In what universe was the Wii not competing with PS3 and 360? Is this some Phil Harrison damage control?

The PS3+360 were direct competitors because they offered almost identical experiences, a mostly identical library of games and appealed to the same group of people.

The Wii did not.

The success or failure of the Wii would not have a large impact on the sales of the PlayStation/Xbox, while the success of either PlayStation/Xbox would have a direct effect on the sales of the other. Xbox Success = Less sales for PlayStation and vice versa. Nintendo's success does not equal less sales for Sony/MS.

The HD Twins and the Wii weren't fighting over the same scraps.

https://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/ps3-chief-don-t-compare-nintendo-wii-to-ps3-161162

I was right, it was hilarious Phil Harrison damage control. Sony also tried to say the Wii was actually competing with PS2 LOL

Come on. If Phil Spencer came out and said Xbox One with its HDMI In and Kinect and TV abilities was actually winning the generation because it wasn't competing with the PS4, people would be rightfully laughing at the stupidity. Actually wasn't Harrison at Xbox at this time? Maybe he even said it?

The Wii and PS3 were video game consoles on sale at the same time and delivering a wide range of options for all sorts of different consumers. Of course they were in direct competition. If I go to the movie theater right now I can see Jumanji or 1917. Two very different movies in different genres and appealing to different people but yet still competing with one another.

The Wii did win the generation.

The Wii and the PS3/360 were not in direct competition.

PS3 + 360 = Essentially the same

PS3/360 + Wii = Essentially the same? Absolutely not.

The PS3/360 were not competing for the same potential market as the Wii. They were very different products.

Well, you got one out of two right. Not bad 👍

They were all in the same market.
Kinect and Move were efforts by Sony and Microsoft to compete against Nintendo with the motion control craze.

I think your analogy was bad, I explained why, I will move on.

Wii certainly took potential sales from PS360. But I would agree Wii didnt succeed in the core market like PS360.

Multiplat content in the 9th gen should look about the same. If Series X has more power then it will be a resolution and performance disparity in many 3rd party games. Much like Pro and X1X.

Even if Sony has less GPU power, they can make8 great looking games, use image reconstruction tech and I dont think many consumers would care if its sub 4K.

Series X will likely do similar graphics but boast about less compromise and the highest fidelity ports.

Even if MS decided to make something so visually cutting edge and demanding on a 12TF Series X that it ran at 1080p/30 fps. In theory a 9TF PS5 could run that same title at 900p. Meanwhile a 4TF Lockhart could maybe do it at sub 720p.

Hence, if the only disparity is the GPU TF number then It just becomes a matter of compromise. Resolution is an easy compromise for less GPU power.

Not necessarily. The 360 beat the PS3 in 3rd party games for most of the generation. As we know, 3rd party games are some 80-90% of total library.

Would you consider the PS3's specs useless? 80-90% useless? Not a factor?

You also state in a post in this very thread that the company sells more, crosses the line first then have the lack of self awareness to accuse another of shifting goal posts in the next post. Just do yourself a favour here and stop.

PS consoles have not focused on power for the most part, yet PS3 did, along with everything else it offered.

XB consoles have always focused on power, except for XB1, which focused much more on media capabilites.

XB fans loved the debates where 360 was making PS3 and it's 'useless' powerful cell look real bad.

PS fans loved the debates where PS4 was making XB1 and it's 'useless' media/Kinect look real bad.

The point is XB fans have been brought up to expect a monster of a console, and PS fans haven't. XB1 looked like a poor PS3 attempt to PS fans, and to make matters worse, it was more expensive than the purposely mid grade designed affordable PS4. It was a literal joke that PS fans couldn't help but laugh at. The majority weren't flexing because they felt good since they clearly had the power crown with PS4, they were doing so to poke fun at the fact that PS didn't even try and were more powerful and cheaper than XB1. When XB1X finally showed up, they shut up because things just went back to the way they typically are.

Yes, my point, for the most part. All the extra power doesn't go towards graphics, but the majority does. If they weren't super focused on a worthy graphics upgrade, as per their fans, there would be little point in constantly pushing 'the most powerful' marketing since XB1X.

To tell the truth, I'm way more impressed with PS4 exclusive than I was with Xbox One X/PC games : 

When I think of PS4 : Horizon Zero Dawn, God Of War, Uncharted 4, Uncharted The Lost Legacy, Marvel Spider-Man, Ratchet & Clank, Detroit Become Human, Death Stranding and next Ghost of Tsushima, The Last Of Us Part. 2, Final Fantasy VII Remake.

When I think of PC/Xbox One X : Forza Motorsport 7. That's all. Gears 5 was too blurry.

So it's cool to have good specs, but when MS devs don't do shit with it, it's useless.