Actually their are probably a lot more people who like to "wave wands" but can't seem to get a wii. And not every game on the wii will use motion sensing. Plus some wii games use motion sensing but not for waving it rapidly around in the air (wait, what wii games to you have to wave it around in the air?.) 

Long term, anything is possible, though obviously the longer Wii remains in front, the harder it will be to dethrone.

Short term, there in NO chance of the 360 catching the Wii. Even if Halo3 doubled 360 sales for the month of October (a generous assumption), that would only allow it to keep pace with the Wii.

As for the PS3, at current rates the 360 and Wii could cease production and it would still wouldn't catch up to E3. Since MS and Nintendo are not giving up any time soon, I think the *best* Sony can hope for is to catch up in 2-3 years.

"I have been playing with 1280x1024 for almost 10years"

No, you wouldn't have.

10 Years ago you would have been playing at much lower resolutions on a VooDoo1.

When I bought my 8MB Creative Labs VooDoo2 in February of 1998, it was the best thing availible on the market, and it could only display at 800x600 res.

Yes, HD gaming has been availible for years on the PC, but not everyone wants to play on an uncomfortable chair in front of a small 21 inch monitor.

Console gamers prefer big couches with big screen TVs.  We are talking about the Wii, 360, and PS3, right?  That is what the original poster asked, right?  Or does stating lies like "I have been playing with 1280x1024 for almost 10years" somehow discredit the 360/ps3 as if HD gaming is not important?  HD is a new feature in console gaming.  The topic of discussion.

10 years ago he could of been using a Matrox and playing on a Mitsibishi monitor at 1280x1024. The XGA standard has been around since 1990 and which is 1024x768 resolution and that is higher than 800x600. Rememebr not all computer games were 3d back than. 7 years ago I was playing at 1600x1200 resolution on my PC in 2000 with my Radeon that had 64 megs of RAM. TheRage Pro which came out in 1998 was capable of doing 1600x1200 display in 2d and some games did support that though the monitors were expensive.

Also the ATI Mach64 was capable of 1280x1024 resolution in 1994. and it supported DOOM at this rez.]

It should be noted that DOOM was not a 3D game but  

XGA 1990 80*25 1024*768 65,536 1 MB 

HDTV has been available in america for years and the adoption rate has only just picked up, im sure i read that its still only around 25% of household have a HD capable TV. That figure is vastly less over europe where HD broadcasts are minimal (and expensive) and people are far more reluctant to replace perfectly fine TVs.

As much as we all like our HDTVs, the general public cant see much difference, especially at the average screensize of 21 to 25", try telling those poeple who are happy watching SD analogue broadcasts that they NEED a new tv.

HDTV is not needed for gaming, it doesnt make games play better, it doesnt make them appeal to more people, it doesnt make them easier to play, it just makes them look better and cost alot more.  Believe it or not the vast majority of consumers arnt 17years old and living with their parents, they have strict budgets and cannot throw money at the latest TV and Console just for it run in a higher resolution. 

Since you have been playing HD games for alomost 10 years, do you think the games you have been playing are better then those ones everyone else has been plaing in 800x600 etc? Or are they actually, exactly the same? 

By the way, my PC chair is VERY comfortable too and since im sitting approx 2ft from my 19" monitor, the screen is very adequate for gaming. 

Is Wii Number 1 for good?

Oh you bet your bottom dollar it is. No turning back now. It is forever.

Too early to make a call? 2 years into the 7th gen and nearly 1 year after all 3 systems have been on the market.

Too LATE to call not too early. It's over. The hierarchy is set. Check your history.

John Lucas 

Without an appropriate time frame given all I can really say is "no." "For Good" would indicate that it never at any point stops selling, and there will be a point at some time in the future where any console will stop selling. Sorry, but I majored in History in college and vague timelines annoy me. It one of the reasons I am not really gonna way in to strongly on any "will x console beat y or z console debate." There are plenty of factors that haven't even become known to us yet and it is far to soon to draw any conclusions. There are known patterns in the industry, but it is important to note that as much as the past can be a guiding force and can help you make an educated guess- it is far from a crystal ball. The events that shaped one generation are not guaranteed to play out in the exact fashion again. All anyone can really do is put as much effort into an endeavor as possible and hope that either things work out or that history cuts them some slack.

So now we're talking about 2D? Exactly how many 2D AAA games have been released this current gen?  I know consoles are slow to catch up with consoles, but really, I'm pretty sure that everyone cares about 3D HD now.  I don't think people really consider Gauntlet on Xbox Live in 720p part of the HD movement. ;)

But who knows... maybe they do.

I think the wii stands a very good chance of maintaining the lead this generation.  I think PS3 can pass Xbox 360 by the end of this gen, simply because of Japan sales, and if they can can throw some money at getting important 3rd party exclusives (though it looks like a lot of that is moving over to wii.)

 This gen has proven that brand loyalty industry wide is not all that concrete (see analysts widely innacurate predictions) and I think Sony may be shooting themselves in the foot if they truely plan on having the lifespan be 10 years.  In 5 years (4 for MS, most likely) the competition will release "Next Gen" consoles which will have as much, and probably more, processing power (most likely from the MS camp), but I think a Next Gen console discussion is a bit premature

25% is great... it's higher then I would have assumed. 25% of 300 million is not bad imo (well, 300M total people, no idea how many households that would be). Those 25% that have an HDTV can obviously afford an expensive (compaired to last gen) console. Just because it's a small percentage, doesn't mean it's not still a big number of homes. The other 75% are a better target for the Wii. It's very similar to PC gaming actually. There are millions of PCs out there, but not everyone is going to be playing Crysis in a couple of weeks when it's released. Only the people that can afford a top of the line PC. But if Sims 2 expansion pack 14 is released, everyone's budget PC can play it. Only the people that can afford high end gaming will be enjoying Crysis.

The question about if games are better in HD then 800x600 res has nothing to do with HD gaming, it has to do with absurd budgets, developers, unfair publisher deadlines, and the direction gaming has gone in... but I'll answer it anyway. Games that I'm playing now in HD are much worst then the games I was playing 10 years ago. Take a AAA title like BioShock for example. Great game, for today's standards... but really, it's a dumbed down shell of what System Shock 2 was. Hacking in Bioshock is a joke, Researching is worthless, lack of inventory, individual characteristics like STR, INT, DEX, etc are missing... the game has been made for the masses and it shows. It's still a great game by today's standards because every other FPS game is just that bad. I can continue with many more examples, GRAW vs GR1, etc but it's the same situation every time... the new version is a shell of the original. (and this post is getting too long)

And (imo of course) it doesn't matter how comfortable your PC chair is... I have a $600 office chair that I bought through work with the silly comfort hook up. It's very comfortable, for a PC chair... but you couldn't pay me to choose it over my couch :) A good couch beats a good PC chair hands down.