You have your opinion and I have mine.  From the previous generation Nintendo had zero momentum going into this generation. They produced a piece of hardware that was slightly more powerful than the previous generation and everyone knew what Nintendo games would come.  Yet they through a monkey wrench in that was Motion Controls. Produce a demo game (WiiSports) that without Motion Controls would be a joke.   With Motion Controls people and people who never played Video games before found fun and the word spread.  I know plenty of parents that would never allow thier kids to play games, but they ended up getting a Wii because of the thought that the kids wont be just sitting around playing Video games.   They can play them, but they need to move around. 

Then a couple of years in the release WiiFit and still sell 1 WiiFit for every 2 Wii's sold.

Your last sentence is perfect, except for 2 words you missed so I corrected.

People buy Wii's to play MOTION GAMES. End of story. They do not Wii consoles so they can sit and admire the hardware, or to press buttons.

To sum everything up: moms buy Wiis to wiggle and waggle, not to play games!!!   

Time to play Wii Bingo!

Again, almost ALL of the Wii's 'great' console moving games were motion control based or enabled.  These motion controls were only desirable and considered fun because the Wii was so accessible with it's low priced market entry point.  If the Wii was priced at $600 (Like the PS3 was or even $400 like the 360) and packaged without motion controls it would have been dead where it stood.   

If not for the low entry price, consumers wouldn't have taken the gamble of purchasing a system with controls that nobody has really seen before.  Without Motion controls, the Wii would have been another (Gamecube) with probably worse graphics (Than the 360/PS3) or horrible third party support (like the GC/Wii) or both.  It would have been Gamecube part two.

One could paint a picture (With evidence that supports) that the Wii has every bit the weakest software lineup (Of the major 3) and that by all accounts the software that really shifted units was actually premised on motion controls or enabled because of motion controls (Wii Sports / Wii Sports Resort / Wii Fit) or did not arrive until the Wii had already built a comfortable 48-49% of the market share lead.

You keep confusing this generation with the last generations and that is incorrect.  This generation is much different.  No generation winning console has been priced above $300 and won the generation. 

This to me, indicates that pricing over $300 is a very slippery slope for companies and that when consoles are priced above $300 you miss a lot of semi-casual buyers right out of the gate.  Once market dominance is established, the primary console gets put in the front of the aisles and gets a bigger section devoted to it, more games are sent it's way.

To me, that was the story this generation.  This generation has been a three console race (In terms of software) all three companies putting out superb efforts (I prefer PS3's lineup over PS2's at this point TBH).  But the Wii won console dominance because of pricing and motion controls.  

What will be interesting to see, is how the next generation plays out.  Nintendo will really need to innovate above and beyond their competitors.  Graphically, I think Sony and MS will put out superior efforts at a much much lower cost than they did this generation.   And both Sony and MS will more than likely have 2nd generation versions of Move/Kinect (Which Move appears to be a direct upgrade over Wii Motion Plus and Kinect has a lot of potential).   

Personally, If Sony or MS release at a comparable price point (Within $100 and no higher than $400),  I can see Nintendo losing it's first place finish next generation.

As I've said before, motion controls are only TOOLS. They are only a means to an end. Do they help entice people and add a refreshing way to play games? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, if your game is no fun, motion controls will not help you. If motion controls DID guarentee success of a game, or make it more likely, many more third party Wii efforts would be a success. Motion control takes a backseat to gameplay and fun, not the other way around.

The ROOT of the Wii's appeal lies in the games themselves, and the accessibility attached to them. While motion controls DO help to increase accessibility to certain Wii games (particularly in the case of Wii Sports), ultimately, what the Wii does best is offer games that the average person can instantly get into and have fun with. The vast majority of the PS3 and 360 games, the average consumer cannot get into.

While motion controls can improve accessibility and fun, they are not the root of it. Look at NSMB Wii, a game that barely uses motion, yet is one of the most popular games of this gen, and could be one of the top selling games of all time.

Gamecube and N64 had little success because their games didn't appeal to the masses. They generally required deep patience and a tolerance of complex control schemes. While many Wii games break from this trend.

Why did you buy your console of choice? Hell, why does ANYBODY buy a console? Do they buy one to admire cinematics or graphics? Do they buy it to admire the hardware, or wave their arms around with motion controls? No. They buy a console to play GAMES. The primary funcion of a console is to play GAMES. Now, until this changes, No console has, or will EVER be market leader, without a strong game library.

If Wii did not have a sufficient library to back it up, it would not have recieved sales. And if it did, its sales would have immediately plummetted like a rock, because people who have discovered its lack of quality games.

It amuses me that people so deeply try to analyze why a console succeeds and they drone on about non gaming features for the cause; "blah blah blah blu ray players, hd graphics, motion controls, competitive pricing, teh casualz!!1" when in reality, the reason for success is really very simple; it's the GAMES, and ONLY the games.

If Nintendo falls to Sony and MS next gen, it will be for one reason, and one reason only; because its game library was weaker than Sony and MS, and did not appeal to as many as theirs did.

^so just the games huh? do you think the Wii would have dominated without the wiimote/balance board? Do you think it would have been just as succesful if it had launched at $500? Don't you think the Nintendo brand helped in any way and their strategies, marketing? c'mon, don't be so simple-minded.

You think the Gamecube didn't have as many great games as the Wii has today? heck, the Gamecube even had better "hardcore" third-party support. The so-called great games you talk about that made Nintendo succesful today came not before they had to redesign their strategy, innovate with new hardware, focus in a new demographic. They created the games, but the games alone wouldn't do it without the whole Wii motion/casual friendly concept. They have satisfied the needs of a large untapped audience with the right games AND hardware, both are equally important.

Would the PS3 have sold 37 million had it cost $5,000 and come with a refrigerator? You can play the "what if" game forever, but it's really pointless to speculate on such things, because the possibilites are infinite.

The fact is that the Wii is curently CHEAPER than the Xbox 360, which is far more advanced in horsepower, and only $100 cheaper than the PS3, which is even MORE advanced in horsepower and comes with its own Blu Ray player. Obviously people are finding extra value in the Wii.. Now, where could this value be coming from? It comes form the games, which are more accessible to more people.

Marketting, brand name, price, all that stuff; sure it can help a product. But a tree is  measured by the quality of its fruit, and if Wii's games truely didn't deliver, it would not have been the success that it is. The "Nintendo" brand certainly didn't help the N64 and the Gamecube.. A console sells because of its games, period. Take away the quality games, and a console becomes useless, as it has no purpose.

Again, the Wiimote/balance boards are TOOLS. Nothing more. If Nintendo had released Wii Sports/ Wii Fit with the peripherals, but the games were utter trash and were not fun to play, they would have failed.

Again, the Wiimote/balance boards are TOOLS. Nothing more. If Nintendo had released Wii Sports/ Wii Fit with the peripherals, but the games were utter trash and were not fun to play, they would have failed.

Without the tools the games would have no impact.  I dont think without Motion Controls/Board they would have sold more than a couple hundred thousand units.

I already answered this earlier... without motion controls, Wii Sports wouldn't be Wii Sports.  I don't think you can really separate the two. That doesn't mean it wasn't Wii Sports that sold new consumers on the system though, and yes, motion controls the key ingredient in Wii Sports.

To extend this backwards, was it the NES controller (with it's revolutionary Dpad) that sold consumers on NES?  Or was it the killer app software that used it (Super Mario Bros.) that did?  How well would NES has sold if used, say, a keyboard?  How well would Mario have controlled with it?  Could a game like SMB have even likely been made with a keyboard interface, or would the games have been different?