I like Sony's little comparison graph. And by like, I mean its RIDICULOUS! First off, most people buying an xbox 360 will go with the regular edition which costs $249 and includes a hard drive. I understand that they were doing a comparison between lowest entry price points, as opposed to a compatible model, but that seems to have been done to bolster Sony's side. If you compare PS3's online options (amount of games, people, downloads, etc) free is what you should expect to pay versus the 360's robust online world. I like how Sony has to note that "earlier models" of the 360 didn't have HDMI outputs. That's all well and good, but we're looking at today's models so why bring that up? Should we bring up the original $600 price tag of the PS3? Or touching back, why don't we say that their online play is "Limited" like the Wii's? Speaking of, Wii's downloadable content is QUITE robust, and online play for titles such as Mario Kart are what people are looking for in Nintendo Lastly, to try and stand out against Wii's lack of HDMI and limited online play, they should remember that the Wii wasn't created to compete with next gen graphics and online options, but rather innovation and pick up and play for everyone (which we can all agree was a successful strategy for Nintendo). For the record I own a 360 and Wii, and my roommate owns a PS3 (which has been collecting dust for some time now...). I will say, however, that Sony made the right move in adding a bluray player.