I'm the happiest motherfucker on the planet. I dine on despair.

Dude, I've been on your side (not necessarily in agreement) but that is exactly what you said.

Hop in the DeLorean: The year is 1997, Playstation is wrecking shop on N64, 2D gaming is dying, and I am sad.

I think Crazzyman hits the nail on the head: the real disappointment here is that all the games that were once the exclusive domain of Sony are gone. I can relate to that, because it happened to me. Mega Man, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter...all gone! It was depressing.

But you can't change it, this had to happen. Graphical improvements are starting to plateau (search your heart, you know it to be true) budgets are skyrocketing, and in Japan, the number of gamers was actually shrinking until DS hit the market. Something had to give, and Nintendo was on the right side of that fallout.

I have some advice to people who are sad that Nintendo's winning: be happy there are still games coming out that you enjoy, and keep an open mind toward the future. You can give up gaming, or you can adapt. Personally, I'm glad I adapted.

And if you want a pity party, you should find a Sony-only forum to throw it on. Sites like Nintendorks were where I went for some Nintendo therapy during the GameCube/N64 days.

Well forgive me for not fully elaborating on every point I make .

Not unelaborated, it is exactly what you said.  Word for word.

"I'm blaming the Wii for the loss of Eight Days and >>GETAWAY<<<, you friggin killed getaway Wii"

NO, that can't even be considered an opinion.  Sony has said in the past that since PS3 sales were lower than expected their losses have been less.  If the PS3 were at 30 million now one of two scenarios would apply.

1- The PS3 would not be the PS3 we know today.  No BR for sure, and the Cell probably wouldn't be as it is either.  Therefore Sony could be profitable with the PS3.

2- The PS3 is as we see it today.  When it hits 30 million sold Sony announces they are closing their games division for bleeding their company dry.

it's all well and nice to assume that Sony would have recouped their losses and then some with SW sales and BR sales but SW sales haven't been enough to save it lately with the PS2 selling well still.  And even if BR ends up being a huge cash cow for Sony the money won't start rolling in for years by which point investors would riot and call for Tretton's head.

and i said forgive me for not fully elaborating the points I make , what's your point ?

Do you really think the Wii is competing with the PS3? Anyone that's interested in the games the PS3 offers would never be satisfied with just a Wii, so I don't buy that. You're making a scapegoat of Nintendo when Sony themselves are to blame.

Let's look at what might have happened to the next generation if the Wii had not existed.  If yes, the gamers complained about PS3 initial cost and X360 RROD, but still bought those consoles.

On Sony's side, look at the remarks that were made initially.  'Yeah, it cost a bit, but look what you get for that cost, even if there aren't any games for it.'  If their next gen console manufacture costs jumped percentage-wise as much as the PS3 did over the PS3, building the console could be as much as $1300 or more.  Retail cost to consumer, even with another huge hit to Sony could be $900 a piece.   But a gamers' console right?

Microsoft's console would be cheaper, of course.  Maybe only $600 or so.  Of course, if no lesson was needed to be learned, its quality need not be any better than what the X360 came out with.  In a few years, upgrades could be made.  As you would expect a software company to do.

But there is a Wii.  Cheaper, higher quality.  Better than the previous generation, but not significantly so.  But appealing to a much wider audience.  Which in the next generation, if they can be kept into gaming, will fragment into new genres, ones that you might not think you'd like, but your tastes could change. 

@source

'360 - ... 30% of the 55+ audience'

30%???   There are that many Halo addicts in the geriatrics crowd?

So Nintendo can make games for a pittance and outsell multi-million dollar PS3 titles. So what? That's what nintendo has always done. Do you think that Wind Waker cost more to develop than MGS4? Well, it sold 2.2 million copies, and it was hardly the most successful Zelda title ever. Ocarina of Time sold 7.6 million and I doubt it cost 5$ million to produce. Nintendo has never gotten good sales by adding tens of millions of dollars to the development of a project, but by having passionate developers that weren't on rigid schedules. Was Ocarina of Time the 'death of the hardcore'

Are 'casual' titles cashouts for game companies? I don't think so. 1st party wii casuals do well because they're marketed by nintendo. Third party wii casuals rarely do as well, as they have to compete with the so called 'shovelware'.

BTW, Shovelware is really a bad description, IMHO. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it's crap. In the same way, a person who doesn't like shooters could call the 360/PS3 'shovelware' consoles because all they are putting out is 'stupid Halo 2 clones. Really, who plays that stuff'

Anyway, to finish off my rant, I think this generations 'hardcore' is gonna go the way of every other 'hardcore'. Remember, before Gears of War or Halo 3 were hardcore, the hardcore consisted of people playing impossible shoot 'em ups and other arcade games who thought that playing any game that you didn't have to pump 20 quarters into to beat the final boss and any idiot could beat were 'stupid casual games'.

Really, I think that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EVE1Sdw70Y&feature=related is fun.
So, two questions related to that video:
1: Do you see how the next 'hardcore' will look back at the old 'hardcore' and not understand it at all?
2: Who is more hardcore? The people who spend 80 hours beating FFwhatever or the people who spend 80 hours beating the final boss of Progear? Or the people who spend 80 hours beating whatever the casual hardcore will be.