4+ years tells us that I am correct though. People can speculate about the future, but the fact is the Xbox has a TON more FPS, has a lot more online games, and the 360 has built on that.

The PS2 -- even with 5x as many units sold -- had fewer quality FPS and fewer online games.Just like the Xbox1 had some JRPGs. Doesn't mean the Xbox1 was the best JRPG platform.It does not always work that way. More capable how? Than the 360? The 360 mimicks the PC much more closely in design--just look at SE's comments about porting FFXI. Moving a title to the PS3 takes a COMPLETE re-engineering of a game. The 360 less so because the Xenon cores, while not as robust as a PC CPU, are similar enough to facillitate the move. Further, MS's current tools allow such transitions to be much easier, and XNA builds on that by allowing 1 code base to be tailored to multiple platforms.

Toss in MS's already cozy relationship with PC developers and the extension of DX to include Live functionality in the future, and it appears pretty clear to me that the Xbox 360 is much more capable in regards to PC porting. The PS3 is a wonderfully powerful machine, but to tap that power requires custom engineering to tap its power--just porting across your code does NOT work. This was intentionally on Sony's part for many reasons (it allows a very high peak performance, it also makes it difficult to port PS3 games to other platforms).

Sony will be getting ports from the big Publishers because they will always engage in cross platform co-development.

But when it comes to PC games by PC developers -- that is all the guys who make a TON of quality FPS -- they wont necessarilly wont have the resources to do a PC title and a totally separate PS3 title.

The PS3 will get better FPS support this gen compared to last, but a lot of that will be due to the increased importance of FPS in the market and due to consolidation of developers and cost of development and the increase of sequalitis. But in the same breath the 360 has already seen an increase in JRPGs.

But it does not mean the platforms are ideal for either. If I wanted SE games you could bet my bottom dollar I would get a PS3. Ditto MGS. If I want a lot of FPS and Halo then I should get a 360.

IMO the consoles cater to different demographics and audiances. Contrary to common belief, Sony has thin spots in their library just as MS does. The key as a gamer is to get the platform that has the games you want... and if on console cannot meet all those needs then get 2... or 3.

But for many gamers 1 console can meet most needs. The average console attach rate is ~10 titles per console sold, and this number is skewed significantly by the enthusiests who buy 20+ titles and by rental stores. That means ~2 titles bought per year per console by the average consumer (actually less when you consider most consoles continue to sell for years beyond the release of new consoles). Even if a genre is thin, on average most gamers will be pretty happy with 2 or 3 really good titles in a "perephiral" genres and a wide selection in the core genres.

And in my opinion all 3 consoles have DIFFERENT core genres. Looking at the sales charts, number of titles released in a genre, and the best critically acclaimed titles on each platform backs this up substantially.