Who cares if its last place?

As long as we are getting the games then PS3 users are fine, if you don't see the games you like then you can always go to the other 2 consoles. 

Well, in general I agree that the Gamecube didn't offer much new in comparison to the PS2 but I don't think that was Nintendo's biggest mistake ...

Nintendo's biggest mistake with the Gamecube is they came late to the generation and were far to passive. Nintendo launched the Gamecube 18 months after the PS2 in Japan, and (about) 12 months after the PS2 in the rest of the world, and alongside and unknown (untrusted) console the XBox; Nintendo needed to make up lost ground and "catch up" to the PS2 while seperating itself from the XBox, but Nintendo didn't release their big guns and (instead) had the release schedule of great first party games sparse in order to maximize their sales. By the time The Legend of Zelda, Metroid Prime, Super Mario Sunshine, Smash Bros. and Mario Kart were released the PS2 was in a dominat position which was impossible to take away.

 I have to agree with you.  I bought a PSP and told my son he was going to be sorry for getting a DS considering how much better the PSP screen was, the greater storage capacity for games with UMB, movies, etc.  A year later I sold my PSP out of frustration waiting for Sony to allow me to play movies on my TV from my PSP (without spending a fortune), the lack of games compared to the DS, etc.  Now we own 2 DSes.  

the ps3 can still win, i see alot more Ps3 commercials than wii one's but the wii still wins. But if the ps3 gets some new good games and things then they can still win.

@ HappySqurriel "Reality has an anti-Sony Bias" best quote of the week!

Even if Sony catches the 360 next year and the wii in some magical future. The damage is done. They will not enjoy the dominating market share of the ps2. Clearly MS and Nintendo are having better success this generation than last. Sony, not so much.

Could someone please explain to me what "winning" means in this thread? Does it mean that a console manufacturer ultimately sells enough systems and software to make a return on their investment? Does it mean that a console manufacturer sells more systems at any cost, regardless of any potential ROI?

What does "winning" really mean?

That is understandable considering when you compare the Gamecube/PS2 logic to the PS3/Wii logic, its confirmed that they swap. Simple fact Wii launched the same day as the PS3. PS3 failed to market itself correctly and the Wii, well Nintendo did the right thing with it. Considering the high development costs today and plus it doesn't take long for Wii games to come out unlike the PS3/Xbox 360.

I can agree that the PS3 is never and I mean never will catch up to the Wii. But PS3 vs. Xbox 360 battle is going to be just like how the Gamecube and the original Xbox was. PS3 isn't a failed machine considering the hardware thats put in it. But Sony failed to realize that there is a price to pay and thats the fact the development costs are going to be high.

Simple logic here: 

Consumers want games but PS3 failed to present those games and the price is to high

Then Sony brings a PS3 that is cheaper ($400) and it does pretty good but its only because of the holidays. We don't know how it will do after the holidays.

Consumers choose the cheapest and new technology controller. I would stick behind Nintendo for going a successful path. 

Your right Sony messed up this generation and they will be in third place for the rest of this generation. But the PS3 users will get those games as the userbase increases.

Wow... I thought you were a Sony fanboy, but I have to say that I'm impressed by this post.  I'm not certain what the order of systems sold will be in the long term, but you seem to have fairly balanced view in my opinion.

I'm no Sony fanboy

I'm no Nintendo fanboy

I'm no Microsoft fanboy

I'm simply a gamer that loves Japanese consoles and that likes Japanese oriented themes in them. 

I like the Sony Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Wii