360 copied many of it's ideas from Dreamcast,yes even XBL.

Another one missing is the brown box. Without it,there would be no console at all. It was the Apple 1 of Gaming systems. Odessey is more Apple II

I disagree.  The PS2 was, IMO, indeed simply the PS1 writ even larger.  More of everything, including market domination and adult image.  But it didn't bring anything truly new to the table IMO.  Eyetoy is a joke from the perspective of impact on the industry. 

Oddly enough, I also disagree that the PS3 is just a PS2 with more of everything and online gaming.  PSN games, Home, etc. have no precedent on the PS2.  The more advanced media storage and playback makes the PS3 a true move into the concept of home entertainment center, which I don't believe the PS2 was.  Heck, the late lamented Linux capability alone is a remarkable innovation, though that may fail the "importance to industry" test. 

The PS2 had a huge impact to be sure, but more because of the way it devastated the competition than due to any real innovation from its predecessor. 

"Casuals Hardcore Nongamer those types were seen first time with the PS2 and not before."  Disagree here too; I'd go along with saying this is where people really started to identify separate camps, but the PS2 generation (let alone the console itself) certainly didn't create these distinctions. 

Here's some

1. NES
2. Playstation
3. Atari 2600
4. Playstation 2(reason this one is in there is because it took 3rd party games to the next level)
5. Gameboy
6. Wii

Okay get ready to get really mad, here's my list:

1) Atari 2600 - for bringing gaming home from the arcade.
2) NES - for bringing gaming home from beyond the grave, introducing the concept of licensing your games and turning down the unplayable trash.
3) SNES - for creating the standard controller that's been used in everything ever since.
4) Genesis - for introducing the philosophy that every non-Nintendo console ever since has used, from blast processing to da powaa of da Cell: "Nintendo is for babies and we're totally extreme."
5) Nintendo 64 - for introducing 3-D gaming, analog controls, and FPS gaming to the masses, the Rumble Pak, and making 4 controller ports standard for local multiplayer parties.
6) Wii - for tossing out all that history and starting over, re-defining gaming as a social family-appropriate experience instead of just for basement-dwellers, motion controls, IR controls, balance board controls, speaker in the remote, Miis, the super-intuitive Wii Channels interface.

I'd put the PS2 in there, but the OP only used 6, and I consider the PS2 the most successful extension of the Genesis philosophy.

I think this is really unfair to the Dreamcast.  The Saturn is guilty of these crimes.  The Dreamcast simply inherited a tarnished image (and a weakened Sega) and got squashed by the PS2. 

I gotta admit, tGoRB makes a compelling argument. But 360 > PS2 for Live and related things. Although really it should be joint credit PS360.

its a matter of perspective people just have one so obviously they are going to disagree quit often.

Your points are good but I will explain why I disagree. 

On the first sight the PS2 looks like no innovation just like you said PS1 written larger. PSN games are more a new type of distribution than a real innovation imo. And all Innovations the PS3 had can be partially found on Xbox too. They both together have a big impact everyone alone not so much. 

Casuals and Hardcore gamer were seen before. But absolutly non gamer havent existed before last gen. What games have nongamer played ?

Eyetoy sold about 10 Million but thats not the point. The PS2 made the most succesful (ofcourse just until the DS and WII came) attempt to bring in the nongamer in the market. People bought the PS2 which wouldnt have bought the PS1 or any other console just because they are not interested at all in videogames. But Singstar for example made people buy a PS2 just for that. Singstar/Guitar Hero and Eyetoy were aimed (too) at nongamer. Ofcourse Wii made it way better but the PS2 seeded the first seeds with those titles. And infact it was a success. Ofcourse in no way comparable with Wii but this was a reason why PS2 sold so great. After all the hardcore and casual gamer had a PS2 they sold it to the masses and I was really amazed what people bought a console ( i bought one finally too in 2007 since the gen lost me after DCs dead ).

PS3 is a way bigger improvment in all terms but thats not the question If there wouldnt be a Xbox360 PS3 would be more important then it is today. Even then PS3 wouldnt have made the market significantly bigger or would have changed the market structure a lot. 

Sony changed there strategy slightly with PS2 and they were succesful with it and this wasnt done before. What piece of software could be played by a nongamer before PS2 ? Ofcourse some niche projects but PS2 was definetly the first console which was popular under nongamer or name me another one which came earlier. Casual and hardcore gamer are older they came with NES and SNES. Nongamer came with PS2 and especially with Wii.

Dont get me wrong I prefer my PS3 over my PS2. Infact its imo above DC and GC and almost up there with SNES. I had more fun with it then with my PS2.

But the impact Sony made with the PS3 wasnt as big due to Xbox360. 

@Bold: I'm sorry, but the Atari 2600 had games developed for it for 15 years.

It's has some important points. Though I disagree on the 360. The online that is being used by MS was already pioneered by GameSpy, Heat and there were 2 others that I don't remember. They pretty much did what Live does YEARS before Live. Live was MS attempt to copy PC Internet game network and charge money. Once Live was established they tried to port it to PC. It failed.

If anything Live has been more detrimental to Console Online Gaming than beneficial. Where as a majority online games for PC are free Live likes to charge a fee for stuff that is free on the PC gaming. What Live did wasn't make online gaming better for consoles. What it really did was bring online gaming earlier, but at the cost of online gaming maturity.

So no. I don't agree that the 360 was important. It was more damaging for the long run of console gaming.

While I don't agree with the comments and reasoning behind the list...I believe the author got the list right. 

 The Odyssey is the grand daddy of home consoles. 

The 2600 made home video games a household item and also was responsible for the great video game crash of 1983.

The NES revived the video game market, brought numerous new accessories to the world of games, and layed the ground work future generations.

The PS1 introduced memory cards and made disc based media standard in consoles.

The 360 was the first console released with standard wireless controllers, created achievements, and set the standard for online console gaming. 

The Wii's inclusion of motion controls and the virtual console. 

The PS2 is a fantastic system, but it didn't bring anything revolutionary to the table.  Increased disc capacity is part of the evolution of gaming.  Every generation has had larger game sizes whether it was through bigger rom chips or a new disc media. 

The PS3 is the first console to include blue tooth for the connection of devices.  The built in Wifi was also a nice bonus (The Wii did include this as well, and was available for the 360 as an add on).  But I don't believe it has really changed gaming in a major way.

The only system I feel an argument could possibly be made for is the N64.  The analog stick, 3D games, and the rumble pack are all common place today.