That's not what I intended; I don't know what the issues are with any of these w.r.t. CG-NAT, since I don't have or use any of them. It was a request for clarification (you know the part of my quote you turned into ellipses).
I do know that every place I have been to the PS3/Xbox has been behind local NAT, so I would be surprised if CG-NAT broke these; my understanding also is that both of them have a central service for game-discovery which means there is no reason they couldn't implement NAT traversal there.
I also never said that CG-NAT wasn't more short-sighted than ipv6; rather that the ISPs have no motivation to deploy ipv6 and much motivation to deploy CG-NAT.
I do know that every place I have been to the PS3/Xbox has been behind local NAT, so I would be surprised if CG-NAT broke these; my understanding also is that both of them have a central service for game-discovery which means there is no reason they couldn't implement NAT traversal there.
I also never said that CG-NAT wasn't more short-sighted than ipv6; rather that the ISPs have no motivation to deploy ipv6 and much motivation to deploy CG-NAT.