You don't want to discuss it but you do it. You don't want to talk with me but you do it. I think the incoherent is you ;)

I tell you what you don't really want: you don't want to see the truth. You are afraid of it. You twist my logic and call it stupid. Well, I agree, the way you twisted my logic is really stupid...and it proves your ignorance.

The truth that you are afraid of is about the way generations can be most properly differentiated: by tech, not by age. It doesn't make any sense to consider Zeebo a 7th generation console. A system that can only deliver games with a tech between PS1 and PS2 is not from the same generation as PS3 is. I'm sure you agree with that. But then something pops up in your mind: if you admitted that, you would have been admitting Wii is not from the same generation as PS3 and X360 are. So you hold back and continue pretending Wii is 7th gen :)

As for the difference between mini-games and real games, of course it's not about costs, as you pretend my argument to be. Money is just an input. The difference is in the outcome: graphics, physics, content, sound, AI...any gaming element that evolves along time and that can be somehow measurable. Sure the game budget is correlated, but it's just a mean to reach an end. The end is what counts. So, if you find a game that has great graphics, huge content, top-quality tech, sophisticated gaming physics and any other element like a 7th generation game, and if that game cost 0,01M euros to be produced...guess what...it will still be a 7th generation game. Is Wii Sports that kind of game? I don't think so. Is there any game that fits that description? Probably not. Anyway, costs simply don't count to evaluate the generation of a game. Got it? I hope so.

95 is neither random nor my birth year. There is a game whose the main character is called Zod and that game is from 1995. But age has nothing to do with arguments, reasoning, facts or even knowledge. There's something called "History" that let us know about things that happened in the past (even before our birth). And, in that sense, I may sometimes teach you about the gaming industry and other times it will be you teaching me. Is there any shame on that regardless our ages? I don't think so. I hope you don't either.

This is very simple: from 2006 to 2008 Wii had strong and constant sales and the price was always 250 euros ; in 2009 they dropped a bit ; in the end of 2009 the console had its 1st price cut (after 3 immaculate years) and then sales went up like never before. This is cause-and-effect, my friend. You tell me it was because of NSMB Wii. And I tell you: no game produces such an effect, NO ONE. Hardware price drops are the most effective way to raise hardware sales. But lets assume you're right. Then NSMB Wii would have produced an increase in sales like no other Wii game did. And in that sense it's strange that game is not the best selling Wii game. Another interesting fact is that games like Wii Sports and Wii Play came out in 2006...and look at their impact on Wii sales. Not even close. And games like Wii Fit, Wii Sports Resort and Mario Kart Wii, which sold dozens of millions each, were unable to make in 2008 the greatest raise Wii ever had. No, it was NSMB Wii alone that did it. Now laugh a bit more, because  when you laugh you just show your ignorance.

Ok, lets get things straight: when I say "hardcore games" I'm refering to games that are really from the present generation and "casual" when they are retro (and almost any Wii game is retro, from Wii Sports to Mario Galaxy, from Wii Party to NSMB, from Mario Kart to Kirby, etc.). If you want, I can shift it to "real games" and "mini-games".

Now you make me laugh. The difference between PS2 and Game Cube or between Mega Drive and SNES was nothing compared to the difference between Wii and PS3/X360. It's like comparing N64 with Dreamcast. It's not about small or big differences...it's about different generations (HUGE differences). To put a game like GTA IV on Wii would require to downgrade the graphics to the 5th generation or even worse (and that's something gamers wouldn't accept, it's not about Rockstart's good/bad will). Because the difference between Wii and PS3/X360 is not in graphics, it's in power. And if graphics consume power, so does any other element in gaming (physics, game rules, AI, nr of objects displayed, draw distance, sound, etc.). For the Wii to run every element GTA IV has (which was designed for the 7th generation) it would require to have at least non-gameplay elements (such as graphics) downgraded. And the same applies to Assassin's Creed, LA Noire, Bioshock, Fallout, Rage and many many others. But even if this little BIG detail didn't exist at all, Wii would still have the problem of "real games" to sell badly. So a lot of devs would avoid it anyway...

This is funny. How does Wii U prevent 3rd parties to avoid it like they did to Wii? As far as I know, Wii U has no next-gen multi-platform games (games that will be launched on PS4 and XOne but not on PS3 and X360). History repeats itself. Within 5 or 6 years, Nintendo will launch Wii U's successor and you will tell the very same thing...

I'm talking about the games' natural evolution, my friend. Something that Nintendo was unable to do. That's why N64 and Game Cube were demolished by PS1 and PS2. Because Sony was capable of giving to Nintendo's old-school fans what they really wanted, while Nintendo continued to be focused on low-budget kindergarten games like Mario, Kirby, Donkey Kong, etc.

This and the following many paragraphs are just off-topic, since I haven't said anything like that.

Sometimes you just answer your own questions. It's true that the PS3 and X360 were frequently blundled with different games, accessories, etc. since the beginning of the generation. But with the Wii is was the first time. In 3 years, Wii was always bundled with Wii Sports, nothing more and nothing instead. In 2010, Wii was bundled with Wii Sports Resort and Wii Motion Plus for the same 200 euros, with Mario Kart Wii, with NSMB Wii, etc. This was a change, this was another desperate move to try to stop the HD turnaround. In 3 years they had maintained a console always bundled with the same game, always for the same price. In October 2009 they dropped the price in 50 euros. A few months later they bundled the console with 1 additional game and accessory for 220 euros, a few months later they dropped it to 200 euros, a few months later they've created alternatives to Wii Sports...but the sales didn't stop to decrease. They've realized they couldn't keep on offering more for less quarter after quarter (otherwise in...let's say 2013...Wii would be...well...like...for free!). So they've started to think about new ways to fool the consumer. Wii's family edition is the greatest example of that. A console that is bigger, has no retro-compatibility and costs the same 0.o

If that's the way to think, I just have 1 thing to tell you: Nintendo is running on autopilot since 1998.

You are not making much sense. If the DSi XL was already an answer to the smartphones, why would Nintendo need 3DS to address to the very same issue? And you think 3DS sales are marveouls? They are worse than what the DS had...What kind of an argument is succeding when the argument's owner is losing?

If you think that way, I have some questions for you:

1 - Are the Dreamcast (1998), PS2 (2000) and Game Cube (2001) from different generations? Because Dreamcast (1998-2001) competed more with PS1 (1995-2002) than with PS2 (2000-2009).

2 - Are the PS2 and PS3 from different generations? Because they were selling, having production and game launches at the same time during several years.

3 - Is the Zeebo (2009) from a different generation than X360 (2005)? Maybe...and that would mean Wii U (2012) is from the 9th generation...and maybe PS4 (2013) is from 10th generation...or have the consoles from the past (launched in different years) made us going already in the 20th generation?

4 - PS3 (2006/2007) is stronger than the past systems: X360 (2005) and Wii (2006). Is it from a different generation?

5 - How do you conciliate market competition and tech (what formula do you use)? How do you define market competition in the first place?

That's right, my friend, you're biased, inconsitent and incoherent.

In my opinion, generations are defined by tech. If I decide to create in my garage a console as powerful as the PS1, it doesn't make it 8th generation just because we are in 2013. If time was the relevant aspect, then generations would stop making sense. We could just talk about years (each one would be a generation). Tech is was comes to the screen, to the controller, to the columns...it's the outcome...the thing that make us look at a game and say"this is a 7th generation game...in which year was it launched?".

Your problem is that you're so focused on graphics...so focused (even more focused than the gamers who appreciate top-notch graphics)...that you miss the point. It's not about graphics...it's about power...it has ever been so. Specially in this 8th generation, where the major evolution was in RAM, not in processing power, you will not see a major leap in graphics. But you will see, for example, games that struggled to be launched on consoles (or that weren't launched on them at all, just on PC) to come to PS4 and XOne. I personally like the way things are evolving at the moment. RAM is much more important to be pushed up than processors. I was tired of seeing games / gaming experiences not coming to consoles because they didn't have enough RAM do run it. For me that's much more important than graphics. But guess what? Wii U will miss that...Nintendo will remain in the kindergarten level...Iwata will continue to make easy money while fooling Nintendo fans like you.

Yeah, I know...and NFS Shift skipped Wii while NFS Hot Pursuit (launched 1 year later) didn't. From what I've heard, the game is just not the same. Sure they can make a game called "GTA IV" and launch it on the Wii. The title is easy to "develop", the content isn't.

You forget that PS4 didn't do anything of that and that Microsoft did a 180 on their measures to XOne because of PS4's position w, not Wii U's. You forget also that, taking into account the tech, Wii was the most expensive console of the last generation...and Wii U is on its way to make the same thing. You forget that Nintendo launched a Wii's version with lower specs for the same price and, later on, launched a version 30 euros cheaper but without online. Talking about online, you forget that Nintendo has always delivered the worse online service. As for the games, it has produced always low-budget games that sold dozens of millions...to the pockets of the shareholders, because the following titles continued to be low-budget and many IPs using always the same formula (like Super Mario Bros and Pokemon). Nintendo has remained on the kindergarten niche, once they saw it was easier to fool childreen than teenagers or adults. That's what you get from a company that you think it deserved to dominate the industry. I just don't want to imagine how mediocre the industry would become if that happened.

...so they coudn't have aborted Wii on 2009. As you say, things take their time. It would be stupid to think "hey, let's kill Wii in 2009 already and endure 5 years with decreasing results!". They simply did the best they could. It's funny how you see Nintendo's good moments like good moments and Nintendo's bad moments like warm ups to Nintendo's even greater moments. Where are they? I'm looking forward to see Wii U selling 240 million as you predict.

johnlucas said: 100 million Wiis sold is a long-term failure??? Good God this guy!! That is ridiculous what he's saying. Does he hear what's coming out of his mouth? Or is he just mad-libbing?

Success and failure are determined by expectations. PSP, for example, was a failure. It aimed to win the generation and it lost pretty badly. Of course I could say "how can 80 million units sold represent a failure?". Or "I just wanted the products of my business to sell the 6 million PS Vita sold"...does it make it a success? I don't think so. At the beginning Wii aimed to revolutionize the market but soon Nintendo understood they could attempt to win the generation. Expectations have changed in few months and they remained for some years...but now we see they've lost the software battle and they can even lose the hardware battle too.

LOL

Sony and Microsoft are not in the kindergarten level like Nintendo is. Sony has Gran Turismo, Microsoft has Forza, Nintendo has Mario Kart. Which one is the kindergarten game? Well...I don't know...let's try one more time: Sony has Killzone, Microsoft has Halo, Nintendo has Metroid Prime. Hm....let's try again: Sony has MLB The Show, Microsoft has no sports game (at least I don't remember anyone), Nintendo has Mario Strikers. Which one is the kindergarten game? Well, maybe these are just exceptions, let's stop talking about specific titles and let's talk about game genres: who has racing simulators? Sony and Microsoft do, Nintendo doesn't. Who has action simulators? Sony and Microsoft do, Nintendo doesn't. Strategy simulators? Sony and Microsoft do (at least as 3rd party titles), Nintendo doesn't. Does Nintendo produce any photo-realistic game at all? I guess that's too expensive for them.

Kindergarten games are cheaper and easier to fool people. There's no need to put millions of polygons on each vehicle and try to make them look like the real ones. There's no need to invest on gaming physics and spending money renting real cars for tests in order to put the virtual ones behaving like them. There's no need to invest hundreds or thousands of hours (and money) taking photos to real circuits or real cities and replicate them. There's no need to spend a fortune creating HD open worlds with thousands of kms of roads in a MMO racing or action game. It's much easier to put the old same old 3D Mario (designed in 1996) running in the old same old cartoon 3D worlds (or even 2D worlds) through an old same old linear gameplay with little or no innovation at all. Low-budget kindergarten games is the most intelligent way to maximize profits. Plus, since there is no HD realistic graphics, no sim physics, no photo-realistic content, no MMO environments...nothing at all that could be somehow measurable and compared to other titles, Nintendo gets a bunch of fans just saying "hey, you produce the best games!"...the best in what? Gameplay? That is subjective. I may like, others may dislike.

But the funny thing is that those very same fans dare to say "kindergarten?...Nintendo?...n..n..no...that's Sony and Microsoft! They are the ones that target kids the most and try to make easy money...easy like modeling real cars with millions of polygons...easy like rendering environments with thousands of kms...easy like recreating parts of London, Macau, New York, St Petersburg, Shangai, etc...those are the easy things...difficult is to make tiny and cartoonish environments, that's hard!". LOL