There was nothing console war about it. Only the people who are obsessed with the console war are seeing it as being part of the console war. There's a massive difference between an article involved in the console war and an article on the state of the gaming industry. As I've already pointed out, the article doesn't in any way try to devalue the PS4 or the Xbox One, and doesn't hold up the Wii U as inherently better. The article uses facts to demonstrate that the Wii U is currently the best value for money - which is true. It openly points out that things may very well change in 2014.

The console war isn't about seeing differences between the systems, or even about evaluating their offerings. It's about obsession over preferred consoles and their sales, and acting as though the entire gaming community is in a state of war (and that this war is justified, and their personal preferences are the ones "in the right").

Let me demonstrate - regular gamers will say "Super Mario 3D World isn't selling as well as would be hoped, which is unfortunate because it's a good game". Console warmongers will instead go "Super Mario 3D World proves that the Wii U is a failure". Regular gamers will say "Xbox One had a good first week, but isn't doing quite as well as PS4 at this point", while console warmongers will instead go "Xbox One sales so far prove that Microsoft will be relegated to table scraps from the PS4". Regular gamers observe that the Xbox 360 version of a certain game isn't quite as glitchy as the PS3 version of the same game. Console warmongers state that the Xbox 360 is the better platform because PS3 games are more glitchy, as proven by this specific game.

This article says "Wii U currently has the games that are most critically acclaimed". Console warmongers (pro-WiiU) would say "Wii U is the only system with good games". Do you see the difference?

As for console warmongers (anti-WiiU, in this case) dismissing Metacritic, there's one in this thread - fatslob-:O. More generally, I've seen it in other threads, too.

And you couldn't possibly be doing anything but defending the PS4 with your comment, given that the site doesn't track PS+ sales, and thus you're essentially saying "the PS4's tie ratio may be [whatever it was, can't be bothered checking], but that's mostly because owners get three extra games, so the tie ratio is actually very good". If that wasn't what you actually meant, then perhaps you should have thought through your comment a little more.

And yes, I dismissed the popular demand argument. I didn't assert the opposite. We have evidence that about 2.4 million people wanted a PS4, and 1.8 million people wanted an Xbox One. Meanwhile, we also know that 4.5 million people wanted a Wii U. That's all we have right now - without knowing how any system will sell in the coming weeks, months, and years, we cannot say anything more than this. So the "popular demand" argument simply falls flat. And it's precisely because the Wii U has been out a year longer that it falls flat. If all three systems were released roughly simultaneously, then there would be evidence for higher popular demand for one system; but the Wii U is in a different part of its life, and thus cannot be reasonably compared to the other two at this point in time, any more than you could compare Xbox 360 to PS3 and Wii in late 2006 (but you could compare PS3 with Wii).

When you ignore all of the details, the nuances, of what I say, and just grab snippets, you're going to find statements that sound extreme. But when you take the whole of my argument, you'll see that it's actually fully developed and reasonable.