A more likely event is that the wii will continue selling at the current rate but losing a tiny bit of market share whenever a huge AAA game comes out for the PS3 or 360. I think it will level out at 48% and stay there will the PS3 at 27% and the 360 at 25%.

Oh, you mean like the Wii lost market share when GTA IV came out?

Dream on!

I think that's already happened in Japan. Others will be soon.

Actually, to quote myself, I said it was "possible that a colossal number of households" owned both. I don't need to "prove" anything about that statement of possiblity. In any case, let me put down some crazy other possiblities for the readers of this post to ponder:

* Many gamers who put the $ down to purchase a 360 or PS3 can probably afford a Wii as well.

* Many gamers who own a 360 or PS3 probably enjoy Nintendo titles, like SMG and Zelda, just to start.

* To suppose that most Wiis owners do not own a 360 (in America) is also to suppose that (in America) most 360 owners do not own a Wii, since the number of 360s still exceeds the number of Wiis (in America). 

* I think its a pretty big assumption to make, assuming that a gamer who enjoys his 360/PS3 doesn't like Mario, and cannot afford a Wii or hasn't been able to get one by now.

I think presuming that "most households only own one console" is a pretty big leap.  I'd like to see, at the least, some good reasoning for that -- I haven't yet!

Nintendo has recently stated that 97% of the voters on the Wii voting channel are male -- that's pretty interesting, considering that the Wii isn't appealing to 360/PS3 owners, by your assumptions.  Lots of males comprising the casual audience the Wii embraces, but shunning the HD consoles?  They want a Wii but not a 360/PS3, do you suppose?

I smell fanboy science in the assumption that a significant number of Wii owners (not necessarily a majority, but I think its likely) do not also own a 360/PS3.

The idea of "50% market share" by comparing raw sales is pretty messed up. The Wii, being the cheapest console of this generation and a direct successor/replacement of the GameCube, probably co-exists in a colossal number of instances with a 360, a PS3, or both.

Given a choice, users will probably choose the 360 or PS3 as their platform of choice for cross-platform releases (for obvious reasons).

"Market share", in the long-run, is really about software, not hardware. Comparing the three current-gen consoles as if most users only owned one exclusively is pretty much the definition of "bad science", especially at this relatively early stage. The only way you could claim one console has definate strangehold on marketshare, for a given console generation (lets not include the PS2, please), would be to take that consoles #s and subtract the sum of its competition first -- this would still put the Wii in the negatives at this moment. That might at least provide a decent starting basis.

The fact that the 360 and PS3 are so superior to the Wii, technologically, goes a long way to favor users spending $60 on the HD version of a cross-platform game, as opposed to the "practically last-gen" Wii version at $50, as well. Essentially, any household which owns a Wii, and also a PS3 or 360, will see the Wii's market penetration in that household trumped for cross-platform releases.

Much of the Wii's current number advantage over the HD consoles is due to its price, and a solid round of 1st party releases by Nintendo early on. Imagining that people will choose Wii software over 360 or PS3 software of higher caliber is pretty presumptuous. In that sense, the Wii can never truly "beat" its competition. Its not a good enough console to cover the more fervent gamers decently. The Wii can *be* beaten, however. Although that does seem to look less and less likely, assuming that it gets some decent non-casual titles here and there.

Actually, to quote myself, I said it was "possible that a colossal number of households" owned both. I don't need to "prove" anything about that statement of possiblity. In any case, let me put down some crazy other possiblities for the readers of this post to ponder:

* Many gamers who put the $ down to purchase a 360 or PS3 can probably afford a Wii as well.

* Many gamers who own a 360 or PS3 probably enjoy Nintendo titles, like SMG and Zelda, just to start.

* To suppose that most Wiis owners do not own a 360 (in America) is also to suppose that (in America) most 360 owners do not own a Wii, since the number of 360s still exceeds the number of Wiis (in America). 

* I think its a pretty big assumption to make, assuming that a gamer who enjoys his 360/PS3 doesn't like Mario, and cannot afford a Wii or hasn't been able to get one by now.

I think presuming that "most households only own one console" is a pretty big leap.  I'd like to see, at the least, some good reasoning for that -- I haven't yet!

Nintendo has recently stated that 97% of the voters on the Wii voting channel are male -- that's pretty interesting, considering that the Wii isn't appealing to 360/PS3 owners, by your assumptions.  Lots of males comprising the casual audience the Wii embraces, but shunning the HD consoles?  They want a Wii but not a 360/PS3, do you suppose?

I smell fanboy science in the assumption that a significant number of Wii owners (not necessarily a majority, but I think its likely) do not also own a 360/PS3.

Really? Would that console be... a PS2? Maybe you'd like to provide some basis for your statement. I merely stated that its possible that multiple consoles cover many of the households. You seem to have some proof that this is not that case? Lets see it -- seriously, it would be beneficial to all if you could share this info.

The Nintendo hasn't increased production yet. So you would have no way of knowing if that was true or not until the Wii has a consistant supply in the U.S