The console market has never managed to support 4 competitors successfully, thats all i'll say.

I dissagree completely.

What Wii did is like giving a car amazing new type of steering but with obsolete engine, shitty brakes...

The point of gaming is to engage the mind and dazzle the eyes and, as of last generation, provide a sense of comunity. Wii fails 2 out of 3...

As far as EA and their possible console...if they too provide somesort of a fancy control scheme and a cheap entry price...being a sports company mostly, they would spank the Wii in the socail gaming aspect. If they can secure a semi decent 3rd party lineup I don't think EA has to worry about it being a failure.

If EA bought Take Two(And Rockstar), then maybe it would be a good Idea, but Their console would be dubbed the "Sposrts" Console.
I'd rather see an Activision/Blizzard console. It would have a bigger diverse game library

It depends....if it was cheap....had some cool features....i think it would do well....because regardless, it will have games...

Amongst early adopters, aren't EA seen as a joke? They buy up the rights to some good games, but as a developer, they just churn on souless licenced titles, that are competent at best.

I don't see it working out well for them.

@disolitude

Your analogy is poor. If you want to go with cars, then PS3 and 360 would be like Porsche and Jaguar: powerful, sleek, expensive, high upkeep costs, you hear a lot about them, yet nobody ever seems to own one outside of the "inner circle" of the car-owning elite. Meanwhile Wii would be more like a Camry: compact, efficient, not especially powerful, but everybody and their grandma seems to have one because it does the job and has a low upkeep cost.

Stop looking at consoles from the elitist gamer perspective, and look at things from the mainstream gamer perspective instead. People, by and large, don't want excessive power; they want to get the most value for their money. And when shopping for a video game system, the experience of playing games on the system is the highest value point. From that perspective, the PS3 and 360 have very little to offer over the PS2 and XBOX, while the Wii has a lot to offer. It doesn't matter if you personally dislike the system; you are not the majority, nor do you necessarily reflect them.

@Sky Render

I don't dislike the wii. I have it and see what it offers. It definitely is a welcome change but people give it far too much credit for "innovation". Its a nice social gaming system.

In any case, I wouldn't consider myself a minority preferring an xbox 360 and PS3 as those 2 consoles are splitting the market and combined will outsell the wii by a large margin. If EA came out with a similar console as wii (cheap, simple, fun, cheerful) wii wouldn't sell nearly as much.

The bottom line is that I want the best graphics, the best sound, best controlls and best games coming frmo a console and I'm willing to pay extra for that. We all know the wii doesn't have the best sound and graphics. Controlls while innovative only work 50% of the time...rest of the time you are just randomly shaking the wii-mote. And games are up to the gamer. If you are 12, and like familly friendly games...nintendo Wii is king. Not so much for the 15-40 year olds tho...

I hope they do.

Then they can flop over and finally die.

@disolitude

You're just expecting too much from the first iteration of the control scheme. Did you expect the NES gamepad to have the same overall functionality of the DualShock 2? I would think not, because it's more than likely that your first experience with the NES gamepad was long before the DualShock 2 even existed. You may have expected it to live up to the standards of keyboards, though; that's entirely possible, and just as pointless as expecting the Wii Remote to be a technological wonder of unmatchable proportions, capable of competing with its future iterations.

This is one of the key problems of being a long-time gamer. You start to get jaded and expect everything to perform precisely to your standards, no matter how unrealistic those standards really are. Before the Wii Remote, there were no motion-sensing controllers of note; certainly none that could equal its own sensitivity and accuracy. Thus why are you upset that it does not work absolutely perfectly, when there was nothing there before that even worked, period? The Power Glove was a joke of a controller that was immensely less accurate than a Wii Remote, and the SIXAXIS can't do motion control to save its life.

It's because you have expectations derived directly from past experiences with other game consoles, translated into the new medium; most gamers do not have this. The majority see the Wii Remote and think it's really cool. They don't care that it's not 100% precisely accurate, because it's something that's never been done this well before.

@ Sky Render

I don't mind the Wii mote controls. When done right(resident evil 4, Wii Sports) it works amazingly. However the novelty of using the Wii mote to me is completely gone after a year of playing wii games. Its a great idea but to me it has become another standard in gaming. And once the novelty is gone all you are left with is another controller...just like the SIXAXIS or the 360 pad. So much for innovation...