f the PS1 from seven years ago.

In fact, the Wii sports a much better controller. Also, Howard's potential-based argument is stretched too thin and poorly supported. What if the new PS3 didn't reach its full potential? Then, there is the case of disappointed consumers whining over their loss. What about the long years of use? I doubt that five years would pass before the gaming giants come up with a new console prototype. Surely, Howard can come up with something stronger than an argument based on "potential". PS3 games enthusiasts need more fuel for their cause. Meantime, do you know what I'm excited to

The word wars between Sony and Microsoft just won't die down. With Microsoft's Peter Moore's ragging about the PS3 games console's price, surely, people don't expect the Sony CEO, Steve Howard, to turn the other cheek. It's pathetic to see two guys in power suits and power ties bicker like two kids in a playground. Sounds to me like they're fighting about who could spit the farthest. But since Moore has been hounding publicity, well, we might as well give shy Howard a chance to defend his PS3 games.

It can be recalled that Peter Moore of Microsoft used Sony console's price as a spring board in launching a new Xbox 360 marketing campaign. Moore released statements that gamers get more value in buying a Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Xbox 360 for the value of a single PS3 games console. No doubt that the statement made even hard-core Sony fans hesitant about buying a PS3. After all, $600 is big money. Plus, the possibility given by Moore is a no-brainer: it is a choice between two next-gen consoles and more gaming options or one PS3. Sony has to act; and the usually quiet Steve Howard finally broke his silence.

In a recent press conference in Tokyo, Sony Corp's Steve Howard released a statement justifying the new Sony console's price. He claimed that the in buying a PS3 games console, the consumers are actually buying potential. Such a vague statement needed further clarification and Howard obliged. According to him, though the PS3 console is admittedly pricier ($599) than Microsoft's Xbox 360 ($300) or Nintendo's Wii($250), it provides users Blu-ray technology-- touted to be the technology of the future. Further, if the new Sony console's performance reaches its full potential, users would benefit from higher technology and longer years of use. Howard also implied in his statement that Xbox 360s and the Wii's are cheaper because they are merely "transitional" consoles with inferior technology when compared to the futuristic PS3.

However, market analysts and yours truly, seriously doubt this claim by Howard. Times are hard, and people are sure to think about whether the PS3 games console deserves its price tag. This can look bad quickly for Sony because reviews show that PS3's Blu-ray-supported graphics are only equal to that of the cheaper consoles. If there are differences, these are highly indistinct, unless you want to spend game time analyzing the graphic pixels. Even the controller is deemed inferior to that of the PS1 from seven years ago.

In fact, the Wii sports a much better controller. Also, Howard's potential-based argument is stretched too thin and poorly supported. What if the new PS3 didn't reach its full potential? Then, there is the case of disappointed consumers whining over their loss. What about the long years of use? I doubt that five years would pass before the gaming giants come up with a new console prototype. Surely, Howard can come up with something stronger than an argument based on "potential". PS3 games enthusiasts need more fuel for their cause. Meantime, do you know what I'm excited to

a new Xbox 360 marketing campaign. Moore released statements that gamers get more value in buying a Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Xbox 360 for the value of a single PS3 games console. No doubt that the statement made even hard-core Sony fans hesitant about buying a PS3. After all, $600 is big money. Plus, the possibility given by Moore is a no-brainer: it is a choice between two next-gen consoles and more gaming options or one PS3. Sony has to act; and the usually quiet Steve Howard finally broke his silence.

In a recent press conference in Tokyo, Sony Corp's Steve Howard released a statement justifying the new Sony console's price. He claimed that the in buying a PS3 games console, the consumers are actually buying potential. Such a vague statement needed further clarification and Howard obliged. According to him, though the PS3 console is admittedly pricier ($599) than Microsoft's Xbox 360 ($300) or Nintendo's Wii($250), it provides users Blu-ray technology-- touted to be the technology of the future. Further, if the new Sony console's performance reaches its full potential, users would benefit from higher technology and longer years of use. Howard also implied in his statement that Xbox 360s and the Wii's are cheaper because they are merely "transitional" consoles with inferior technology when compared to the futuristic PS3.

However, market analysts and yours truly, seriously doubt this claim by Howard. Times are hard, and people are sure to think about whether the PS3 games console deserves its price tag. This can look bad quickly for Sony because reviews show that PS3's Blu-ray-supported graphics are only equal to that of the cheaper consoles. If there are differences, these are highly indistinct, unless you want to spend game time analyzing the graphic pixels. Even the controller is deemed inferior to that of the PS1 from seven years ago.

In fact, the Wii sports a much better controller. Also, Howard's potential-based argument is stretched too thin and poorly supported. What if the new PS3 didn't reach its full potential? Then, there is the case of disappointed consumers whining over their loss. What about the long years of use? I doubt that five years would pass before the gaming giants come up with a new console prototype. Surely, Howard can come up with something stronger than an argument based on "potential". PS3 games enthusiasts need more fuel for their cause. Meantime, do you know what I'm excited to

new Sony console's price. He claimed that the in buying a PS3 games console, the consumers are actually buying potential. Such a vague statement needed further clarification and Howard obliged. According to him, though the PS3 console is admittedly pricier ($599) than Microsoft's Xbox 360 ($300) or Nintendo's Wii($250), it provides users Blu-ray technology-- touted to be the technology of the future. Further, if the new Sony console's performance reaches its full potential, users would benefit from higher technology and longer years of use. Howard also implied in his statement that Xbox 360s and the Wii's are cheaper because they are merely "transitional" consoles with inferior technology when compared to the futuristic PS3.

However, market analysts and yours truly, seriously doubt this claim by Howard. Times are hard, and people are sure to think about whether the PS3 games console deserves its price tag. This can look bad quickly for Sony because reviews show that PS3's Blu-ray-supported graphics are only equal to that of the cheaper consoles. If there are differences, these are highly indistinct, unless you want to spend game time analyzing the graphic pixels. Even the controller is deemed inferior to that of the PS1 from seven years ago.

In fact, the Wii sports a much better controller. Also, Howard's potential-based argument is stretched too thin and poorly supported. What if the new PS3 didn't reach its full potential? Then, there is the case of disappointed consumers whining over their loss. What about the long years of use? I doubt that five years would pass before the gaming giants come up with a new console prototype. Surely, Howard can come up with something stronger than an argument based on "potential". PS3 games enthusiasts need more fuel for their cause. Meantime, do you know what I'm excited to

heaper because they are merely "transitional" consoles with inferior technology when compared to the futuristic PS3.

However, market analysts and yours truly, seriously doubt this claim by Howard. Times are hard, and people are sure to think about whether the PS3 games console deserves its price tag. This can look bad quickly for Sony because reviews show that PS3's Blu-ray-supported graphics are only equal to that of the cheaper consoles. If there are differences, these are highly indistinct, unless you want to spend game time analyzing the graphic pixels. Even the controller is deemed inferior to that of the PS1 from seven years ago.

In fact, the Wii sports a much better controller. Also, Howard's potential-based argument is stretched too thin and poorly supported. What if the new PS3 didn't reach its full potential? Then, there is the case of disappointed consumers whining over their loss. What about the long years of use? I doubt that five years would pass before the gaming giants come up with a new console prototype. Surely, Howard can come up with something stronger than an argument based on "potential". PS3 games enthusiasts need more fuel for their cause. Meantime, do you know what I'm excited to

f the PS1 from seven years ago.

In fact, the Wii sports a much better controller. Also, Howard's potential-based argument is stretched too thin and poorly supported. What if the new PS3 didn't reach its full potential? Then, there is the case of disappointed consumers whining over their loss. What about the long years of use? I doubt that five years would pass before the gaming giants come up with a new console prototype. Surely, Howard can come up with something stronger than an argument based on "potential". PS3 games enthusiasts need more fuel for their cause. Meantime, do you know what I'm excited to hear about? Peter Moore's response to Sony's "potential".