The Wii is still the most profitable among the three current generation consoles. That means that Nintendo has the ability to use discounting to keep its product competitive, especially as an entry level system. However, in the longer term, Nintendo's lack of innovation will result in continuous market share erosion. At what point will that erosion accelerate to the point that Nintendo is forced to come out with a more competitive solution? And will it be too late?

@David,

"Lack of innovation"? The Wii is pretty much the most innovative of the 3 consoles. It is the same innovation that has brought gaming to larger and more diverse markets. It is that innovation that has made Nintendo the #1 selling console in the world once again.

Can the Wii improve graphically and online (after all that was all the 360 and PS3 did, improve not innovate)? Yes they can. But at this time when their console is still selling more than their rivals, there is no need to change the formula. I have no doubt that Nintendo will release a Wii HD, but that will not be for at least another 2 years. At that time, Sony and Microsoft will also be preparing for releases of their new consoles.

What I'd like to see from Nintendo is not HD, but a serious approach to their online appearance. especially WiiWare.
Xbox and PS3 are pushing all their online content to the user on the main page. On the wii you have to search for it.

The danger for Nintendo is that if this console cycle lasts too long, technology is going to progress too far. While the PS3 and 360 have hardware that can keep up for a quite a while, Nintendo will survive for a bit, but eventually be too many steps behind, and producing another console is out of the picture, because that means consumers must purchase ANOTHER Nintendo system in order to move into Nintendo's "Next Gen", whereas people who own PS3's and 360's must only purchase a new peripheral/controller thingy. The cost barriers will eventually be much higher for a Nintendo consumer as opposed to a Sony or Microsoft consumer..

Ephriam Knight - I really can't agree that the Wii is something innovative. The Wii, like the first Nintendo, just brought the Arcade to our home. Games like Guitar hero and Rockband did the same thing.

The Wii is not for gamers, it's for new comers. The Wii is the biggest joke I've seen since 15 years. Reggie Fils-Aime once stated that physical activity in video games was the path of the future; that's marketing and false. There will always be 2 types of players; relax and one more physically involved. The same way we could have Halo: Reach VS Virtual Shooter Game (much like Paintball) that would take place in a big virtual room.

The Wii only offer a different way to play, a different controller. However, pretty much everything the Wii can do... a classic controller can do it, but the Wii doesn't look that great and same goes for the Online Features. The Wii is really the last thing I would suggest for a gamer.

@ Christian -

How do you feel about Sony and MS following Nintendo's lead and releasing motion controllers of their own?

@ Christian

I would say, the Wii can everything a PS3 or 360 can do, with graphics in a lower resolution Gameplay wise, I saw nothing on the PS3 or 360, that couldn't be done on a PS2, but I played many games on the Wii, that couldn't be done on a 360 or PS3, Wii Sports for example.

@Ken - I know you didn't ask me, but I sorta agree with Christian. My answer is they are chasing a non-existent market. It is a reactionary effort to something that will be passed before they get the hardware out; DOA so to speak. Sure that won't hurt them from having one or two things to play with the technology, but:
1) the 'get up a move market' is smaller than they think (or already have a console that does it) and,
2) most of the rest that are curious about the future of waving their arms around have already been disappointed and won't bite at the hook again.

It doesn't help that this isn't a pack-in peripheral at the console release, so the install-base will be a lot smaller. Consumers will only get 'test out the waters' software that just won't turn the heads sufficiently to make it a long term investment, probably souring the selling point of any comparable technology to come bundled with the next console release.

The innovation of the Wii has been touted since its reveal and frankly, very little of that much vaunted innovation has come to fruition. The Wii is really nothing more than a modified GameCube tethered to a gimmicky remote wand; a peripheral that became the crux of the entire console in order to hide the archaic graphical hardware. Further evidence of this comes in the form of many of Nintendo’s own games, several of which use the Wimote sparingly because motion control really isn’t anything overtly special when distilled and evaluated. Wiggling a controller versus pushing a button hasn’t yielded the expansive, revolutionary experiences promised but in many cases it has led to games being simplified or even butchered because they were anchored to motion control input.

That isn’t to say there haven’t been some innovative titles that used the wand cleverly but in terms of innovation both MS and Sony continue to leave Nintendo’s superficial console offerings in the proverbial dust. The very fact that Nintendo continues to ignore the significance of a hard drive, coherent online connectivity, and graphical output in HD makes it difficult to swallow the notion that they are innovative in any meaningful way and I cannot fathom how the inclusion of a waggle wand absolves them from so many other glaring omissions.

At the very least the Wii should have supported 720p. Even the best looking Wii games appear grainy on my 52 inch HDTV, a reality more and more consumers will face as the HDTV penetration deepens.

@Christian G

If the Wii's controller is not innovative, why are Sony and Microsoft making a mad dash to introduction their own motion controller system?

Yes, with the right button mapping, a classic controller can do pretty much anything the Wii's motion controls can do, but one thing that classic controller has failed to do that the Wii's Motion controls has done is broaden the game market to previously untapped consumers.

When the unending battle for graphic superiority and online capabilities can do the same, you let me know okay.

The PSX and PS2 both lasted 10 years easy with the weakest graphics hardware in their respective generations. The PS2 doesn't even have antialiasing, something the Nintendo 64 had five years prior. I think we can all agree, very few customers gave a rat's rear and the visually superior XBox and 'Cube are long dead.

The Wii cannot do everything the PS3 or XB360 can do, even on a lower graphical scale. That is a flatly ridiculous assertion.

Graphics are merely a part of the equation, along with processing power and the ability to utilize engines like Havok and Euphoria, something the Wii cannot do in anywhere near the same capacity.

Dead Rising on the XB360 allowed for literally hundreds of zombies on screen at one time, a crucial component of the gameplay. The Wii version was so gimped they literally had the change the entire game and remove nearly all of those assets to make it playable on the system. (And it was still ugly as sin)

Thus, Dead Rising's gameplay, which was pretty damn great, cannot be replicated on the Wii.

What about GTAIV or its two expansions? These games offer a living, viable world with fully entrenched physics that could never be reproduced on the Wii's architecture. If you want a sample of what GTAIV would look like on the Wii, take a gander at GTAIII on the PS2.

Want more examples?

Red Faction Guerilla, one of the best games of last year, allowed practically any structure to be destroyed using GeoMod, an engine that could never work on hardware as slow and archaic as the Wii. The entire game is centered on the physical destruction of the game space, a construct the Wii could never hope to achieve.

The Wii defenders consistently employ misdirection and specious arguments to muddy the issue and they incessantly bark about how HD consoles are predicated upon superficial aesthetics when ironically, the Wii's entire premise is based on something as flimsy as an alternative input device.

To be fair, I will concede there are many games on the Wii that could not be done on the XB360/PS3. However, the Wii will never be able to deliver something like Batman: Arkham Asylum, Uncharted II, Assassin's Creed II, Infamous, etc. And given how many more quality games are being released for the HD consoles, I really don't see the Wii as being in an advantageous position in regards to software, unique or otherwise.

Motion control was never intended to allow for "expansive, revolutionary experiences" for the high-end market.

Instead, it was suppose to simplify the barrier for non-gamers, allowing them to easily control a game with a single action. This is why golf in Wii Sports was so successful in pulling in new customers. Suddenly there was a game with a good amount of depth and fun that could be controlled with a single, swift gesture.

Nonetheless, I think it's crazy to say there is no innovation in this. There is no doubt that Nintendo's strategy will continue to pull in new gamers. There is no need at all for new graphical hardware, but I expect much more in the way of controller inputs.

Ephriam Knight,

I'm all for opening up the medium but if the cost is the integrity of the software then I can't really consider that a victory anymore than I would consider the success of the film Avatar a good thing for cinema given how derivative, vapid and contrived the entire movie actually is.

The real question is are you an enthusiast of the medium or do you measure success by money alone? From an economic standpoint the Wii's success is undeniable yet as a true and passionate gamer I personally find most of the Wii's catalogue of software banal if not downright insipid. There have been those titles which made my ownership of the console worthwhile but if the issue is innovation or even evolution (concepts that are often interchanged but are actually very different things entirely) I think both Sony and Microsoft are doing a much better job of propelling this medium forward.

Even in their dash to mimic Nintendo, Sony and MS are demonstrating their willingness to evolve even while the Wii continues to lack those fundamentals that any game console in this era should have. Like I stated previously, I have a difficult time seeing Nintendo as an innovator when they can't even be bothered to retain certain crucial trends in the building and maintaining of their console.

John Giordano,

That may have been what Nintendo secretly wanted but their mantra was all about innovation and bringing new gamers in while keeping the attention of the "hardcore". The Wii was never sold as a crass simplification of the medium and had it been, any experienced gamer would have rejected the console outright.

As to your assertion that you expect more to come in terms of motion control innovation, I've heard that sentiment echoed for some three years now and yet nothing changes. Even when a game does come out that pushes the system and offers something unique, it is usually met with indifference from the general Wii demographic that made WiPlay one of the best selling games of this generation. Ironically, the real innovation in motion technology might actually come from the HD systems, since early reports suggest Natal could actually deliver what the Wii has largely failed to produce.

@ Bill,

To be honest, the only negative I can see coming from the Wii is that it gave developers an excuse to be lazy in their design and cheap in their development.

Everything else you list are only negatives to the broken hearted "hardcore" gamer.

Wii HD is not coming any time soon. Nintendo released Motion Plus last year, and they're planning on releasing a vitality sensor this year. If they were planning a new console, then they'd be saving all of these new gizmos for their console launch.

@Ken Masters
Well, that's a very interesting question. Sony and Microsoft are both interested in getting the new market of Nintendo; the non-gamers/ casual gamers. That's also the main reason why I don't classify the casual gamers as a "real public target" for video games and why I think that a game should NOT be modified to better fit for casual gamers - they don't play (auto-aim or lunging strikes are examples).

I think the decision to get that public is very smart only if it is secondary (actually, it is for Microsoft and Sony). With the non-gamers, Microsoft and Sony will both get a much larger public and Nintendo will get stuck with only the non-gamers. Nintendo had a nice start, but they didn't prepared themselves for the rest of the race. At least, that's what I expect.


@Ephriam Knight
See above; Microsoft and Sony already have the hardcore gamers and will reach a larger audience with the non-gamers, so it wasn't because the Wii-mote is great - it's because it was accessible enough to attract non-gamers.

@Christian Keichel
The Wii-mote is limited in terms of control scheme. You still have more options with a classic 360 or PS3 controllers, because you can perform different button combos on a classic controller and use the 2 thumbsticks at the same time. In terms of CPU and GPU, the 360 can do things the PS3 can't perform and the PS3 can do things the 360 can't perform and both can do things the Wii can't perform. The 360 actually benefits from Online Features which are accessible and welcome (proper Invitation System, Party Chat, etc.). Plus, if we seriously consider competitive gaming (Halo, MW2, R6, etc.)... a classic controller would strongly out-perform a Wii-Mote. Both the 360 and PS3 can offer HD games, maybe not 1080p... but it still looks great.


NOTE:
The problem nowadays is "we are lost, because everyone wants to make too much money and doesn't accept to have one market". We can't please everyone, because not everyone is part of the same public target. Non-gamers and gamers are too different targets, but mostly all game developers are trying to reach both sides. Yes we had great games, great looking games during the past 2 years, but seriously... sit down and look at them, look at the gameplay mechanics... our games are actually so messed up... video games are loosing their roots. Modern Warfare 2 is a perfect example. The game was brilliantly overhyped, but look at the game - it is the most casual FPS on the market and the most flawed. They didn't want to make a Beta and strongly suffered from it (Ego?). There are so many perks, they all make the weapons less important and mostly all guns are the same. The weapons shoot so fast that you better aim for the body to first stun the guy, because of the lag issues the enemy won't even notice it that he will be dead, so headshots are mostly useless.

Since more than 5 years, game developers don't keep trying to get the non-gamers market and are killing the quality of our industry. I guess we need a wake up sign. Believe it or not, a LOT of gamers are actually quitting, selling their 360 & PS3 or experiencing a deep depression; they are loosing hope in our industry. They don't have real games to play and I'm worried about them. When I see Nintendo and the Wii, that's quite depressing. It took 8 years to Bungie to finally listen to their fans and bring back the stuff from the first Halo in Halo: Reach. 8 years is a pretty long time isn't it?

All of this is the main reason why I'm actually in the video games industry; to do something about it, because I think we should care more about gamers then non-gamers.

PEACE

I'm sure the "non-gamers" who already bought a Wii won't go out of their way to purchase a PS3 or an XBox360 simply because they came out with some extra peripherals. If the motion attachments are bundled with the consoles to appeal to these "nongamers", then the prices alone will turn them off completely. And if they're not bundled, that's even worse because it will confuse the consumers.

And let's not forget the games that are supposed to drive Natal and the PSWand. If there are any "nongamers" who haven't already bought a Wii by now, then those games need to out-market the Wii's marketing of games like Wii Sports and Wii Fit.

The Wii sold well these past several months because they released console-seller games that were appealing and accessible (Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit Plus, New Super Mario Bros Wii). The focus for Natal and PSWand shouldn't be the peripherals themselves, but rather the games that use them.

@ Bill

Experienced gamers never really took motion controls seriously, nor did Nintendo want them to. Nintendo was talking about disruption and blue-ocean strategy through all of this, as they wanted to focus the low-end of the market. Motion controls were a direct answer to the needs of that audience.

High-definition graphics, on the other hand, would be a direct answer to the needs of the high-end market. This is a market that is already dominated by Microsoft and Sony. What could a Wii HD do to change that? If anything, Nintendo wants to move further away from this highly competitive market, which explains coming out with something as bonkers (and genius) as Wii Relax.

In order for Microsoft and Sony to duplicate the success of the Wii, they can't just have neat hardware that does neat things, they have to have the software to back that up. I really doubt that there will be any software from Microsoft that is as fun and accessible as what Nintendo has done (we're talking about the makers of Windows here). We also haven't seen any games at all with Sony's Wand.

Meanwhile, Nintendo keeps churning out low-market masterpieces like Wii Sports Resort and New Super Mario Bros. The only new hardware that they might have will be for the purpose of attracting more new gamers just like they have been doing, and in doing this, they will be just as successful as they have been.

Ephriam Knight,

Are you seriously going to call out developers as lazy when Nintendo has been redefining the term for years?

Their biggest holiday title was a three year old DS game with extra content. I mean, I love classic Mario and I nabbed the game day one but we are talking about a company that is the very definition of lazy, as pointed out in a recent IGN editorial which made some damn fine points regarding the issue.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/105/1054621p1.html

Even more interesting is that 2009 was a great year for third party titles and yet Nintendo did little to promote anything but their own software thus many of these great games, including MadWorld, Deadly Creatures, House of the Dead, etc. perished at retail. Nintendo, always a verbose and arrogant entity, claims they want third party support yet they do little to push this software once it lands on shelves. By contrast, MS and Sony both are always eager to place third party offerings in the front window and promote them heavily, which is why even when third party titles falter developers at least feel their games were given a fair chance on the platform.

The term hardcore and casual doesn't even enter into the equation here because I've been gaming for the better part of three decades and labels don't impress me. My animosity towards the Wii is based on the torrent of mediocre and flatly bad software that is occasionally slowed by the release of a decent game. The fact that a bunch of uninformed consumers buy this swill does annoy me but ultimately, I have two real gaming consoles to fill in the void that Nintendo continues to leave with their paltry offerings of quality.

John Giordano,

Actually, plenty of experienced gamers took the motion input and the overall hype of the Wii quite seriously because regardless of the console’s gimmicky nature, it was still a Nintendo console which means exclusivity of certain franchises that the hardcore crowd consistently seeks out.

As to the notion of HD, your assessment would have been accurate three years ago because at that time HDTV penetration was only around twenty percent. When the PS3 and the XB360 first launched, HDTV was a high end luxury most consumers didn’t even fully understand but all of that has changed as the price of HDTV’s has plummeted and the penetration has increased significantly and continues to grow exponentially. As consumers learn the nuances of HD, they are going to want something that doesn’t look grainy and ugly on their TV’s, at least in theory. The issue may not be pronounced enough for Nintendo to justify making an HD console but again, I’m not a stockholder, I’m a customer, and I would have appreciated an HD option with the Wii. (Among other things)

Your assumptions about MS or Sony not having anything as “fun” as Nintendo is not only conjecture but such an assertion is premature, especially since we haven’t even seen what the technology offers. It does appear to be far more expansive than the Wimote, which in turn might offer up more options to developers, but I wouldn’t make any judgments either way until we actually see some software.

Lastly, I have no idea what a “low-market masterpiece” is supposed to entail but while New Mario Bros. is a fantastic game (albeit a port of a three year old DS titles) Wii Sports and the sequel are vapid and shallow offerings that could have been so much more had Nintendo actually exploited their own technology. Unfortunately, despite their bravado and claims, they actually use their own motion control sparingly and their best game on the console, Mario Galaxy, makes limited use of it. (As does New Mario Bros.)

That reality alone speaks volumes about the integrity of their gimmicky little controller.

@Bill Boggess

On Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort being shallow offerings from the company that once brought us Legend of Zelda and several quality franchises over their platforms, I do agree.

However, New Super Mario Bros. Wii is in no way a port of the previous NSMB that debuted on the DS over 2 years ago. Also, it really shouldn't be Nintendo's responsibility to promote third party games any more then they already do.

The fact is, most publishers and developers are not putting nearly as much resources into their Wii offerings as they do some of their 360/PS3 offerings and those that do, get no marketing push to actual reach the traditional gamer that doesn't know the game exists on the Wii. Ironically, while traditional games have a reputation of failing on the Wii, the Wii versions of multiplatform games like Ghostbusters, Star Wars: Force Unleashed, the recent Call of Duty games (one a two year old port released alongside its sequel) and others have actually performed comparable to their HD cousins.

Meanwhile casual games, including several music and certain extreme sports games with peripherals, have actually out performed their HD counterparts. So while gimmicky games exist, Nintendo is far more successful because even with their most gimmicky games, effort was made to make them fun and enjoyable experiences. Most third parties can't say the same.

Uyiosa Iyamu,

I agree that New Super Mario Bros. is more than a port but you still have to consider the reality that many of that game's assets were already present, even if they added sizeable amounts of content for the Wii version. It's a 2D Mario based on a DS title and while it's vastly superior to the original it does illustrate my point regarding Nintendo's lazy habits.

As to Nintendo not promoting third party games, you may be right that it's not their responsibility yet it would seem to be in their best interest and it certainly seems to be a strategy that has worked well for MS and Sony. Ultimately, if Nintendo wants to adopt a stance where third parties must fend for themselves, they shouldn't be surprised that so many are either abandoning the system or releasing shovelware.

You allude to the fact that many of these third party developers are not pouring into their games the kind of resources that they utilize when making HD titles but ask yourself this very honest question: Why would they?

Even Nintendo’s own games are lacking in terms of production values so why would any sane studio spend millions of dollars to craft a cohesive narrative and quality aesthetic merely to have their game outsold by cheap shovelware or interactive exercise software? Take a look at something like WiPlay or WiSports Resort; I’ve seen better graphics on XBL Indie Games.

Also, keep in mind that 2009 saw a plethora of high end third party titles released, including Mad World, which is one of the best-looking games on the console; Deadly Creatures, an innovative little game with excellent production values; and several other shooters including Dead Space Extraction, which got universal praise for pushing the Wii’s graphical performance to another level. 2009 was the year when third party support reached an apex and yet all of these games and many other quality titles failed on the Wii so again I pose the question: why would anybody expend any real effort making a game for the Wii when third party sales are so poor and Nintendo is unwilling to help promote these games?

Lastly, I don’t think Nintendo has really put all that much effort into most of their software this generation, as evidenced by so many of their titles including WiFit, WiMusic, WiSports, etc. These games rely completely on the gimmick of motion control because everything else about them is cheap and obviously produced with respectively low budgets and even lower artistic and creative ambition. Nintendo is fast becoming the McDonalds of the game industry: fast, cheap and devoid of any actual merit or substance.

@ Bill
GTA IV didn't offer me a living world, it offered me crowded streets, with people walking without any sense in front of houses with the depth of a theater stage scenery. The cars drove without any system and crashed all the time. This was no improvement from GTA SA, in gameplay terms, it was a step backwards. The whole graphics were just facade, you can do the same without the high res textures and you will loose nothing of the actual gameplay.

Where exactly were physics used in a game more then in Half-Life 2? A game, that ran on the XBox1, after that, many developers added physics to their engines, but they never used it in a way, were they became essential.
Wait, there was a heavy physics driven title, that really showed, what physics can do in a game, it was called Bloom Blox and was a Wii exclusive.

Dead Rising wasn't an innovative title and reducing the ammount of Zombies, in my opinion didn't change much about that, what was it's gameplay innovation, that seperated it from all the other games?

Didn't played the latest Red Faction, maybe they found a way to include the GeoMod technology into the gameplay, but from what I read, most reviews und user reviews said, it was a gimmick, nothing more.
What's left is the online ability, clearly, here the PS3 and 360 have advantages, but online gaming is still not an so important part in the console world and the vast majority of online gamers are on the PC, here all consoles with their closed platforms have extreme disadvantages.
I still don't see, why a game like Batman:Arkham Asylum couldn't be done on a Wii, or even a PS2. The graphics were inferior, true, but the main gameplay didn't involved anything, that wasn't done on a PS2 before. It just had HD graphics. This doesn't mean, it is a bad game. But it was a game, that was good designed and good presented, it wasn't a game with many gameplay innovations.
Never played Uncharted 2 or Infamous, both look good, but what did they do in terms of gameplay, that wasn't possible on the last generation?

Why do you separate gamplays and all the rest anyway?

If you want to create a gameplay, you need something perceptible. A video game is not just made of mechanics; it's in fact made of everything and everything must be pushed to the next level. The gameplays are then closely related to everything else. A simple "punch" or melee attack could be more fun, just because the animation looks cooler or because the blending between the animations works better. So all the technology behind the game does matter (software) and same goes for the Hardware.

Graphics can be an important factor, I agree. But right now, it is not, that the current generation games have better graphics, then the last generation, it is more, that the have textures in a higher resolution, that's all.
Look at games like Okami or Zelda The Wind Waker or Mad World or No More Heroes or Persona 4 for example, all these games have a unique visual style.
Then take a look at RE5 or MW2 or GOW, they lack any style, that distinguish these games from one another. The result is, that these games will look outdated in 24 months, while the games with an own visual style will stay.
I don't say, that you can't make games with an own visual style on the current hardware generation, but apart from Little Big Planet and maybe Viva Pinata, nobody managed something remarkable. From this point of view, the whole new graphic abilities only eat up developement money, cause nobody seems to be able to use them.

Well, I kinda agree for RE5 and MW2, however... I think GoW had a very unique and subtle Art Direction (except that it reminds me Unreal Tournament each time, due to the shape of the characters). Why I do agree with you is, in the next gen (I thought it would be now, but I was wrong), the graphics will be so sharp and clean, that the Art Direction is what will matter the most from a Graphics perspective.

However, I think the actual generation shows a bigger picture of what video games will look like in the future. Game publishers already start thinking about new controllers or motion controllers (Wii, Natal, etc.) when they don't even grasp how to improve game mechanics with a classic controller.

Actually, we are just starting to develop new technologies thightly related to the gameplay mechanics. We don't just press a button, there is a whole new and possible chain reaction to consider. By example, in GoW2 and Killzone 2 there are particular destructible elements. The walls or pillars cannot be destroyed entirely, but the surface of the elements can be destroyed. Euphoria (GTA 4) is another wonderful example. The player deal with the physics and by his action he changes dramatically the result of an action. If the player pushes someone in the street or in the stairs or keep to physically harassing the CPU (Bot), the fun will be different. In Crackdown, when you jump from the top of a building and land on the ground, it crackles. In some games, when you fall like that, the character puts his hand on the ground to absorb the impact. [SPOILER - > ] In Uncharted 2, the level in which Drake has to climb up some part of a train and inside it from seat to seat probably required a certain "technology" to blend the animation and actions properly.

All those elements allow the players to get more engaged in the experience on all levels (visuals, sounds, controls, etc.), but still are related to the game mechanics. To me, that goes beyond Natal and the Wii-Motion Plus.

Ephriam

I am not disagreeing with you. The problem is not innovation per se. In fact, we devote a good section of the book to Nintendo's innovation and why the DS and Wii were successful. The "lack of innovation" I speak of is in current R&D. In the book, we refer to it as the "complacency trap" and it is not the first time that Nintendo has fallen into it. Microsoft has acknowledged that Project Natal was inspired by the Wii Remote. The question is, what is Nintendo going to do now?

According to Iwata, with the Wii, Nintendo is "not desperate for any new weapons at all," referring to product innovations.

@ Bill Boggess
Yeah, MS and Sony's 'strategy' of promoting 3rd party developers has made them so much more successful than Nintendo. What planet are you from? Sony's struggling to survive and MS has made money 3 quarters out of the last 32 with the x-box. Trust me, if Sony and MS had the vision of Nintendo, they would kick 3rd party developers to the curb real quick!