"Wii U hardware is on par with current gen consoles"

[Mnementh]

Soundwave said:

Mnementh said:

Soundwave said:

I'm not even sure if I'd say the Wii "won" this generation. Yes maybe in terms of units sold, but the XBox 360/PS3 have had much more vitality into their later years and seem to have much more active software development and developer support. The Wii had three very explosive years off the top and then has really levelled off.

Please define winning.

Having the widest amount of third party developer support, being the platform that has the best quality games on it as a whole (see: NES, SNES, Playstation, Playstation 2), having the most active marketplace for developers games ... I think has to be considered.

The Wii is not like the previous generation "winners" in those respects. It's certainly not what I would call the "market leader" right now, as a platform the majority of the development community (even Japanese) are not making games for it anymore unless it's shovelware.

OK, every console won. With such vague definition, everyone can spin his console to be the winner. What are quality games? Is there a clear definition?

How to measure the activity in developing games?  How to decide, which game is a 'quality' game? Hmm, for example only HD-games can be quality games. That would mean PS2 and DS are biiiiiig failures!

So, for me it's too vague. Some examples: profit made with the consoles for the console-maker. Number of games sold. Number of games  with at least one million copies sold. There are many possibilities to decide a winner on the basis of facts not some vague 'the developer community is more active' or 'the games for X are more innovative'. I don't say the Wii would win with all these definitions. But we could at least decide for a clear winner.