hm.. for gamers the most obvious deciding factor is the game line-up though and although that ofcourse is entirely subjective last generation there was a pretty big consensus that PS2 "objectively" had the best one, the same can't be said about the Wii

the writer maybe was cautious for that reason with outright declaring the Wii the "winner", as a majority of the reader base might think differently from a game line-up perspective - in turn he seems to have offended you and other Wii users

Microsoft will be pretty strong in the next generation and I suspect that the way things will go down will play in their favour more than the current generation. The thing which matters most nowadays in these types of connected devices are networks and as the software company of the three Microsoft wghas already got the best console network with likely the most loyal online fans as well as significant momentum from Windows which is slowly being leveraged in their console as they move closer together.

Whilst Microsoft doesn't have a great first party this isn't a huge handicap, just as with the Sony PS1/PS2 third parties love to fill in a vacuum simply because it is human nature to take the easy route. In addition to this Sony's first party mantra of outspending and out creating the competition won't hold water with third parties able to sustain much higher production budgets which will in the end outshine any advantage their first parties have by their exclusive focus on the one system.

Whether or not you like the article, I still feel this is a conversation worth having.

Yes, PS2 had the best line up game wise, and arguably the Wii didn't. But there are more statements that makes me think this is biased:

Although it is not quite over, it’s safe to say that the next generation of consoles isn’t too far away from right now. - Wii U is releasing within a MONTH, but isn't considered next-gen? He's assuming next-gen "isn't too far away"? It's here pretty son.

if we were to decide a winner of each of those by sales figures [...] it’s clear Sony won both. [...] With that said, Nintendo has “won” this generation (SALES WISE) - One of his main points in the article is that MS did GREAT by increasing their instal base from 25m to 70m - which is true and great. But he's discrediting Nintendo, saying they won SALES WISE not considering they made the most money of the three console makers AND they increased their instal base from 22m to nearly 100m. He's heralding MS as a great example of doing things right this gen while totally ignoring Wii almost the whole article.

Microsoft knew this (as did Sony and Nintendo presumably) but Microsoft was the smartest out of these three. -Opinion, nothing else.

Sony is going to have to really fix up any and everything currently wrong with the PS3 -What is wrong with the PS3 right now? As far as I know it's the best selling home console currently... It seems like SONY fixed what was wrong with the PS3.

Their exclusives and first party roster will only go so far in supporting their platforms. -This point is true for MS as well. Not even Nintendo can rely on its first party games (GC sold 22m - enough to make them hang around, but not much more)

Only time will tell on how each of the next-gen consoles perform, but until then, my money is on Microsoft. -And his reasoning is... what? He haven't given any reason what so ever as to why MS will win next gen. None. He's been talking about xbox360 - which is a current gen machine. Yes, by looking at the past you can prophecies about the future, but he isn't looking at the future - is he?

I feel the same way, and that's why I posted this article. He might be biased, but I happen to agree that MS might win next gen. I just think that he should have spelled it out HOW MS is gonna win all us over. This article is a hunch, and no prediction. It suffers from a lack of evidence, statistics and facts that leads to a "x3ox >> WiiStation" prediction. It's all a hunch and therefore quite irrelevant.

Yuppers. D21lewis made me pregnant before so before I go raid the fridge for some chocolate covered asparagus I may as well point out that Microsoft has made some pretty bold moves with Windows 8 and some pretty good hardware with the Surface. I don't think there ought to be any doubts now that they can put out some excellent hardware and software.

I have always felt they know the market quite well and they have used their first party and publishing arm quite well this generation, as well as Sony has even inspite the obvious talent advantage as well as the few big carry over exclusives Sony got from the PS2. If they can continue to deliver on these fronts then they ought perform at least adequately next generation though I suspect next generation will be a winner takes all affair like a couple of gens back with the PS2 simply because the online network that gathers most of the players will have an insurmountable advantage in momentum.

Supported HD-DVD & adjusted sales are the lowest (had a 1 year headstart against sony). Plus by backing HD-DVD, it looks like their next conosle will be using bluray - paying the competition for access to their media. Ouch. 

But I would say the haven't lost. I would say Nintendo lost because they have cashed in on an finite market. As Zynga shows, casual gamers are fickle and do not invest long-term into a brand. Therefore Nin went are sacrificed the gamer audience for a quick buck, meaning that when they have to come back to gamers as the casual market has moved onto other things (smart phones, tablets etc), they are going to find the gamers are now invested in either Sony or MS. Considering the propogating nature of modern internet-basedd accounts, it is likely that with the next-gen of consolesyour existing friend lists will be moved onto your new console automatically.

When your friend list is good to go on a console which will also house your favourite franchises (Gears of War, Halo, Killzone, Uncharted, God of War etc), why start it all over again by changing brand? Nintendo may have financially won this gen, but in the long term it will probably hurt them, and so Sony and both MS have 'won' next gen by making their console provide games for gamers. 

They only have to pay royalties if they use it for movie playback, right? Anyway, with physical media in decline, I don't think this matters at all. If this is an argument that Microsoft lost, then it is also an argument that Sony won. Talk about a pyrrhic victory...

O_o

Surely NES and SNES count as ascendant 2 gens in a row. And PS1 and PS2 also count. And before NES the sales of consoles were too low to really count for much in terms of global ascendancy. So the modern pattern is actually 2 gens of dominance and then downfall. It happened with N64 and it happened with PS3. It takes 2 generations to build up enough Hubris for a company to take it's consumer base too much for granted. So in theory Wii U should win the next gen and then Sony or MS pick up the mantle from there.

The winner of the current generation coming out a year ahead of the competiton, likely at a cheaper launch price too, has a mighty advantage.

I guess I should clarify what I meant. I don't mean being the market leader two generations in a row, I mean a company improving on its own performance for two consecutive generations. NES and PS1 were the first consoles for their respective companies, and the SNES was not an improvement over the NES saleswise.

MS didn't lose....well 2nd place isnt last. But gen over gen the Xbox brand just seems to be going up. You could say its the best selling HD console.

Article didn't explain how next gen would turn out lol. But I imagine MS momentum will keep going strong.