I have had a 360 for over two years now, never had a single problem with it. MS extended the warranty for the ones that had the issue and gladly replaced them. You can't talk smack about that at all, and you have to respect the fact they are at least taking care of their customers. That point is pretty much moot at this point in time. If you had the red ring of death, MS sent you a new one even if you were out of warranty. They are taking care of their customers. That is a customer service, not to be confused with the actual product.
Next you have the Wii, and while the Wii lacks in certain areas compared to the PS3 and the 360, it does have a few games which are absolute gems. I have a Wii and think around 75% of the games are crap, or just things that I am not into. I can't say all of them are crap because I am sure that some games that I am not into may be totally awesome for other people. However, with that being said, Mario kart, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Galaxy are all super bad ass games. They are developed superbly and done very well. Not all developers can match the skills of the ones that Nintendo puts out. The SDK from Nintendo is around $1,200 USD so there are lots and lots of small time companies developing games out there. The Wii also hits a market that may not apply to most people on this forum, the casual gamer. The casual gamer wants games they can pick up and put down at will not have to invest time in. They don't care about playing 80 hours of game play in a RPG, or playing 12 hours into a FPS or spending a month beating a RTS. Wii does all of that, and some of the games really innovate, while others just plain suck. The price range of games and console is way cheaper. I like my Wii and while there are a lot of games that aren't that great the ones I do like are great beyond measure.
Then you have the PS3, which has the least amount of titles, and the least amount of exclusives and has potentially the best hardware in it. Well, I don't have a HD TV. I know, I know, so many people always ask me why out of everyone I know, don't YOU have a HD TV? The answer is simple, I don't watch TV nor do I want to pay for cable, therefore I have no need to buy a HD TV. So having all that extra hardware in the Sony PS3 doesn't do anything for me. There are actually lots of people like me that don't watch TV. A good portion of my friends don't have cable, and some of them have every channel in retrospect. So all these extra features and HD content doesn't really apply to me, while I also think it doesn't apply to the masses either. At least not just yet. I think HD needs a few more years before it becomes the actual standard. My little brother has every gaming system, and he is the store manager of a gamestop so he gets all kinds of freebies and goodies from the vendors. I have played his PS3 and while yeah it is great, but I don't think it actually out performs the 360 in real world performance. I think it has the potential to, but it doesn't. I think that Sony should have not gone that route and not done the whole bluray and cell processor thing just yet. Sony wanted to replace your whole entertainment center with one device. Well, it falls short on so many levels of doing that and that is where it ultimately fails. People aren't going to give up their receivers, CD changers, turn tables, DVD players, and so forth for a PS3. They are going to just add the PS3 to their existing home entertainment systems. I think if sony chunked out some of that hardware (there is no need for blu ray what so ever) and made it cheaper then it may appeal to more masses. Their SDK is also ungodly expensive and from what I have read one of the harder ones to use. So it cost developers the most money and time to develop a PS3 game. Their market share is the lowest of the three consoles as far as units actually sold. I think i read that the SDK for the PS3 is somewhere in the $25,000 range, and depending on how licensing works, developers may have to buy multiple SDKs.
)
