dyram

If you have no friend ties to either console (or rather don't mind playing alone, I suppose, as you said you have friends on both platforms...), and have a computer that at least meets minimum specs, I would honestly recommend the PC version. With only 24 players online, the maps feel empty and you lose the classic Battlefield feel of crazy/awesome/crazy-awesome random shit happening everywhere all around you. That is, of course, not to mention the installation stuff (which, with a small harddrive or a busy one could be problematic) or potential disc swapping, though those can be minor annoyances rather than damaging the gameplay.

Even if you are looking to play with the gamepad, I would still suggest PC since you can map your buttons to a gamepad and play that way, anyway. The PC version is reportedly a tad buggy on that, but there are ways to get around direct binding in-game.

As much as it will sound like an elitist thing to say, the PC is the platform of choice here. DICE made a game for the PC and then hacked it up into pieces to fit/work on consoles. While I know there are some crazy fanboys on this website for BF3 that will tell you that the game is lacking many "PC game" features (and will be partially right), it's still very blatantly made for that platform. Even if the hardware requirements seem super high, they really aren't. Due to money issues, I'm getting by just fine (albeit on low settings - still better looking than the consoles, I should add) with an XFX GeForce 8800 GTX, which is a card that is 5 or 6 generations old. Anything below that may have problems with the game, but I run it fine, with the addition of a modest quad-core CPU and 6GB of 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM. If you don't understand the mumbo jumbo, I'll just say that I have a very humble rig now, due to age, and I am playing the PC version of BF3 mostly without a hitch.

If you still REALLY want/need to get it on a console, I would put forth that the Xbox 360 tends to have the larger online crowd, but they also have more options to communicate with you, which can be a bad thing at times. Also, personally, I would look at which controller you are more comfortable with holding. It is a personal preference, but my hands feel uncomfortable playing on a Dual Shock due to the stick layout. If you have similar troubles and know you will be playing long stretches, buy accordingly.

I hadn't discovered it through HIB, but as someone not much into playing games singleplayer (I just don't derive the same kind of enjoyment out of them), I hadn't really been willing to put down $15 for it. I saw it originally when it was being released on Steam, and then again when a friend purchased and was playing it.

I was actually on the fence about getting the Frozen Synapse bundle because I already had the game myself, and the other game they added didn't look super interesting to me (refer to my earlier singleplayer comment...), but as soon as SpaceChem was added, and I saw some YouTube videos of people's solutions to some of the crazy later puzzles, I decided I wanted it. I ended up getting a Frozen Synapse key for a friend, as well as an extra FrozenByte bundle key, and I haven't been able to get SpaceChem out of my head since. It's strangely addictive, and the music is so good that I constantly find myself humming it in my head. The way they roll the story into laying out the additional puzzle elements is really well done, and the gameplay itself is fascinating, at both the macro and micro levels.

Why not a free-to-play game with a small "starter pack" of units, and then any miniatures you buy from the store you somehow scan/enter into the game to give you that unit for your army in the game? A hybrid of both methods, and balanced the draw of a video game versus the tabletop to keep their profits on the models going. Add in a complex texture painter to provide for custom armies, and it could totally work.

I know my Imperial Guard units (Games Workshop and Forgeworld resin models) sit idle because I don't really know anyone to play with/against in my area. A virtual version would be a great way to play the game with others, not require a huge amount of skill to make interesting new "tables" for environments, and could bring a lot more people into the game in the long run.

It's not that the Call of Duty package is bad, nor does every new game need complete reinvention, but if you actually look at the gameplay, it's not hard to see why people are upset with this being a full-priced game. 
 
The text, font, font size and style, and location of text are exactly the same. 
The minimap style, art, and location are exactly the same. 
The gamemode and score graphics, and locations of the graphics, are exactly the same. 
The ammo and grenade counter placement and style is exactly the same. Only is the size of the font for the ammo number actually changed. 
The killspam log placement, style, spacing, font, size, and graphics are exactly the same. 
The incoming grenade indicator is (still) exactly the same. 
The capture objective indicators' size, style, and graphic are exactly the same. 
The bonus information (from special kills, objective captures, or special abilities) graphic, style, placement, and text are exactly the same. 
The player's tag (that pops up at the bottom and top right of the screen) style, size, font, graphics, and placement are exactly the same.  
 
See, now in most game sequels, even ones that are quite close to their ancestors, the art is redone for everything, including HUD and GUI elements. Sure, common themes tend to remain, but that is what ties the games together. They are similar, and convey similar information, but they are different. From everything that has been shown thus far about this game, however, not even that much work or creativity has been put into the game, despite its budget and loyal following. This level of art and design reuse is purely for the sake of saving money on a game that has a ridiculously oversized budget to start with.
 
None of this is to say the game itself is or will be bad. And obviously, a lot is subject to change as this is not the final product. But what Infinity Ward and Treyarch have shown under the direction of Activision recently is purely a matter of adding a handful of new gadgets to the existing experience, crafting a new campaign, and then printing copies of this "new" game. Others who have said that MW2 and Black Ops were expansion packs were also right to a degree, but at least those added enough features, not just gadgets, to actually add to the game experience. So far, MW3 seems to be a copy and paste job, unfortunately.

I was still holding out hope for a coop campaign, but I knew that realistically it would just come to a Horde mode. Again. Game still looks amazing, though, and my friends and I will be having plenty fun in SP and MP, both competitive, and cooperative when this comes out.

This looks hella Portal. 
 
Seems alright. The art style lends itself to giving a little character to the game. But really, it's so very Portal...

I'm just going to chip in and say that Battlelog is a great server browser, and the game loads insanely quick.
 
That said, to me it's not an argument of no in-game server browser or not, it's an argument of an in-game interface or not. Massive sudden changes to the game executable architecture notwithstanding, the Battlelog system of launching into the game from the website means that the actual client is supremely limited in capability and function, and things like options for the game and whatnot are hidden behind actually joining a running, live server, spawning in (no menu access when dead, only the respawn screen), and then navigating to the settings and all of the other options for the client. What if people have crashing problems that can be fixed by specific configuration changes? Are they forced to find the configuration file, purposefully hidden away from them, and change it themselves there? Why take away the main menu for making these selections? Is the plan, instead, to add some sort of configuration tool that you have to run first, adding extra steps to playing the game right?
 
In the alpha, I assumed that the Battlelog system, and its many limitations, were simply due to the game being in an alpha state, and that the game itself would ship with a proper game menu/launcher that would load the website within the client, in addition to the browser-based Battlelog functionality. The way this sounds, that won't be the case and that makes me fear for the client UI menu. While in the end, this won't hurt the game too badly and shouldn't prevent anyone in their right mind from purchasing the game, it seems they may be trying too much too quickly. We can only hope that they sort the bugs and disadvantages of Battlelog versus a normal in-game server browser.

Saw this trailer earlier... Amazing, really. Especially after the alpha, and seeing the "free look" head turn a la ArmA/flight sims. 
 
Why are all of the glide slope landing lights on at the same time, though? Y U NO REALISM?

Iron Brigade? But I might confuse that with Steel Battalion! I demand it be renamed immediately!