  Personally, I like shooters and I'm right at home with my Xbox 360.  I will say this, according to IGN the PS3 has had a larger amount of titles finish with higher ratings.  But, This has to be taken with a grain of salt because there are more titles coming out for the 360 than the PS3--plus, IGN's ratings are based off of their opinions as well.  It is a wide-known fact that the Wii is plagued with shovelware so I won't bother comparing the 360's catalogue to the Wii's.  But, if you think about most of the successful titles for the PS3, they are out on the 360.  CoD4, CoD WaW, soon to be SF4, and SC4--and ironically, of all the cross-platformed games the 360 versions out-sold and were rented more than the PS3 versions The only three exclusive titles that were successful for the PS3 were MGS4, LBP and maybe Killzone.  But then you turn to MS's side of things they have two Gears of Wars, Oblivion, Halo 3, two Forza games,  two PGR games, DOA 4 and Fable 2.  The sales of Halo 3 by itself is higher than Killzone, LBP and MGS4 combined.  Now I know the PS3 has a strong showing this year, and I will say it, a much stronger showing (as far as I know) than the 360.  You have Killzone 2, God of War 3 and maybe, if you are lucky, a Gran Turismo game.  But the point of the matter is it has taken Sony nearly 3 years to catch up to MS and even assuming the success of the aforementioned Sony exclusives coming out this year, there will never be a Sony title that surpasses the sales record of Halo 3.  That's a huge nail in Sony's coffin--that MS can beat three of Sony's best titles with just one game.  On top of that, Sony is losing exclusivity left and right.  Tekken 6 is coming out for both systems when originally it was only supposed to come out for the PS3.  What other games are there?  Final Fantasy XIII, GTA4, SC4 and probably more that I can't think of.

I know I've harped a lot and nit-picked.  I am presenting things as I see them.  There is a lot more I can say but I am running a bit long on my OP.  I don't want anyone to think I'm not open for debate because I am.  I know there were a lot of issues that I haven't brought up like the three red rings of death or the noise of the 360.  I figured someone else will bring that up and I will defend as needed.  I'm sure I've missed things or forgot something so that is why this in the form of an editable thread.  Don't attack me, attack my ideas and give proof where it is needed (beyond what is common knowledge). 

And, finally, I don't think the PS3 is a bad system.  As a matter of fact, I think it is an excellant system but out of my dollar range.  Personally I feel that I get more bang out my buck with the 360.  I love how Sony is forcing the modern market to evolve from its old stale media library but at the same time I felt they could have done it with a lot more tact.

I like both xbox 360 and ps3.I start prefering the ps3 a little for the free online but mainly i like both.Both are must own.

For the wii,i have been dissapointed by nintendo here so i ceased to support the wii.Im not agaisn`t it,i respect those who like the wii but otherwise,i would ditch the wii in the rivers.

Im for next gen and pc,i dont like the casual stuff.