Boy you'd be a terrible President.

Also, you can't ever miss the classic Opinions =/= Facts.

You're going to argue the developer support difference isn't factual? What's Epic working on for Wii today? Capcom? Konami? Sega? Any of the major Western developers?

Everyone ditched this platform over a year ago, the only "big" third party game still in development for it today is Epic Mickey 2 and Dragon Quest X (which is also coming to Wii U, thankfully). A lot of good that 100 million user base is if developers don't want to make any games for it. Well outside of Just Dance games.

The Wii certainly did not develop the software ecosystem previous market leaders did ... if you're going to seriously debate that you're in massive denial.

While it can't be denied that the current Wii support is abysmal, and that it will certainly influence the succesor's future, from a company's point of view, the winner is the one who profited the most and sold the most consoles in it's lifespan.

Fair enough, but I don't think it's wrong to point out the Wii isn't much like previous market leading consoles.

This generation as a whole has been pretty different, the XBox 360 is probably going to sell upwards of 80 million, which is a pretty damn large userbase and will have gotten the majority of developer support and mindshare with *both* hardcore and casual (Kinect) consumer groups which eluded Nintendo.

That said as far as Wii U goes for me personally ... I like Nintendo's internal franchise so I'd be OK with "just 360/PS3" level graphics. Fact is 360/PS3 can still pump out some very nice looking visuals and create just about any type of game scenario a designer could dream up. Certainly when you look at games like Uncharted 3 and Gears 2 ... that level tech should be enough for any Mario/Zelda/Kirby/Pokemon/DKC/etc. game.

I was just wondering though why Nintendo perhaps doesn't use something akin to a cheap Radeon 6670 GPU. It's small, relatively cool, dirt cheap and outperforms the 360/PS3 rather handily. But I guess they want a very, very small console for whatever reason.

There's a big difference between winner from a business perspective: Wii (most sales, by far greatest revenue)

from a enthusiast perspective: Best games, best online ecosytem, best 3rd party support (360 or PS3)

and from a casual consumer perspective: System I have in my living room for when friends come over: Wii/Kinect

There's no arguing on this site (a sales chart site) that Wii is this generations winner but what's on paper and what's in the hearts of gamers is a different matter. Clearly this is usually one and the same but not this gen or at least, not at this point in this gen.

Women and Japan.   Big sells to western males but in Japan big = inefficient not better (which is why Japanese heroes are not the hulking brutes NA heros often are).   Women also prefer smaller, quieter, less visually intrusive consoles.   Worked wonders on Wii which was designed with women in mind whereas PS3/360 were designed to appeal to men.

OK, every console won. With such vague definition, everyone can spin his console to be the winner. What are quality games? Is there a clear definition?

How to measure the activity in developing games?  How to decide, which game is a 'quality' game? Hmm, for example only HD-games can be quality games. That would mean PS2 and DS are biiiiiig failures!

So, for me it's too vague. Some examples: profit made with the consoles for the console-maker. Number of games sold. Number of games  with at least one million copies sold. There are many possibilities to decide a winner on the basis of facts not some vague 'the developer community is more active' or 'the games for X are more innovative'. I don't say the Wii would win with all these definitions. But we could at least decide for a clear winner.

That's not my point of view at all. I've just said that Nintendo has learned that graphics don't play a role at all in deciding what console sells the most.

I'm a gamer that has a refined taste in what games I like to play. I've experienced most of what this gen has offered so far. I have a Wii and a PS3. I have most of the big PS3 games, and have almost every major Wii game. I know what I like and avoid what I don't. I'll give new games a try and not play them if they don't suit my tastes. I'm open to new experiences and want nothing more then to play games that deliver on them.

The Wii U just seems to offer what this generation of consoles has already provided. It's Nintendo's job to sell me on their system. They have to convince me that their system is worth owning. I'll glady buy their system should it offer a different enough experience from what I currntly get with my Wii and PS3. But so far, I've yet to be convinced. I want an upgrade from this current generation of consoles, not just a different take on what's already been done. 

I feel like systems ALWAYS tend to be weaker than they are usually hyped up to be. And thats not Nintendo bashing, that goes for all console makers IMO

I strongly agree to this. Both XBOX360 and PS3 have overtaken SNES and NES in sales. Never before even one 'loser'-console did overtake an older 'winner'-console. The N64 was so far the best-sellign loser-console with 33 million devices. This generation not only one loser-console overtook the older winners, but both of the contenders did it. That's really awesome.

The reasons for this are not so clear. Some may say it's the relatively bad performance of the Wii. But I'm reluctant to call 95 million a bad performance. It may only seem so in comparison to the PS2. Maybe that's the reason. The market was growing, but PS2 totally destroyed the competitors, so they could not benefit. This time it's not that clear and all three console-makers benefitting from the increased market.