I just thought I'd post this as a disclaimer -- I think it's something we all already know deep down, but tempers can flair and people can be deliberately demeaning, so I thought it could take restatement.

Please remember that the most popular console (whatever that may end up being. Yes, it's likely to be the Wii, but I wouldn't feel safe saying it's definitely going to be the Wii, either) is not the absolute "winner." It does not get every single great game ever made for this generation. The "losing" consoles do not necessarily lose money. Their makers aren't (necessarily) disgraced or humiliated. There will be lots of great games for the consoles that don't take first place.

To all the Wii fans that may think otherwise -- do you feel that the N64 and Gamecube didn't have good games? In fact, I think one could very reasonably argue that the games for those two consoles nearly rivaled those of the PS1/PS2, thanks to the continued support of Nintendo combined with the occasional third party gem like RE4, Rogue Squadron, or Viewtiful Joe.  

So again, to emphasize the point: the least popular console is going to have a lot of good games, regardless. Unless we look at extreme cases (3D0, Neo Geo, CDi), the "winning" and "losing" of console generations affects the manufacturers themselves far more than it does the owners. Counting down a list of the established consoles in history:

Game Gear

GBA

PSP

DS

NES

SNES

Genesis

PS1

N64

Dreamcast

PS2

Gamecube

Xbox

Does anyone feel that any of these systems didn't have a healthy share of great games? Is it likely that any of the current three contenders will be unable to match any of these previous consoles in popularity or development? I know, in an online argument, that it just FEELS great to declare a "winner" and a "loser," and to suggest that the loser completely and absolutely loses -- that nobody will like them and they will get no good games -- but that simply isn't the case. 

Hey, Neo-Geo had a few great games. Probably the first true console to bring that arcade feel to homes, even though a game cost $100 a pop.

Yeah, I agree. However, I'd say most -- if not all -- were made by SNK themselves. I'm not suggesting it was COMPLETELY devoid of good games, but I think both of us can agree that it didn't come close to matching the library of the SNES/Genesis. In comparison, something like the N64 really DID have a library that could stand up to the PS1s in quality. I'd say the edge goes to the PS1 if for no other reason than the sheer number of games released, but one could argue that the best games released during that generation were Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64. In other words: the N64 system was dominated pretty seriously, and may have had slightly worse games, but not nearly in proportion to its place on the totem pole. The system itself was outsold almost five to one compared to the PS1 -- and even if we can agree the PS1 had better games overall, would anyone reasonably argue that the PS1 really had FIVE TIMES the number of good games as the N64? I doubt it.

The same could be said of the Genesis, or the Gamecube, or the Xbox. They may or may not have had as many great games as their dominant competitors, but they were all reasonably close. Their libraries were FAR from terrible. Only on the very fringes -- say, systems that had less than 5 percent of the total systems sold during a generation -- do we really see a HUGE disparity in the number of quality titles. Otherwise, the number of quality titles doesn't directly correlate with the system sales very well at all. Again, do MOST of the dominant consoles in history have superior libraries? Probably, but the disparity isn't huge. I'd expect the dominant console to have, oh, 25% more quality games (yes, I pulled that number out of my butt).

Given my pulled-out-of-my-butt numbers, would anyone feel that their system of choice has completely and utterly lost, been humiliated and defeated, if it had 80 great games, while the super-duper-ultra winner had 100?

The N64 was the superior console, it was more powerful, had innovations which forever changed the industry, and had the greatest games. I really don't know how that one got away from Nintendo. Third Parties abandoned it because they were still using cartridges and PS1 could manufacture masses of games for pennies. The Playstation 1... I think it lucked into the win because they screwed them with the cartridge thing, and stole half of the exclusives that were and are Nintendo games. Final Fantasy was born on Nintendo, and had no business jumping ship like that.... PS1 started off with everything that Nintendo had already innovated 5 years ago and then added things as Nintendo made new innovations down the line. An entire console born and bred through leeching off of Nintendo.

I'll go with you on this... With this (and last) generation we'll see more multi platform titles than ever before, and these are more likely to be the good games. Exclusives will be the great ones! I do think that all 3 will do well, but I don't think we'll see PS2esque numbers again.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say Nintendo screwed itself. It's not like all of the 3rd party developers spontaneously decided to be evil and leave Nintendo simultaneously! 

Square actually said they WANTED to stay with Nintendo, but obviously a game Like FF VII wasn't possible on the N64 without 10 cartridges or more :p

 Just because a game started on a system does not mean it should stay on there. That's just fanboy BS. Square was their own company and could put their systems on what they want. Nintendo stuck with a format that not only limited space, but also cut into profit margins. It was fine in the 16-bit era, but was unacceptable with the needs of 3D gaming. 

 Agreed!

obviously every console gets good games, but the highest selling one tends to get the MOST good games, therefore it is the best. The only exception imo is the PS1/N64 era, the PS1 had more games... but most were 100% crap. I'm not even very sure I understand your logic really... the title says "most sold != best" and then you go on to claim that just about every console gets good games, but not point out cases in which the lower selling console was the better one... just because one is the best doesn't mean they all suck, obviously the "best" is just well...the best and this is usually due to higher sales which usually results in more dev support.

basically, your trying to prove that the highest selling isn't always the best just by saying that every console has good games... which really doesn't prove your point at all. In fact, it doesn't really even elaborate your point.