The longer load times have to do with the Blu Drive's slower access speeds (it's natural for a new optical disc based storage medium to not be super fast as far as the drive speeds, DVD-rom drives started the same way), so what many Developers do is require an initial install, then sometimes between levels there's loading to put assets onto the HDD using some scratch space. With the access speeds of the 360 DVD, initial installs are not required, but instead you have the issue of hearing the jet engine noise of the DVD drive spinning as data is being accessed.

In my experience I've only been bothered by PS3 load times once: when I sat down to play MGS4 for the first time, I had to go through the initial install, then the first level loading/install. It took about 45 minutes total, but was amplified by my desire to play. Other than that, I've had zero beef with load times, they might be a bit longer, but it really has no consequence on my overall experience.

In the end it's D2D's loss and understandable, but do they really have to be overly dramatic and make a stink about it? Calling Steamworks a "trojan horse" is largely inaccurate, especially since the Steam framework is probably one of, if not the best PC game DRM solutions (as far as its flexibility and end user experience).

And this story is evidence that Activision certainly doesn't see Valve, a competitor, owning Steam as a conflict of interest, as they apparently are leaning on it for MW2's DRM. But that may have been more of an Infinity Ward choice than an Activision one.

No doubt the PS1 kicked the Xbox's ass when you look at profits, but it's a bit hard to compare completely since it was a different time, with different challenges. I'm sure it certainly helped that what the PS1 was born out of what was going to be a Nintendo CD-ROM console/add on, and it was probably an invaluable experience for those Sony employees involved to work with Nintendo.

Really, I believe there wouldn't have been a Xbox 360 if Halo didn't exist. The Xbox may have incurred huge losses, but it was successful enough to survive (which can't be said for a lot of bombs like the 3DO, and Jaguar, not even Sega could stick with console even with the loads of critically acclaimed games on the Dreamcast).

Sony's success with the PS1 and PS2, are precisely why the PS3 doing so poorly financially is news. Many mistakes were made on a business level, and I'm sure the PS division being in the red was the last thing that was expected internally at Sony.

I never said MS accounted for all the losses (which you keep tossing around this $10 billion figure, which doesn't seem to be linked to any reported hard facts) in their initial business plan. But you can be sure they assess what is happening each year and decide if things or still worthwhile.

Your problem is you're thinking just the video games business, consoles to MS are more like content delivery platforms, games are just the main hook currently. They're looking way into the future and doing what they feel they need to do to have a foothold when the business ripens.

You can't even look past your fanyboyism to admit MS has a profit driven reason they've taken the losses with the Xbox and kept going with it. As a corporation its primary function is to make money in the end, period.

Another noteworthy fact is that the money lost on the Xbox front has been largely incurred from start up costs of a new business. Any business starting up in a new market has predictable losses in the first few years and they're built into the business plan.

What makes Sony being in the red news, is that in the previous iteration they were the undisputed and uncontested leader in the market, they went from that, to sizable losses the last two years. Nothing to do with games, but it clearly points out some seriously bad finacial/marketing decisions have been made with the PS3.