Lenny, I'd be genuinely shocked if Sony didn't do a complete unveiling of the PS3 at this year's E3.

First, they need to to take the wind out of Microsoft's sails. Xenon is being launched this winter, and they're Sony's biggest competition at the moment. It would be downright stupid for Sony to come to this year's E3 without revealing a good-sized chunk of info about the PS3. They need to do so in order to make their userbase say "okay, wow, instead of buying Xenon this year, I'll be waiting until 2006 for the Sony console."

Second, Sony has never been a company to lay back and watch their competitors' moves before acting. They have always been the aggressor, and as such, it would be a complete characteristic 180 for them to wait and see what Microsoft or Nintendo ends up doing. That's exactly how Nintendo lost so much market-share to Sony, and they'd be morons to repeat the behavior that failed their competitors.

Come May, you'll know exactly what the PS3 is and what it's capable of. However, don't go getting all of this "Cell" hype and the reality of the PS3 confused. The fact is, Sony is not developing the Cell for the PS3, they're developing the PS3 for the Cell. It's an entirely new type of processor chip that they intend to start using in all of their hardware. The version of the chip that the PS3 will get is going to have nowhere near the maximum specs that the PR quotes claim, because it would be too expensive to stick such a powerful processor in a videogame console. It will still be impressive, it will still be powerful, but it will not be cooking your toast and shooting down satellites because the PS3 is not going to get the most powerful version of the chip.

On top of that, I'd be taking anything that Sony's PR reps say with a grain of salt. Remember all the bullshit they were spewing before the PS2 launched? All the overblown hype about the Emotion engine and how terrorists in Iraq were using PS2's as missile-guidance systems? Sony likes to overinflate their claims. Don't take everything they say at face-value.