Actually I own a 360, a Wii, and a DS, and I owned a PS3 in the past, but it broke outside of warrenty. I don't have an outsider view.

Also most quality titles on PS3? Where were you before 2009? Sure now PS3 had a better 2009 and 2011, but what did they release in 2010, a single game (GT5)? You can't just look at the most recent year and forget about all the others. Quality wise Nintendo is the best, MS is #2, Sony is last, but they are catching up where Wii is nearly done, and 360's focus has shifted to Kinect.

I disagree with you. As a gaming device I still think the 360 is supperior to PS3. If you just want to play games, 360 is cheaper, and has more exclusives, of better quality.PS3 however is a multi-purpose device, and is more reliable.

Not sure if I can agree about Sony being the most stable at E3, what has PSP gotten in the last few years? PS3 early life was composed of announced titles which took 4 years or more to release, some of the gmaes (mainly third party) have yet to be released.

As for Nintendo, I think you are way off. Out of all the consoles this gen, Nintendo has the most wanted exclusives. It don't think all 30 million Mario Kart sales are due to casual gamers, and games like Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, and Smash Bros consistantly outsell almost any 360/PS3 title excluding Halo. They definatly do release the most shovelware, but who cares. They still produce a strong amount of AAA quality titles, most of which are above the HD exclusive standard (only exclusive above Zelda last year was Uncharted, and I think XenoBlade/The Last Story will rank super high as well).

Just passing through and I saw the discussion.   Just adding to what you already said--The Wii is the home to the most shovelware but Nintendo themselves have releases megahit after megahit.  They really give Wii owners a reason to own the console.  I could have nothing but a library of Nintendo's releases and I'd be happy with my Wii.  I would put the games released this gen by Nintendo up against anything released by Sony and Microsoft.  The PS3 and Xbox are the home of the third party quality games.  When it comes to first party, Nintendo stands alone on the mountain top.

Outside of Mario, Super Smash Bros and the Zelda franchise Nintendo has nothing on Sony or Microsoft. Its the same stuff with new gameplay, unless its being made for casuals. Nintendos best new IP's are third party titles which arent associated with them this gen. Nintendo needs to learn to trust key third party because they've been helping during tough times for actual gamers. Nintendo has had more gaming droughts out of any of the consoles and Microsoft takes second place this gen for sure. This was yet another thing they were speaking about on Bonus Round.  Microsoft thought they could hang with Sony when it came to actual game production. Microsoft relies on third parties for everything of pure importance. Sony does not rely on third parties. Sony has always had the third parties because they were the ones to round them up  and show they gave a damn when Nintendo and Sega were ignoring them. They knew library was key to success before they even entered the gaming industry and hit the ground running their first gen. 

Jimmy Danger, jsut so I can help you understand this debate between Kowen and myself, a couple months ago, Kowen made the statement that Sony was failing. After much argument, he pointed to tvs being the worst performing aspect of the company. I agreed. He went on to say that big changes would have to be made or the company would be facing dire straits, though I am unsure whether or not he mentioned axing the division as a solution.

Then, Sony made big changes, and pulled out a lot of stake in tvs. Suddenly, kowen was on the other side ofthe coin saying that this was a big mistake, and that by big changes, he meant "make it profitable". My argument was that Sony is in a tough position as they have to buy their equipment more than others and can't offer better prices.

You'd best not involve yourself in the discussion because Sony making the wrong decision is the only thing kowen ever sees, in any situation.

To address your other response, I meant as a ratio. For example, I make 40k a year and I have 5k$ worth of tvs. That's 8% of my income at any point in time. Does someone on cribs spend more than 8% of their income on tvs? I highly doubt it. Someone who makes a million would have to spend 80 grand on televisions in order to equal the same amount of spending. For a high paid actor, 20m per movie, they would have to spend roughly 1.6m on tvs.

The more money you make, the more the ratio looks like it would fail.

It's not hard to understand. It's a fundamental principle of economics. A shrinking middle class is bad for the economy because the things that the majority of people want become less affordable, and are bought in less quantity by the wealthy.

You and Kowen should get a room and have your private little massive debate in there.

You said something I disagreed with - (You can't make a profit off high end TV's) - I disagreed. I didn't realise only Kowen was allowed to disagree with.

And while I agree with the shrinking middle class = bad/shrinking economy - in regards to your "ratio" economics/Tv rationale  - there's a reason rich people generally remain rich, and that is because they don't spend 20 x on consumer goods as people earning 20 x less than them. They don't buy 20 litres of milk for your one (but they will generally buy a more "premium, high end milk", and maybe 1 or 2 times as much) or a 20k TV as opposed to a 1k TV. I have no doubt that someone on Cribs may spend 80k on "entertainment" (80k would be a cheap party hosting cost for catering/DJ's/Bands/Hosts/Decorations) - to match your %8. And while you pay off your 200k house (hypothetical example) - he (the 1 mill salary guy) is likely to not be paying off 3 or 4-  1 mill properties,  rather than paying off 30 * 200k houses (unless he's a property investor by trade). While Joe Citizen may have $50 left off his $400 per week at the end of the week (or say 1/8 - 12.5%) while Pinky McBling may well have 15,000 (or %75) of his 20k per week (can very depending on excesses) and still maintain a lifestyle well above the basic cost of living.

Some more basic economics - economy of scale doesn't necessarily translate from macro to micro. 2.5 % profit can be an amazingly good return for a multibillion dollar corporation primarily concerned with developing and selling goods (with the exception of some "boom" companies )- but disaster for a small to medium sized business. You'll find the further you go up the scale in terms of gross turnover the smaller the actual margins need to be. Why supermarkets can afford to sell much, much cheaper than corner stores (aside from their obvious group buying power).