Well the Playstation was actually meant to be the next Nintendo system but they slipped some dirty deal into the contract saying that Sony would hold the rights to most of the games. Nintendo couldn't do this so they backed out, that is how Sony backstabbed N64 otherwise all those games would have been possible. Also the CD was first innovated by Sega. The Playstation doesn't innovate, remember the test, if it's a good idea, Sony didn't come up with it. Otherwise Square could have stayed with Nintendo. All of this because of one dirty deal with Kutaragi. Yea I can agree with you that it was fanboy BS LTNK. Still you have gotta admit that Sony lucked into the business.

Let me summarize: many people make this out to be a black-and-white contest. They behave as if winner is completely and utterly dominant, while the loser is absolutely humiliated. This isn't the case -- as the N64 and Gamecube can testify to. Both had EXCELLENT titles. So even if the Wii does go on to become the dominant console of this generation (and I agree that's likely), both the PS3 and Xbox360 will see their share of great titles, too. I know it'simply more exciting to declare one the absolute, complete winner and the others the losers, but reality doesn't play that way.

In essence -- we want this to be a winner-and-losers, black-and-white contest, because it's appealing and enjoyable to think that way. It's like a sport. But we need to remember that reality comes in grey, and that there is no absolute winner or loser.

Ioi: please add a way to actually delete posts. Every time I get a lag spike, I end up double (or even triple) posting T_T

 I'm not going to pretend like Sony did nothing wrong in the original deal with Nintendo, but your version is clearly unfair. Nintendo REALLY screwed up that deal, and if anyone is to blame for the "Play Station" fiasco, it's the big N. Here is a Wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_Station

And the most relevant text is quoted here: 

"In 1989, the SNES-CD was to be announced at the June Consumer Electronics Show (CES). However, when Hiroshi Yamauchi read the original 1988 contract between Sony and Nintendo, he realized that the earlier agreement essentially handed Sony complete control over any and all titles written on the SNESCD-ROM format. Yamauchi was furious; deeming the contract totally unacceptable, he secretly cancelled all plans for the joint Nintendo-Sony SNES CD attachment. Indeed, instead of announcing their partnership, at 9 am the day of the CES, Nintendo chairman Howard Lincoln stepped onto the stage and revealed that they were now allied with Philips, and were planning on abandoning all the previous work Nintendo and Sony had accomplished. Lincoln and Minoru Arakawa had, unbeknownst to Sony, flown to Philips headquarters in Europe and formed an alliance of a decidedly different nature—one that would give Nintendo total control over its licenses on Philips machines.

The 9am CES announcement was a complete shock. Not only was it a complete surprise to the show goers (Sony had only just the previous night been optimistically showing off the joint project under the "Play Station" brand), but it was seen by many in the Japanese business community as a massive betrayal: a Japanese company snubbing another Japan-based company in favor of a European one was considered absolutely unthinkable in Japanese business."

Don't try to blame that all on Sony, please :p 

Nintendo forgot to read the contract, which was really stupid of them yea. Still it was Sony who snuck that clause into there. Anyways back to the topic at hand. It really depends on your point of view. There could be a personal point of view as well. But yea overall the best console has to be the one that sold the best if you put all fanboy rhetoric behind you.

in that case you should have said "best selling console != the only good console" rather than the title you have now.... just saying. I completely agree with your OP, but the title is misleading.

I still think my title is accurate. The platform that sells the most systems is not automatically the best (Moreover, the platform that sells the most systems is not profoundly superior). Can we agree on that?  

^yes, I definitely agree on that (although I do believe the highest selling console has the better chance of becoming the best in the end...). However, I still think it would have been more appropriate to make the title "best selling console != the only good console" or "just because a console doesn't sell the most, doesn't mean it's crap" either way, these are rather asinine complaints and your overall idea is one I agree with. In the end, that's all that's really important.

 And I agree with that the best selling console has the best chance to be the best in the end.

The title you mentioned is absolutely and entirely too long for a title. I had actually considered something similar, but recognized that brevity in a title is 1) more aesthetically appealing and 2) mandatory, since there are technical limitations on titles for threads in this forum.