I believe that these are the two concepts that separate the 360 and PS3 from the Wii and contribute to the overall conflict between the two types of gaming. 

It's clear that Nintendo chose Interaction for this generation and Sony and MS chose Immersion.  Anybody can pick up and play the Wii while interacting with what is happening in the game.  However, interaction takes away from immersion, or the ability to subconsciously become a part of a game world without having to think about what you are doing like pressing a button. 

Traditional gamers are more fond of games that take them away from reality and put them into another world.  The Wii makes it difficult to be immersed due to the controls themselves and the constant awareness of reacting to the gameplay by moving.  When you're moving your heart will beat faster than if you didn't do anything obviously giving you awareness of the situation.    

 One of the other major differences between Immersion and Interaction is play time. When a player is immersed in a game, the play time will be much higher due to the player being "lost" in the game. 

This is not to say that you can't be immersed while interacting with a game.  But if the interaction wasn't there, you'd more likely be more immersed into the game itself.  Conflicting joy can happen in interaction, sometimes a gamer won't care for the controls and just care about the game, other times the gamer likes a combination of both.  It differs for people.  

Interaction provides a sense of uniqueness to a game.  To do something on the outside of a game and effect the inside of a game usually induces a good feeling of joy and accomplishment.  The one problem with this is that if the game that is being played with these controls is not up to snuff in terms of the actual game itself according to the gamers tastes, the controls become almost useless  to give off a radiant joy of accomplishment.  This is where the line is drawn from someone who prefers the Wii and someone who prefers either the PS3 or 360.   

thoughts?       

I'm going to bed right now, it's 2:11 am. See ya tomorrow

Your last sentence made me smile. :)

Immersion and Interaction are not mutually exclusive, so far I feel more immersion in MP3 than Crysis and I have a nice PC and I like a lot FPS, so this far immersion only by graphics is not the only way for a lot of players out there, with Team Fortress as the opposite example, the game is cartonish, but you can easily feel like you are part of the game...

 I wasn't referring to the HD consoles as being more immersive because they had great graphics.  It's the feeling of being lost in a game as opposed to being aware of what you're doing.  Many people would agree that you can be more immersed in the gamecube version of TP than the Wii version of TP BECAUSE there are no motion controls.  It's the concept of being in the game vs. interacting with it.

You are right however in saying that Immersion and Interaction are not mutually exclusive because they can be combined in ways.  However, the more interaction that takes place the more immersion is taken away.  Ex: MP3 is immersive and relies on controls for interaction while keeping immersion in check most of the time, but Wii sports' controls make it too obvious to what you're doing because of the amount of movement in comparison to MP3 taking away from immersion and giving more to interaction.       

It all came down to experience, when I played SSX:Blur after figuring out how to do ubers it was more so immersive for
myself over playing CoD4, in fact my friends never could understand why I loved that game so much.

They would just leave me be after a while, but if they took the time to get used to the game, they would
get wrapped up in it as well, I'm an avid snow boarder so for me SSX Blur was like pure heaven.

To prove this moot though as in closing a thread, Wii Boxing.

/thread

I don't see why you can't aim for both , in theory you got to have both to some extent to make a decent game ( Immersion without interaction would be a movie and interaction without immersion would be Pong).

I think Sony and MS are capable of achieving both to a greater extent than Nintendo , on the interaction front I think Nintendo is champion because they've obviously focoused more of their resources towards the interactivity apporach at the cost of less immersion , it paid off.

Sony more so than MS has also put [some] effort into interactivity eye toy to cite an example , MS is coming out with their own version of the Wii mote.

I think Sony and MS have got the immersion side of things sorted , they can only do it better . Once they implement their respective interactive technologies well then I think they'll have a good balance of the two.

However I don't think the Wii's hardware will allow it to offer an immersive experience , I don't think it's user base particularly cares , so there's no love lost their. This might present a problem to Nintendo however who probably want to dominate all segments of the console market.

 At this point you are more into a movie type of game, and how many games are like movies???

I don't think the same,  the most immersive games featured heavy interaction, even if it was just a button masher...

Well, MP3, Zelda:TP, RE4 all offered me an incredible immersive experience. But oh wait, yeah they are games for PS3, damn my PS3 is white and has a blue light, slim model?

Yeah looks like 5 million people who bought Zelda, for example, really didn't care about the experience they got.