D.S. is the right system with the right games at the right time (like PS2 was). I have to agree I dont see it happening again on such a big scale.

At first I was really excited for the 3DS I am starting to worry some with the game selection. I am glad it is getting 3rd party support from the get  go, but its the style of games we normally find on a Sony platform. Peronally not really my style of games and I hope they keep on current track and  do not do a U turn and try to be what gaming industry wants them to be.

What does it matter to anyone but them if they are 1st anyways? As long as they are making money and making games I enjoy I could care less if they are 10th

Erm, isn't that more of a concern of your own (as a gamer) than one that'll actually come into play when discussing sales? I mean, it doesn't look as if people are tiring of these old franchises at all (the opposite, if anything), so I don't see the problem. In fact, having these franchises to fall back on is a huge advantage.

Heck, look at the opposition - the Call of Duty series is responsible for a ton of HD console sales, yet given Activision's history with its milked franchises (Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero), I'm not convinced it'll be as significant after a few years. Some other huge IP's created this gen (Gears, Asssassin's Creed) will not have the impact for next gen that it did for this current one, and companies will be pressured into coming up with new hits of their own, not unlike what Nintendo will need to do with whatever replaces the Wii series.

“We were the disruptors twenty years ago and now we are so again."

Reggie Fils-Aime concluding Nintendo’s 2006 E3 Press Conference.

Nintendo already created a blue ocean in console market two times. Now they have to create another one in order to win the next. The problem is: how can they do that? Well, I have no idea. 

Need to spend less time reading and more time battling darth to the death?

You are already seeing it with the 3DS. I know we get busy and don't re-read up on the history of commentators, but I was arguing a few months back that the glassless 3D experience on the 3DS is mainly aimed at hurting Sony's 3D tv and gaming business. Expectations will change once the 3DS comes out.

A father will be looking for a new tv after buying his son or daughter a 3DS and after seeing Nintendo do glassless 3D on the 3DS, then why would he plunk down over $3000 for a Sony 3D televison that requires 2 pairs of 3D glasses at $100 a piece?

These expectations are what Nintendo is hoping to create with the 3DS.

Furthermore, Nintendo may take the technology from the 3DS and try to do it with their next console, thus finding a new blue ocean of potential gamers who want to experience a 3D glassless, console gaming experience. Then again, can a console enable a standard television to pump out 3D without the television itself having 3D capabilities? This is the big question.

I could be wrong and Malstrom could be exactly right in that the 3DS is going the route of the N64 in being a lazy system catering to the "core" that offers the 3D trick as the main purchasing point instead of a solid experience focusing on the games.

What is just as crazy as me going blindfolded into a pitch black room with 3 darts in my right hand trying to throw them at a dart board are individuals who believe that they should keep gambling because they are on a winning streak.

It is just as crazy to think the current success of the Wii will translate into Nintendo dominating the next gen and beyond. Nintendo learned this quite well with the Nintendo 64 and Sony learned it well with the PS3. Microsoft is still the new kid on the block and cannot be judged in the same vein as either Nintendo or Sony. My opinion is that the Xbox 360 has been a phenomenal success from the Xbox. I doubt Microsoft will ever be #1 in any generation here on out because they appeal to and cater to a smaller PC gaming friendly demographic than either Nintendo or Sony. Microsoft in any given generation is like Ralph Nader in a US Presidential election, in that he costs one candidate the win by merely offering a third oval to fill in on the ballot. In this generation, Microsoft has cost Sony more than Nintendo, but I could be wrong.

Number 1 in any generation, in my opinion, will always be a battle between Nintendo and Sony. Nintendo appeals to many gamers, but makes it a point of being family friendly. Sony has more or less taken Sega's place as the "counter-culture" console that only the cool kids play. This hasn't always been the case with Sony as we have seen when they had Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet and Clank, and others, they seriously crowded in on Nintendo's territory by offering a substitute to the usual round of Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, and Metroid.

If you look at who and where Sony is selling to right now, South America, India, and the EMEAA with less of a European focus, you better believe those traditionally underserved regions will pull for Sony in the next generation because Sony has taken the time and done the hard work to get name and brand recognition. As the US, Japan, and Europe continue to be mired in our recessions, while countries like Brazil are booming then who appeals to markets like Brazil may be the winner in the next generation.

I could be wrong and it may be whoever wins the majority of the Americas market first next gen, yet something in my gut tells me my country and Canada are going to have less influence, just like Japan, in determining the #1 console for generations to come.

This doesn't make sense. Like, at all.

a) Nintendo did not invent parallax occulsion based displays. They are merely early adopters, and they can be early adopters because they only needed an extremely small display on a handheld console and that's the only size where the tech makes economic sense right now and where the existence of a single good direction of observation is not an issue.

b) What whould "try to do it with their next console" mean? That they would start making and selling TVs when this tech matures? I can't really see that.

On the other hand Sony among others will build such TVs - such panels are being demod by various  builders in bigger sizes. Various problems have to be solved first though, such as there being a good enough number of hot spots from where you can watch the screen and see a correct image. And guess what? Once such a TV exists, you will be able to connect your PS3 or 360 or PC to it and run any of the current and future 3D-enabled games.

c) There's no "big question", just ignorance on the subject. The only way you can have 3D out of a normal TV screen is by using the anaglyph technique (colored glasses). 3D means having your eyes receiving two different images, thus you have to separate them temporally (shutter glasses), by polarization (polaroid filter glasses) or by angle (e.g. the parallax occulsion or lenticular systems). The console generates the two images, it does not care about how the display delivers it, and it can't magically change how the display can deliver light to your eyes just because it's able to render two images instead of one.

Well, people were bringing up Nintendo finding another Blue Ocean if Kinect and Move turn out to be moderately successful with a hit title or two. This is why I theorized on it.

I just don't see another Blue Ocean unless Nintendo revives dead people and starts making games for them. Nintendo has the Disney of video games routine down pat. I don't mean this offensively at all because Disney is known for creating the most family friendly movies ever and those are some pretty damn good movies.

I am struggling to see the part where Nintendo pulls a Pixar and smashes the competition with a game equivalent to the magnitude of Toy Story.

Just in case anyone was wondering, if I was to take a bet out of the current 3 console manufacturers I would have to say Nintendo would be the most likely to win again. Theres nothing in the other consoles unique selling propositions which Nintendo cannot replicate whilst at the same time Nintendos own first party provides unique value which is unmatched by the competitions first parties or third parties.

Nintendo has Netflix, Nintendo will probably get other media service providers and offer similar streaming services. They can probably get all the games so long as the console is powerful enough. Given the fact that the first party developers for the DX9 consoles offer similar style games to the 3rd parties theres a degree of duplication there which isn't seen with regular Nintendo titles. So barring any major SNAFUs like the N64 generation say for instance if they don't properly support 3D and 3D is popular, given their lead in mindshare they are more than likely to take the lead once again. This is more likely than say Sony or Microsoft taking the lead from them outright.

Noted.

As I have said in a previous post, Sony and Microsoft compete for the same market demographic. A Red Ocean of dog-eat-dog, winner takes all competition.

The big question is how serious Microsoft and Sony will support Move and Kinect among the non "core" 25-30 year old, male demographic. If one of them or both go vigorously after what many consider Nintendo's Blue Ocean, then things can get interesting. From my point of view, only Microsoft appears to be semi-serious, while Sony with Move created Move because it was expected of them and they want to tie it in with their whole "3D gaming on 3D Sony television" line of business.

TL; DR: Sony and Microsoft currently resembles Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis. Doubts remain as to whether Sony or Microsoft is serious about the Blue Ocean with Move and Kinect. Microsoft with their $500 million ad campaign appears to be serious, thus semi-serious. Sony with Move created Move because the market expected them to do it, not because they wanted to. Sony will try to align their 3D television business and 3D gaming with Move.