You're welcome to not like the Sims, but that isn't how you stated your post, and it's precisely why I responded as such. You did not say "I think it's going to be crap" or "Personally I won't like it," which would have made your position significantly more clear. But given that The Sims recieved universal critical acclaim and is one of (if not the) best selling game in the last decade, it's quite clear that many people disagree with you.   

Objective discussion of a game's value is possible, I believe, but this isn't a game that objectively scores like "crap" by any standard we might use, be it public, critical, or financial standards. 

Your comparison is flawed.  You're comparing a buggy game to a non-buggy delayed game.  You should be comparing a bug-free game on time to a delayed game.

Delaying games doesn't make them good.

Is there a specific part of the page you linked to I should read.  I skimmed it and didn't see a clear explanation other than "we're putting a lot of stuff into this."  In reality, I wouldn't expect interviews to reflect reality behind the scenes anyway.  Companies don't advertise their failings or problems, it's usually bad for business.

@ Words of Wisdom

You really don't like the sims? Aww...

But I do agree that this wil be coming to all platforms. Even the PSP!

I won't bother to comment on the rest of your post because as I suspected you're making leaps of logic.  For example you think calling something "most significant" means that the others things it's being compared to are being called "insignificant" which is wrong.  It would be like someone saying "Moscow is the most expensive city to live in" and then me implying that the person is saying that all other cities are cheap to live in.  Would you agree with that?  No?  Well that's the kind of logic you're using.  You're making claims that simply aren't there.

If I state something without proof and you wish to assume I am stating a fact, you do so at your own risk.

However I will say that high quality and great sales, while not unrelated, are not directly related.  One does not necessitate the other.  Therefore sales is not a a defining factor of quality.

Popularity is also not necessarily an indicator.  Beanie Babies were popular as well.  Does that make them quality?

True objectivity in a qualitative discussion is a farce.  Asking for it is asking for disappointment.

Well, I'll admit the last part was a bit more of a stretch, but the first part hardly was. I had to break it down because clearly you didn't comprehend what you read, nor did you understand that he had a very low opinion of these consoles. I did it for your benefit, not because everyone needs it broken down to understand it. Calling something "The same game with incremental improvements" and saying it "collects dust" and isn't played is a very clearly statement of low opinion. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Although development has never been confirmed for the other consoles, the hints of possible crossplatform has been going for awhile

Which is why I did not rely solely upon popularity. I relied upon:

1) Popularity
2) Critical reception
3) Profitability

If you'd like, you could also add "longevity" or staying power, in the vein of literature (where some books fade into insignificance within months of their release, while others have remained relevant for centuries). Given that The Sims is still seeing spin offs and imitators and is still selling well to this day (or, The Sims 2 is, and EA has even created a "Sims" wing of development), it's quite clear that The Sims rates very highly by all 4 standards.

I agree.  It does rate highly across that spectrum.  If that is your definition of quality that's fine.  I'm not going to tell you what your definition of quality should or shouldn't be.  ^_~

I understood exactly what Will Wright was saying that's the reason why I questioned the claims you made.  I'm not going to bother to argue anymore since I feel I made my point.