There are no right or wrong answers to this question.

Mine. Domination is not important to me because I don't play new/non-free games much anymore. On the other hand I'm unemployed and domination would mean that if I decided to play new/costly games I could be confident that my money would be well spent.

Also, everyone sucks! (a little trollbait to get things moving, jk )

Rol in disguise!

i called it!

Cause it hurts so good! Sorry wrong domination :P

Only as a defensive measure. I think if a console has to dominate, I want it to be Sony. I don't want Nintendo taking over, I don't like where theyare going. I'd rather gaming be in Sony's hands. And definitely not MS :(

Meh. As long as the system has enough games I like, I'll play it. If it ends up dominating the market, great; that'll mean more games I like will get put on it. If not, so what? It won't make the games I enjoy on the systems I own any less fun.

The "winning" console gets the most of the best games in the last 2-3 years of the generation.

 I assure you I am not RolStoppable. Plenty of people in this world love Kim Possible.

I don't particularly care for domination, I'm more concerned about the quality of the software.

@GlingGling: How do you know it had anything to do with KP, hm? It could have been about the fine quality of your post!

In response to your question, domination is important to me because the industry leader represents the general direction the industry is going. That's why I'm so delighted Nintendo is winning--they are keeping classic-style gaming alive and showing that there is room for all types. That's why I prefer them.