I have a 360, I prefer it to the PS3 as the control pad is physically superior in every way. I'm not just saying that, my brother, my brother-in-law and nephew all have PS3's as well as many friends, I think the PS2 Dual Shock 2 controller was one of the finest things Sony ever made. The Dual Shock 3 was one of the worst. It simply did not feel nice to use, underweight and overly spongy the controller felt like a vegan baby who is about to die of malnutrition because it's parents refuse to give it the proteins it needs to live.

The graphical difference is really not that extreme as some people make out. Yes, on paper the 360 has less processing power and less graphical output. Yes there are notably some very pretty games on the PS3 which were exclusive such as The Last of Us. However, comparing the graphically stunning The Last of Us to say Gears of War 3 is like comparing a Maserati Super Car to an F22A Raptor. Both vehicles are extremely pretty but the comparison ends there, one is a car designed to be light weight, to remain on the ground and go fast, the other is a lethal killing machine designed to win wars. Comparing titles which are unique to their format against one another is equally useless. We can only really draw a good conclusion from games readily available on both formats. Even here however, we have some extreme issues. For example: People regularly show how much better ME2 on PS3 looks to it's 360 counterpart. ME2 was released on PS3 with the graphics engine from ME3 not the old ME2 engine. They perhaps did this as a test of the ME3 engine and because they made you guys wait an entire year or more for the series to come and denied you the first game in the series, they did it simply because they could. You can decide for yourselves. However, if you compared ME3 on both it's not much different looking and that is without calling the objectivity of the person showing the "differences" in to question.

I think the PS3 had some exceptionally good exclusives however, games like Heavy Rain and The Last of Us were shining examples of just how far gaming has come, and could go from the previous generation. Unfortunately, the lure of a handful of games (even if you added in games like Uncharted 1 - 3 which weren't must own titles in my book) was never quite strong enough to convince me to spend several hundred pounds on a console and some of those must own titles weren't even out until the very end of the console's lifespan effectively. The 360 however, offered from before I brought it and still does offer some serious exclusives that I enjoy playing.

The Blu-ray player on the PS3 was clearly an advantage. Unfortunately, as is usually the way with consoles launching in the wake of a change of media format one was always going to back the wrong horse. In the 360's case I'm extremely grateful that the decision to back HDDVD instead of Blu-ray failed to prove fatal to the console. You have to ask yourself if Nintendo hadn't stuck stubbornly to cartridge based storage in the rising face of CD and DVD storage how different the market would be now? The 64's untimely death came because Nintendo failed to adopt to the right medium believing that they could fit everything required on to a cartridge, despite what the market was showing. Ironically, even when Nintendo did move towards the right direction with the Gamecube but for unknown reasons never went all the way choosing to go for smaller than standard discs with a smaller storage capacity. Of course, we're here talking about 360 and PS3 so Nintendo's failure to adopt is a topic for another thread. Bluray was clearly a winning technology format but then if Sony hadn't almost bankrupted itself to get the backing of both game developers and film studios in making it succeed we could have seen a very different outcome for the Bluray - HDDVD format battle and the subsequent console market.

Backwards compatibility without the need to buy your library again is a major feather in the 360's hat. I know not every feature worked well, some not at all (Halo 2 matchmaking for example) but the 360 played the predecessor generation titles without much complaint. Sony's decision to force gamers to re-purchase their PS1 titles (with no obvious lure to do so such as improved graphics) digitally was a pretty good idea financially speaking but it sucks for old PS1 gamers. The inability of the console to even begin playing PS2 titles is just inexcusable when you consider the "Inferior Xbox" could and does do it with the equivalent generation of games.

XBL is in every way the superior service to PSN and definitely in relation to stability and the speed at which it recovers from technical faults. Sure Sony gives an additional game free each month over XBL (3 not 2) but lets face it. That's only with their premium paid for services which work out more expensive than the XBL Gold membership, and they suffered one of the biggest security breaches in hacking history. Something based on the recent ease of which hackers have breached Sony's security again in relation to the movies industry I have to ask... did they learn nothing from this? How secure is the PSN now? Why should we trust Sony?

Over all I'd give my vote for better console and my preferred console to the 360. I just don't feel a Blu-ray drive, miniscule level of graphical detail improvement and a handful of awesome exclusives make up for a poor control pad, a lack of backwards compatibility and poor network management. That isn't to say I wouldn't like to have a PS3 of my own to play those titles on but it is to say given the choice, I'd go Microsoft every time in the previous generation.