Simple, rectangular pixels.

Either it's not 1080i or it's not plasma, one of the two. What is the exact model of it?

I use to think that which is why I bought a Sony CRT to begin with. I don't know which you have, one with the Super Fine Pitch tube or one without. The one I have doesn't have the SFP so the resolution is extremely limited, 853X1080 interlaced. Yes, its black levels and color accuracy are superb but the lack of sharpness in the picture really limits things. I've moved on to a Samsung 48" H6350 1080p set and despite the black levels not being as good as the Sony CRT the enormous step up in sharpness makes it better imo.

But hey, I bought the Sony years ago and for the time I think I made the right choice ... almost anyway, I should have bought the XBR960 with the SFP instead. Unfortunately for me it wasn't until after I bought the 970 that I got really nerdy about learning about televisions. I spent a year or two hanging out at AVSForum, the most in-depth and detail-oriented TV forum you could possibly visit. Back then LCD tech was not very good and very expensive. A 720p 32" Samsung LCD could run you $1500 and the black levels were atrociously bad. But LCD has come a long way since then. While still not as good as a top-of-the-line CRT when it comes to black levels they have been improved enough in that area so that the added resolution pushes them ahead.

I think you're wrong about that. It likely supports 1080i but the picture is going to be 720p or 1080p. They support interlaced signals but digital formats like plasma and lcd always output progressively. Since you're using it as a monitor you wouldn't be able to tolerate the way text would look on it if it were truly outputting in an interlaced format.

Look, manufacturers lie about this stuff some of the time. That's how I ended up with a sub-1080i HDTV (If you wanna call it that. This old Sony XBR970 I have is more of an EDTV in my opinion) that was wrongfully calling itself 1080i (Well, technically it was OK for them to call it that because it did have a vertical resolution of 1080. But the horizontal resolution being much, much lower than the 1080i specification was something they conveniently failed to mention. It's a dirty trick all the manufacturers were playing back in the HD direct view television days but I didn't find out about it until after I bought one). I'll give you an example of a 720p plasma HDTV being called a 1080i HDTV:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889213004

It says it's 1080i (No such thing exists for plasma or lcd. Supporting a given resolution is not the same thing as displaying it) but it's really a 720p TV. You can find out it's 720p by looking at the display resolution on the specs page. So why are they calling it a 1080i HDTV? I'm guessing it's because 1080 is a bigger number than 720 and they're assuming that lots of customers won't know the difference between interlaced and progressive scan but they'll sure as hell know that 1080 is a bigger number than 720. They can get away with it because the TV does support 1080i even though it outputs in 720p.

But anyway, if you won't take my word for it that there's no such thing as a 1080i plasma or lcd HDTV perhaps CNET can convince you. Here's a line from a few paragraphs into a CNET article:

"The fact that flat panels don't use interlacing means that there is no such thing as a 1080i LCD or plasma."

http://www.cnet.com/news/do-i-need-a-tv-with-1080i-or-1080p/

Lol, what are you talking about? If I were confusing them I wouldn't have went out of my way to mention interlaced and/or progressive so many times (I think that line you put in bold is like the only one I didn't bother specifying interlaced in. Didn't think I needed to type it again because I had just said I was talking about a 1080i television. But nope, I should know by now to never overestimate my audience, lol). When one gets a 1080i HDTV they expect it to be 1920 X 1080 interlaced. That's what the 1080i specification is. I never expected 1080p out of a supposedly 1080i HDTV, lol. But did I expect 1080i out of an alleged 1080i HDTV? Absolutely. Instead what I got was 853 X 1080 interlaced which is nowhere near as sharp as 1920 X 1080 interlaced, what 1080i is suppose to be.

I'm guessing that the Samsung 1080i HDTV you're talking about is a CRT cuz there are no 1080i LCD or plasma HDTVs that I'm aware of. One thing to know about those is that they aren't really 1080i. A huge amount of pixels are missing, most of them being in the neighborhood of 853X1080 interlaced. What it really works out to is around 1 million pixels interlaced. Or in other words it's kinda 720i although they don't call them that. I don't use it anymore but still have a so-called 1080i CRT made by Sony (XBR970). I was pretty pissed off when I discovered that the resolution was 853X1080 rather than 1920X1080. Then after doing some further research I discovered that there are no true 1080i CRTs on the consumer market. Almost all of them are the same resolution as my Sony. The highest they ever got for the consumer market was a few Sony models that were 1440X1080 interlaced (XBR960 being one of them). Those used some special and unusual kind of tube (Called the Super Fine Pitch) that was expensive as hell. I've never understood why there are CRT monitors that can have high progressive resolutions but when it comes to CRT televisions they can't do 720p or even 1080i correctly but that's the way it is.

Co-op sucks. It's for people that can't play through the game(s) themselves so they use co-op as a stand-in for a god code.

Do you even know what a flop is? Millions of copies of Destiny have been sold!

The difference so far has had nothing to do with exclusives. It's been about multiplatform titles looking better on one machine than the other.

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean transferring data from one to the other but keeping different data on different ones and swapping them back and forth depending on what game you wanna play.