Is it unthinkable that the graphics of Wii's games may themselves improve in two years as well?

Disagree. For me graphics is main factor (provides more realistic gameplay).  Stuff like eye-toy or guitars didn't make PS2 a next gen system. For some games Wii control system is great (golf etc.) but it's also far less universal than gamepad. Regards playing on a PC... two factors - price of high-end machine and selection of games... no, no. Nintendo didn't provide Revolution... it's only Wii. 

If you're going to say you dissagree with an alleged fact by bolding it ("smallest leap") then perhaps your reply should at least adress that contested issue, i.e. how this gen was in fact not the smallest leap forward, instead of humoring us with your own personal philosophy of gaming. Don't get me wrong, I respect your philosophy and respectfully disagree with it, but a little consistancy in the logical progression of your post would be nice.

 I don't want to read through this and come up with another series of answers cause it's proven pointless.

 I don't get the question... Wii graphics don't look as good as PS3 and 360 graphics. So what is the question here?

 Yes, completely ignore the price tags. Also the Wii is selling mostly to the same gamers that bought the gamecube, the new people buying the Wii are non-gamers or the 'casual' gamers that Nintendo is trying to get to buy it.

Also, sales doesn't always mean quality, do I need to point out to how well low quality stuff have sold in all fields of human endeavor? Think Spiderman 3 as the latest example. 

 I didn't say graphics alone are going to make that difference. But it will make a difference because the gap is only going to grow as we go. In two years, the Wii is going to look a lot worse for someone looking for games because the gap will be bigger and the price of 360 and PS3 will be lower. 

None of this will matter to the casual players buying Wiis now. The question is how long will casual gamers flock to buy Wiis before  the control and motion stuff gets old and how many games do casual gamers buy a year compared to gamers?  

The gap probably won't grow much, Ck. I'd say some, as the PS3/360 probably have more untapped potential than the Wii does, but there really hasn't been a game that's clearly maxed out the Wii yet, either.

Gears of War and Resistance already look profoundly better than anything that is currently on the Wii, and yet the Wii is still slaughtering both systems in sales per week. Why would this change noticably later on? 

As for casual gamers, I agree the future is uncertain. What I can tell you is that I recieve more questions about the Wii now than I did in February/March, which is to say that demand is probably higher at this point than it was then. I can almost garauntee you that the system will be supply constricted at least through 2007 continuously, with no price drop (if the system were to slow down, it would be some time between now and August, and it clearly isn't happening. We're nowhere close to normalization). Also, the DS is fueled by the same types of people, and is still steamrolling ahead. 

In short, I do agree that there are differences between the Wii and the other home consoles in terms of target audience and design philosophy. However, there is no evidence in history, ever, that a system that sells this well for its first year suddenly stops selling well. It's just never happened. I think people who are expecting any sort of Wii collapse are just wishful thinkers: people who do not like the direction the Wii is heading, and do not wish the rest of gaming to head in that direction too. 

Yes the price for the PS3 and xbox360 will go down, and the only chance for the Wii not to get price drops during this time is if it makes a DS and is constantly sold out. I mean if the PS3 gets 100 USD price drop before each christmas period, in 2009 it will still cost 400 USD. If the Wii gets one 100 USD price drop and it will be down at 150 USD.

I also don't think the difference between Gears and Wii Play or Sport can get that much wider whatever xbox360 or PS3 does.

Why should the wiimote become old, when the controll pad hasn't sofar? I mean this is the same thing everybody said about the DS.

Looking at the DS in Japan we are at an attach ratio of 4, so 1-2 games a year shouldn't be impossible. BUT that doesn't mean that the Wii will stop selling does it? I mean the Brain series/NSMB/Pokemon seems to fuel the DS with out any problem, and this is my point, if the Wii can sell 30 million consols untill the end of 2008 the pure mass of consumers will most possible be able to drive the software sales. I would also like to point out that since the DS launched the level of software sales to hit the top 10 in japan has gone up, so yes it seems that the casual crowd is buying games. The thing is this Wii doesn't need an extream attach ratio if they sell much much more than PS3 and xbox360. During the slow summer months Wii is clearly selling more than PS3 + xbox360 combined in hardware. Nintendo is planing to ship 14 million Wiis this fiscal year which might give Nintendo close to 20 million Wii owners WW in march 2008, that should be enough to drive software sales.

I can agree on that the Wii might slow down in sales, but it wont be because of lack of graphics because it isn't graphics that sell a Wii today, no where is that more clear than in Japan. If the gameplay the pure fun of playing together or alone goes down then I can see that the Wii might stop selling BUT so far people seems to have fun with a game that have graphics that could be made on a PS1.

1. The price tag was something the Company took into consideration long before the console launched and therin not something that can be excluded as a component of the console's intended or absolute appeal. They made the decision to make it what it was. And if people aren't buying it because of the price, that's just another reason the console isn't desireable to the consumer. If you make the best console in the world and then no one buys it, it obviously wasn't the best console in the world. This is naive course of logic regardless as by your argument the Gamecube should have sold better than the PS2 and Xbox.

Face it, arguing price tags as an excuse is just justification after the fact. The consumer decides which console is what they want. Please for the love of god don't tell me you're actually going to try and argue against sales numbers on an issue solely dependent on sales numbers as the one and only objective measure.

2. No, but they they do show what the consumer  wants. And since Nintendo has Sony and MS beat hands down on quality control in every aspect of the console's longevity and reliability... You're making a moot point to begin with. Please don't tell me you're going to try and argue that Sony builds more reliable console hardware than Nintendo now... Sigh... 

Also, the quality of Spiderman 3 is debatable, at best conjecture, not a fact that can be used to prove or support any point as it is a unique incident whose correlary to or comparison of anything else in the gaming world is arguable at best.. It's also somewhat of a poor example irregardless as we're not talking about the perception of "quality" in products, we're talking about consumer appeal hence forth, what the consumer wants.

 Are we certain the Wii's graphics won't improve just as you claim the PS3 and 360's will? If the gap doesn't matter to the majority of gamers now, why will it ever? Does the gap between the DS and PSP matter to gamers?

Who says the motion controller will get old? Did the DS get old? If its just a fad (which people also called the DS), why did the PS3 try and capitalize on it with their own cheap knock off? If its just a fad, why did you buy one? If its just a fad, why are concerned about its impact on the gaming market?