I'm not sure how much I disagree with you, and your reason is discrepancy in adoption of the add-on as compared to the original platform.

But I will disagree. 3rd parties supported Kinect pretty much just as much as they supported Wii as of 2010 onward. Why is that? It's because MS did a good job at pushing it. It comes back to what I said.

But whether this is all true or not, it doesn't change the fact that it can all be done on one same platform to a certain degree of success or not. The same could not be said for computer components on the 1st consoles of the time, which is what prompted the generations in the first place.

@bold. That can all be done on the same console. It's purely about marketing if technical upgrades are totally out of the picture.

If a competitor offers the updates on the same console, doesn't that invalidate the need for a brand new console, unless there's some other considerable upgrade that requires a new machine (such as a performance upgrade due to better computer components)? So a console in your perspective is purely artificial and has no reason of being, since a competitor in that case could easy cut over your offering by making it an add-on and saving people the need to buy a whole new console.

This basically puts the nail in the coffin.

http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=wii&cat=0&year=2010&numrev=3&sort=0&letter=&search=

164 third party games with a gamerankings score above 60% released in 2010 for the Wii ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games

28 third party games with a gamerankings score above 60% for Kinect IN TOTAL

It's not even close. The Wii which (based on many people's claims) has awful third party support for a console is receiving about 10 times the support of your successful add-on. Add-ons get abysmal support.

People already paid for the old-gen-console and don't buy another one (except the first breaks). So no, I can't follow your argumentation.

But anyways, fine, we have different definitions of gen. I accept that. Your definition says the XBOX won gen 6. Fine, keep your opinion. I don't see any reason to fight it, but for me PS2 won gen 6 not gen 5.

Causality. You don't know what made Kinect less interesting to 3rd party devs. It could be that it came out after the Wii, it could be that people wanted to hold something in their hands, it could be that Nintendo's marketing push was better, it could be that Nintendo believed in their product more and visited devs about it (like they do for all console launches), it could be absolutely anything.

Also, I recognize the top part of that post ;)

And again, it doesn't remove from the bulk of my point, that it could be done on the same platform, and 3rd party support one of many metrics and you know that.

@bold. That can all be done on the same console. It's purely about marketing if technical upgrades are totally out of the picture.

If a competitor offers the updates on the same console, doesn't that invalidate the need for a brand new console, unless there's some other considerable upgrade that requires a new machine (such as a performance upgrade due to better computer components)? So a console in your perspective is purely artificial and has no reason of being, since a competitor in that case could easy cut over your offering by making it an add-on and saving people the need to buy a whole new console.

This basically puts the nail in the coffin.

Sales definitely doesn't mean whether or not a game is good, however I think the people you're referring to are mostly exclusive to this site.  The graphics and power people are much more common.  However, in regards to your comment about sales, for some people they believe that as a result of a game being good, it should have higher sales rather than high sales being something itself that makes the game better.

Sales is much more to do with business in the realistic sense, and I would say higher sales give a game a better chance to gain more exposure and have more games like it come out (not rehashing).  /redundant rant over.

im with you on this one, but some people dont get it. Sales and support have nothing to do with what a system could. Sony released a their version of the wiimote without the need of having to release a new console and as many people pointed out, the Move is just a black wiimote. MS did something similar and I dont know why he was even comparing a damn add-on to a new console.

That part in the OP is actually from the link. And it was written by an actual journalist which makes it even funnier. Reading comprehension: how does it work? I also like how this comment comes from a website called "Nintendolife" as well.

But yeah, he's just saying that even when the Wii U releases, a next gen shift in terms of quantity of games and resources won't be in full swing yet as Capcom (and other companies) are still making current gen titles right now and the Wii U is getting ports for the most part. Of course, they'll devote resources to next gen sooner or later.

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with how powerful the Wii U is.

graphics and power people are much more common because that is something that actually effects the game you play. Like it or not graphics are going to factor in if you were to objectively review a game, its even one of the categories, if a game graphics is bad to the point where there is screen tearing, lag, pop up etc. you bet people are gonna care.

I would disagree with those people personally i dont see high sales for game and i think its good I see it and think its readily accesible. Not that much different from movies, IE Transformers. And we all know 90 percent of the time high sales do lead to rehashing and to games like it as well.