Gameboy, DS, and 3DS were also weaker than their competition.

Not really PS1 was a good deal more powerful than the Sega Saturn, esoecially in 3D capability.

PS2 was a good deal more powerful than the Dreamcast and absolutely destroyed the best PC GPU of its time, yes GameCube and XBox were better but also released like 18-20 months later. Both the PS1 and PS2 were pretty cutting edge for 1995 and 2000 releases.

Wii is the exception, but the PS3 might still overtake it.

The system with a good amount of power (not neccessarily the highest, but still relatively cutting edge) + good 3rd party support tends to win each generation.

The GameCube and XBox would've slaughtered the PS2 if the PS2 was just an overclocked PSOne with an Eye Toy bundled with it. The Wii really was a big exception to the rule, but they also got a huge break with Sony being stupid enough to make a $600 PS3 to push Blu-Ray. That slowed the adoption of HD consoles tremendously early on.

Oh my. Really? The PS2 had a stronger GPU than any other PC GPU concieved by humanity at the time?

My memory must be foggy!

For March 2000, yeah, the PS2 was pretty much the defacto graphics king. The original Playstation for '94-'95 was pretty far ahead of most PC cards and beyond the Saturn too.

The thing is, this whole arguement is actually outdated. Even the whole "controller innovation versus graphics" argument is old.

What's happened is you still need the hardcore player no matter what. They are the only ones willing to pay $50-$60 a game in the long run.

Casual gamers have moved on to what they really want -- $1-$5 games on iPads and iOS. That's what they value video games, they don't want deep immersive experiences, they just want something to burn some time and is friendly and accessible to play. That's it. Why pay even $20 for a game when you can get like 10 different iOS apps for that?

That model doesn't work for any of the console makers, not even Nintendo, that's whats happened. Nintendo opened pandora's box with the casual audience, but what that trend has now evolved into is something they don't like at all -- cheap, disposable smartphone/tablet/browser games, that's really hurting Nintendo more than Sony/MS ever probably did directly.

The controller really can't evolve much more anyway -- the Wiimote was very simple to use, but Kinect is even simpler still (no buttons!). If you still can't play video games or find them too confusing, nothing short of a wire connected to your brain is going to change that. Virtual reality like the Occulus Rift is the next step.

Sure they can: take the Wiimote/Move, make it more ergonomic, and refine motion and pointer control further. Or virtual reality, that works too! XD

What game crash did Nintendo experience?  They came post the crash of the 1980s.  Activision is about the only company left that survive the crash from the early 1980s.  EA came post-crash actually.

If the App model becomes the norm and where growth is, then you will see the death of the AAA studio model that videogame consoles have been using.  No longer you going to get Uncharted type titles or Call of Duty or you name it.  What you get is a flood of garage studio games, and stuff like that.

I'll have some of that future, please! XD

In all seriousness though, AAA gaming is in no danger. Its a totally different niche to app gaming, people aren't going to give up Zelda and Uncharted for Fruit Ninja and Angry Birds.

Nintendo did help revitalize the sales of a dying industry following the crash of the 1980s.

I agree! I was hoping the WiiU was originally gonna be the Super Wii. Everything the same as the Wii but improved  graphics and motion controls. The Wiimote-Nunchuck combo is the too good it just needs a little refinement. However I'm still extremlely happy with the Wii U gamepad!