There have been several generations of very large graphical differences which didn't ammount to much when it came to sales, the N64 was dramatically more powerful than the Playstation and the Neo Geo was far more powerful than the SNES.

The real question is how much of a meaningful improvement does the PS3 or XBox 360 actually represent?

The Wii, XBox 360 and PS3 can all have facial animation, skeletal animation, newtonian and dynamics physics engines, highly detailed 3D models, excellent texture work, texture effects (various types of bump mapping, lighting and material effects), and so on ...

Basically the Wii, XBox 360 and PS3 offer (in general) offer the exact same graphical and simulation technologies with the main difference being that the XBox 360 and PS3 can do these things far better; your physics simulation can be larger and somewhat more realistic, your 3D models can be somewhat more detailed and have higher resolution textures and better texture effects, and so on.

We will see over time, but I'm not too sure that people will care enough about getting somewhat better effects across multiple areas enough to actually give up on the Wii and choose the PS3/XBox 360.

Well, we can agree to disagree here.  Personally I think Xbox graphics were noticably better than PS2s.  But this was rarely seen since PS2 (the weakest system) was the lead platform for all multi-console titles.  So most Xbox titles looked like PS2 ones.  However, some, like Halo, did not.

I also disagree that many of the 120m who bought a PS2 did so because of 'Toy Story' like graphics.  They got it to play their favorite games because let's face it, PS2 had WAY more titles to choose from.  Way more gameplay experiences basically, which was the entire point. 

I do agree the difference in graphics wasn't as great.  However, you missed the point entirely.  Previously new generation of consoles created new types of gameplay that the previous generation didn't/couldn't have. Or at least took it to a whole new level not previously possible.  So far, and this could change, there wasn't been a single game on PS3/360 that wasn't out, or could have been, on PS2/Xbox (graphics notwithstanding).  The same cannot be said of the Wii.  Although very few games have been made so far (even by Nintendo) that capitalize on this fully.

HDTV puts about four times the number of pixels on the screen. When consumers see this it is such a huge leap in performance that they will want it. At the moment there isn't much true HDTV content so people are generally unaware of the capabilities. But this situation is changing every day as more HDTV is broadcast and more people get HD DVD or Blu-Ray players. Games thus far on the HD consoles have come nowhere near delivering the full HDTV experience. Over 2008 this will gradually change. When it does the results will blow you away. Once people routinely watch broadcast HD television and watch HD videos they will not want to go back to inferior quality. The same will apply to gaming. Once people are fully HD literate they will not want to go back. So what is key to the life of the Wii is how long it takes for people to become fully HD aware (they are generally not there yet) and how long it takes the games industry to make the best of HD graphics. These will not be sudden things. They will ramp up gradually over the next couple of years. What is for absolute certainty is that by Q4 2009 the Wii will be seen by most as obsolete technology.

Um...ye- No, I don't think people are buying $500 Wii consoles on ebay because they're unaware that HDTVs display in HD. The only way Wii will be "obselete" by the end of 09 is if Wii 2 is released, which damn sure isn't happening.

 I agree with this article for the most part, but it does raise some questions when referenced with your most recent article you posted in the OP.  Most notably you seem to agree that this craze isn't going away any time soon and since I don't have any indication that you think the 360 or the PS3 will suddenly jump to Wii level sales I am going to go out on a limb and assume you were attempting to write the article in a way that wouldn't immediately reject or repulse anti-Wii readers from finishing it.  If that is the case I can definitely understand why you would do it, you are afterall attempting to create a readership, yes? 

I write to provoke thought not to create a fanboy pavlovian reaction. The audience for Bruceongames are industry professionals.

Wii is an amazing creation of Nintendo and has a fantastic but short future ahead of it. Imagine if someone brought out a console that only displayed in black and white because that is what televisions used to be. This is the situation Wii will be in by Q4 2009. Nintendo are not stupid, they know this, so new product announcements are inevitable.

Just provoking thought doesn't gaurantee that an article is succesfull in defining reality. For instance, Newton's theories of gravitation were extremely thought provoking but uiltimately proven incorrect.

Also, I feel I should point out that you are contradicting yourself now, how can you say you 100% agree with my statement that the Wii has deep and genuine longterm appeal and then say that it has a short future. The two ideas are obviously mutually exclusive. More over you are now falling into the trap I previously spoke of, which is to say, you are attempting to quantify a paradigm shift in terms of the old paradigm....

On the topic itself, I would agree that Nintendo is not stupid, and that is precisely why they would never make obsolete a product that is selling faster than any reasonable expectations have predicted. Thats just not good business sense, and I am quite honestly baffled that people could honestly believe this.

Lets just break this down:

On the one hand we have the fact that the Wii is selling very well, software sales are excellent for a console at this point in its life and increasing, demand is so high that it isn't feasible to predict it, and people who have never gamed are gaming. All of this lends itself to the idea that the Wii will continue to be the lead Nintendo Console well into the future and certainly well past 2009.

And on the other hand you have speculation that people will want HD enough to demand it in the Wii, speculation that people will be ok with their investment in the Wii becoming obsolete, and speculation that Nintendo would even consider it.

Unless their is something beyond speculation I have to say I just don't see how that kind of view appeals to anyone who considers themself an Industry Professional and as such I don't see how it is targeted at anything other than the gratification of hurt fanboy egos. Perhaps I am being a bit blunt here, but that is how I see it.

If you expect anyone but a fanboy to take the view seriously it needs to be backed by something beyond speculation and correlation to other tech products...because it is being contradicted by hard data about this tech product which is a far more compelling argument I must say.

 Dude you haven't been paying attention to the news then, Wii is talked about everywhere, heck it was mentioned on the daily show tonight, sorry but your argument that Wii is bursting is flawed

 You need to brush up on your gaming history, NES was a gen behind at its launch, it was never harmed by that, people want simplicity and fun, not graphics

 Again flawed reasoning, since most people don't care for those games, granny doesn't care about Metal gear solid, she will however care about Wii sports and Wii fit

Also hardcore will get a Wii for the sake of SSBB and Kart and others, you see MS and Sony were half right when they said everyone would get their consoles and a Wii, gamers will get a Wii and possibly a PS3 or 360, but the average consumer only cares about Wii