Whether or not it's missing the best ones is entirely subjective (especially considering you were including Alan Wake as the best games, when it reviewed poorly and was just not a good game).

And as I and the original poster said. It has nothing to do with now. In 8 years (ie, end of the generation), the PS4 will have the best lineup. The new Nintendo platform will be out while PS4 is still receiving hundreds of new games. The longer life is reason alone to believe it'll have a better lineup.

Truth. They speak in favor of Wii.

OP: Basically what others have pointed on the article. A default "victory", althought MS reacted very well and is on the race again. Wii U is officially in the profit race. Will it make a good race? Or does 3DS will continue to carry over?

MGS 1 through 4
GT 1 through 6
FFVII through XII
GOW franchise
Uncharted franchise
Crash 1 through 3
Klonoa 1+2
Ape Escape 1+2

I could go on, each system end up with their own masterpieces, and great games in their own right, however the playstation brand get almost all the 3rd party games, for the longest, whilst also getting all the JRPGS, and having (arguably) the 3 best devs in their field (SSM-Hack&Slash, PD-Racing Simulator, ND-Actionadventure)

Ultimately the PS4 is selling as good as it is, as Sony had the momentum moving from gen 7 to 8, propper world wide appeal with the variety of games it has gotten (and will get), the least fuck ups, the best price/power and the strongest gaming brand EVER, shown by the fact that out of the 6 consoles now released only the Vita has done poorly comercially, every other console has broken 80million units (the PS4 will reach this absolute rock bottom limit on what it's going to sell), with this gen going to end with them having 4 of the 5 best selling home consoles of all time, and the 3rd best selling handheld of all time (just needs that extra mill to push past the GBA). 

Well, the WiiU did have 1 more year to build its library, though, I think most gamers would disagree with you that the WiiU line-up is better. Afterall, all those Nintendo games you're listing, not a whole lot of gamers want those, as proven by the WiiU sales. But you're free to express how much you like those Nintendo games and how much you don't care about the Sony ones.

PS1: Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 1-3, Gran Turismo, Crash Bandicoot 1-3, CTR , Final Fantasy VII, VIII, IX, Silent Hill, Spyro 1-3, Tekken 1-3, Wipeout 1-3, Legend of Dragoon, PaRappa the Rapper, Parasite Eve. Just to name a few

PS2: Gran Turismo 3&4, MGS 2&3, God of War 1&2, DMC 1&3, Tekken 4&5, Ratchet & Clank 1-3, SSX, Wipeout Fusion, Final Fantasy X & XII, Resident Evil 4, Jack & Daxter 1-3, Sly 1-3, Shadow of the Colossus, Kingdom Hearts 1&2, Silent Hill 2, and so many others that it would make your head explode.

PS3: Uncharted 1-3, MGS 4, LBP 1&2, Killzone 2&3, Resistance 1-3, Rachet & Clank: Future trilogy, God of War III, Gran Turismo 5&6, InFamous 1&2, The Last of Us, Demon's Souls, Heavy Rain, Warhawk, Tales of Xillia, White Knight Chronicles and the list goes on...

In terms of variety Playstation is the strongest. IMO Nintendo lost the edge after NES & SNES. Those consoles had more variety for example: Castlevania, Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Contra, Faxanadu, Mega Man, Punch Out and Ninja Gaiden. Now it's just Mario, Zelda and Pokemon and I think 200+ Mario titles is too much...

Just when you finish this conversation with one generation of games consoles, new kids arrive who don't understand the present because they don't know the past. And this wasn't pointed to anyone specific.

It's true Nintendo lost yhe edge it had with NES (and SNES to an extent - Megadrive had likely been the winner of the generation if Sega had not ditched it early in favour of Saturn) to Sony with the Playstation as publishers tend to flock to who's winning because that's where the money is. Why Nintendo lost it's edge was because of Sony allowing virtually any game on their platform where Sega and Nintendo didn't. If you look at the early years of Playstation, it had pretty much nothing but crap. It wasn't until 1998 or 1999 when PS sales really caught up steam, which was when Sony had a huge marketing push towards teenagers, and Final Fantasy 7, Gran Turismo and couple of Tekkens were already there. 1998 or 1999 was also the year Saturn and N64 owners had to get a Playstation because of the games drought on the two.

When Gamecube came out, it had a good launch line-up, much better than the PS2 at launch, but as with the PS2 already winning, it had all the 3rd party games ever since. Basically the variety correlates with the number of games.

When you look at the previous generations, the games did have more variety - at least the high profile ones - as the development costs were much lower, so you could try out different stuff and you needed to sell much less copies to make decent profit, whereas today you need to play it safe in order not to make losses. For this reason alone you see everyone rehashing their content and games and us having generic sequels and their cheap generic copies.

It's pointless to list only the flagship games and argue which has the best library based on them as there aren't many "tier 1 games" on a console nowdays anyways and who has the best "tier 1" games depends on one's taste. Neo-Geo has to be the best console ever made - if you happen to like fighting games.

When you look at N64 for example, it has similar variety of "tier 1" games as has PS, but then there's virtually nothing in "tiers 2 and 3", the "good enough" tiers, whereas PS had lots of games that fits these categories.

As an example: Let's say Super Mario 64 is a "tier 1" game and Crash Bandicoot "tier 2 or 3". Back in 2000 when I met my wife, everytime the talk was about games, she started talking about how good Crash Bandicoot was as she and her friends used to play it on her friend's kids PS while drinking before going into bar. One time when we were at my place, I put her to play Super Mario 64 and tell me what she thought about it. After 15 minutes of playing she said she never had realised what piece of shit Crash Bandicoot was.

Who's winning and who's not, is a moot point when everyone is losing money. It's pretty clear that losing money isn't sustainable business model. Not only said Kaz a few years back that Playstation's future is online service (not different from Steam), so you could consider PS4 as a "Playstationbox" of a kind. However, with the X86 compatibility, it's possible that PS4 will be able co-opt tablets and is finally able to remove the Microsoft computers from homes back to workplaces. Back in the 80's and early 90's, the IBM clones came to peoples homes because of working at home. It was not until the late 90's and early 2000's with the explosion of (graphical) internet, PC's were widely adopted by everyday users. In the last 10-20 years we have seen all kinds attempts to bring internet to everyones houses, starting from digital STB's and "internet boxes" to internet tablets and such.

How are the U and X1 less of a gaming system than the PS4? In no way does kinect or the game pad mean not gaming first.

(face plam) A console for gamers first. So Nintendo made a console for gamers second?

yes makes sense

The article explores that more in depth, but if you want the basic cliff notes the ps4 was going by the "if its not broken dont fix it" strategy.  Where as the xbox was trying to force kinect down peoples throat at a much higher price point for a feature most xbox gamers didnt want in the first place, and as  far as the wii-u is concerned it was using a gimmicky controler to differentiate it from the pack, but that only served to alienate core gamers who were used to a more traditional controller making it less appealing to the mainstream.