I'm surprised to see so many FF haters. I'm actually quite a big FF fan, but I don't prefer Sony over Microsoft.Anyways, I don't think Sony's going to get owned just because they have FF XIII on the Xbox. Sony's PS games dominate in the area of RPGs (Or so I think).
Sony owned themselves by doing the following: using a CPU too far ahead of it's time using a GPU too far behind it's time. using a media(bluray) too far ahead of it's time if sony waited a few months and used a G80 based graphics processor instead of a dated g70 based design... (something similar to HALF of a g80 which still is more powerful the the g70 derived RSX) and with a 192bit memory interface... used a CPU more like Xenon(xenon is based off of cell but instead of having 1 -------powerful FPE and WEAK 7 SPES available, it has 3 FPEs) but with a 192 bit memory interface... and forewent the bluray player in favor of a bit more RAM(768mb total instead of 512mb but CHEAPER RAM, like DDR2 and gDDR3 instead of R and gDDR3) and a LARGE harddrive and allowed for a solid linux distribution to be preloaded onto it... then in the future the chips couldn't been redone to work on a 128 bit interface, faster and denser ICs could've been used(bringing memory to 1024mb) the ps3 could've been sold as a COMPLETE multimedia system and a PC replacement... and it could've been sold for MORE. ehh relm of hypotheticallity.... PC games are usually around $20 cheaper than console games. If you buy 5 games a year, that's a $100 difference. I spend around $100-150 every 3 years on a graphics card, $40 every 3 years on memory, and I could get by spending(I usually do around 150-250 though) $100-150ish every 3 years on a CPU/board/RAM... keep in mind that all this stuff can be used for other things as well. In all the cost is roughly the same. Especially after you factor in SELLING your old hardware. Furthermore, I could've gotten by just fine NOT upgrading the CPU and motherboard(my old stuff worked just fine for EVERY game out, my new CPU/board upgrade was not for gaming reasons) in all cost, if you're conservative and don't go all out with your upgrades(as that's stupid) shouldn't really be a huge factor in your decisions. What should be would be the games and any apparent advantages one platform has over the other. PC gaming works for me. I have a lot of flexibility, a lot more power and a lot of other benefits which work well for me. Some people benefit more from the simplicity and straightforwardness of the consoles, or they prefer the games(FYI the controller isn't a good reason, i've got a 360 controller next to me right now which I used for certain games) or online services. I can't tell you what works for you, I do suggest you keep an open mind.
TBH, if the only function your PC serves is playing games, you obviously have deeper issues than a lack of money to get over. For me, PC gaming is just a small part of the functions that my computer serves. I mostly play old/indie games, such as old RPGs and the odd racing game. I use it for work, browsing the internet, doing assignments, and watching porn. Also, I haven't paid for a game in about 3 years. Not to mention, I've yet to see a console run a game at 1920x1200 resolution, with 4x AA and full HDR lighting.
i have both an Xbox and a PS3 and i love them both but i know ill be playing on my PS3 more this year simply because of the games and to be honesti think Sony really ------ed up at the beginning of the console wars but i think they finally realized that even tho might be to late
tbh who cares? anyone who bangs on about ps3 vs 260 must be a geeky spoty teen with no life. both are almost the same apart from price, a few games both sides, and 360 rip you off money for online play. Anyhow ps3 have been known to take some exclusive games from 360 much as lost plannet, bioshock etc