Sorry to be so slow but I just can' follow the logic there. LongLiveTheBeatles claimed that the Wii would lose market share whenever a AAA game came out on PS360. I rather sarcastic questioned on the basis that the Wii hadn't gone down as a result of GTA IV (AAA if there is such a thing) but in fact had increased.

Now you bring up the question of steady supply which is indeed an issue although I can only see it as artifically holding back Wii sales not increasing them. To me that means that the Wii might have lost  or gained LESS market share because of supply constraints artifically hiding an increaase that otherwise would have happpened but I do not see how it could artifically cause an increase. So when Wii's percentage went upduring GTA IV, the increase must have been real or possibly even more if supply constraints were involved.

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.

A better measure of "market share" might be "total number of new software titles sold each week"  If you use the top 20 for each console, for this week (in America), as a measuring stick:

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.