If Sony ends up losing this generation in hardware sales to Microsoft and Nintendo, after Nintendo lost to Sony...which leader will be seen as more important/less out of touch? Its a hell of a question I think. The PS1 business model forced Nintendo to change it's business models. Preliminarily, it looks like Wii is going to force Sony to change it's business models. The hole thing reeks of the synthesis theory of history...in each generation two major possibilities for industry direction emerge. Generally, the possibility with the most support wins. Historically, Nintendo and Sony have been the only companies to change the industry despite the majority supporting the opposite of what they do. When a company does get a huge market share, it seems to be a refutation of the elitism that forms among gamers every generation... In other words...first there was Atari (The Begginning). Since, there have been theses and anti-theses proposed by each company... 1972-1979 Synthesis: Gaming has appeal to everyone. 1980-1984 Atari Thesis: One Screen games rule. Nintendo antithesis: Multi-screen! Synthesis: We like both! Don't go to far either way 1985-1988 Nintendo Thesis: Arcade and new complex 2d games will expand the market Sega/Atari AntiThesis: Only arcade simple games will... Synthesis: Arcade games - casual gamers, complex games - hardcore 1989-1994 Nintendo Thesis: Push the envelope on 2D to expand/experiment with 3D Sega Antithesis: Make games ever more arcade like, long live the quick reward Synthesis: Make games bigger, keep the elements largely the same until 3D emerges 1995-2000 Nintendo Thesis: Bring all major genres into 3D, 2D is passe. Sony Thesis: Make games as appealing as possible - whether 2D or 3D Synthesis: Make most games 3D, and appealing - don't kill 2D 2001- 2005 Microsoft Thesis: Make 3D games super interactive through communication/online/great AI Sony Antithesis: Develop games cinematically to make people feel involved - actual physics and AI can be secondary so long as the experience is engrossing in design and vision. Nintendo & Synthesis: Communication between game and player makes a better game. 2006-2011 Nintendo Thesis: Communication between player and game can be extended beyond the mind - to the body. Since both body motion and game design are only limited by imagination and context, we think we something with enormous, if under-implemented potential. Microsoft Thesis: Online, cinematic appeal, mental involvement, and digital distribution are all players need to be happy. Motion, if anything, alienates certain types of gamers. Sony & Synthesis: Gamers lover everything, but only in small doses, motion sensing, cinematic feel, online, digital distribution, communication. However, since we are not sure which type of implementation will work best...we will support all of them...until one proves itself...

So looking at that, the PS3 has the chance to win? I think the wii is betting their thing on the motion controls, what happens if it becomes old fasion and people start hating it? The PS3 could drop the sixaxis if it needed too

This is based on the synthesis theory of history - in that competing interests prevent any group from completely being satisfied or completely dominating another - leading to struggle throughout the ages. So yeah, PS3 has a chance to win if everyone suddenly rejected both 360 and Wii. But because PS3 incorporates the 360 and Wii differentiation strategies somewhat 1/2 heartedly, I would think people who would want the full development of both directions would simply buy Wii and 360. That is why the price is so damning - if PS3 offered both motion sensing, and great online gameplay at a lower price, with full implementation...well I think it would have sold like 150 million units...but the PS3 has maybe 1/3 of that potential at best.

if PS3 offered both motion sensing, and great online gameplay at a lower price, with full implementation Of course there was no chance of that happening with the approach Sony took to creating PS3. I don't know about your general thesis though... I mean... Nintendo Thesis: Bring all major genres into 3D, 2D is passe. Sony Thesis: Make games as appealing as possible - whether 2D or 3D Synthesis: Make most games 3D, and appealing - don't kill 2D I mean, that's not really what that generation had to do with. 2D moved almost entirely to handheld systems, and the emergence of 3D was a technological matter, not really dueling philosophies from Nintendo and Sony.