So tell me, what's wrong with the PS3 and 360 offering additional non-gaming features with their online?  Isn't it the exact same as Nintendo offering additional non-gaming features?  Nobody with a 360 is forced to download movies or tv shows so tell me exactly what the problem is.

As for comparing the Wii's online simplicity with the iPod's simplicity as a MP3 player, do you realize how idiotic that sounds?  The iPod does what it does very well and is one of the very best offerings out there for a portable media player, are you saying the Wii's online is done very well and is one of the best offerings out there for console online gaming?  And here's something that'll shock you, Xbox Live's online is done very well and is very easy to understand, I'm not sure how stupid some people's parents are (judging from some of the posts I've been reading maybe they are pretty dumb) but Xbox Live is far from rocket science, if someone can figure out how to operate a cable or satellite tv box they can use Xbox Live. 

I really don't get your last sentence, what is there to accept?  People may like different things but to put down something that is clearly a far superior offering for what it's meant to do clearly doesn't make any sense.

 i've never said any problem with ps3/360. They are improving online experience on the console. There's definitely nothing wrong there. However, that doesn't automatically put the Wii into the "crap" pile just because it's not on par with ps3/360. 

Comparing consoles to MP3 players, my bad. Let's not bring the cars comparison neither

And let's not start with name calling, shall we? People are good at different things. Something simple to you could be not so for others. Vice versa.  

Again, I am not putting down ps3 nor 360. They are all good consoles. Choices are good. The more the better, to carter to everyone's preference. 

Well it has absolutely nothing to do with comparing the Wii's online with 360's so I can't imagine why anyone would bring it up. 

I was simply replying to the original post that stated the Wii's online offering was unique and that the PS3 and 360's were mediocre to the PC (notice how they never had the Wii in that list as being mediocre to the PC?).

No, you've misunderstood me, Legend. As I've said (in a later post in this thread), I'm not praising the Wii's online experience, I'm praising its clear differentiation from PCs in general. Both Gabe Newel and John Romero have made similar comments, attacking the 360/PS3 strategies: they see the 360/PS3 as similar to PCs, just a bit worse, while the Wii is so distinct from a PC -- it isn't trying ot match its graphical power, its online capabilities are much less expansive, the Wii isn't trying to be a multimedia device, and so on -- that the Wii can carve out its own, "casual" space. I agree with them.

Lost in translation.

What does graphical power have to do with online?  The reality is that Xbox Live does some things that no online PC gaming service can because unlike those services Xbox Live includes every online Xbox gamer while no PC online gaming service includes every PC online gamer.  Xbox Live is inferior in some ways (it doesn't support user created content) but to simply label the 360's online as inferior is wrong.

Sure you and others may bash the 360 and say it's a mediocre PC  (I don't see it myself since the 360 can't even use a keyboard or mouse and can't browse the internet), but from where I am as an owner I can vouch that it's definately a videogame console and a good one and at no time am I lead to believe that it's trying to pretend to be a PC (since when are PCs supposed to have a monopoly on being multimedia devices anyway?).

And I didn't misunderstand you, go back and read exactly what you said, you even mentioned Xbox Live by name when you were slamming it as mediocre.  And please answer my question how is the Wii's online distinct?  Tell me exactly what it does that PCs can't do online?  Because if you say weather or news I have dozens of websites to show you that you can get the weather and news online.  And just look at my previous reply to see the examples I gave that makes Xbox Live actually distinct.

You clearly didn't read most of this thread, Legend. Apparently you've read one of my posts -- not the other four on the same topic. You did misunderstand me, you didn't read this entire thread, and I'd appreciate it if you would read fully in the future. Let me repeat several of my points:

I discussed, in a direct response to Ck, the entire scope of the reasons why high end PCs are technologically superior for hardcore gaming. Here you go:

Crysis and online gaming, obviously. Steam alone is more than twice as large as the entirety of the much-lauded Xbox live, let alone adding in the unique users who play Unreal Tournament, Starcraft, World of Warcraft... I'd say the online market for PCs is (conservatively) 3 times as large as the console market, and this despite a smaller market.

How can you possibly suggest the PC is NOT superior? High end PCs have superior horsepower, and Crysis can only be run on the PC. The online network the PC offers is enormously more developed than that for any console. Almost every professional game is played on the PC, not on a console. I'm not for one minute arguing that 360/PS3 aren't worth getting for those who enjoy the games on the systems -- if you personally prefer the games on the 360/PS3, please, enjoy. That's absolutely fine. But don't try to argue that the platforms are technologically equivalent to high end PCs, because it's obviously false, and the gap between the two will continue to grow over time.

You're confusing "which console is more fun" with "which console is technologically superior." Again, for emphasis, for the umpteenth time -- I absolutely agree that you should get a PS3 or 360 if you think the games on those systems are more fun. I think a lot of people agree with you -- the majority, perhaps -- that consoles simply have more to offer for an enjoyable experience. But are these consoles technologically equivalent to high end PCs for gaming? No. There are already games in development that they can't handle on high settings. That doesn't make these consoles bad, by any means -- they're technologically inferior, but not necessarily inferior entertainment.

And I'd be happy to elaborate about the Wii. The Wii doesn't even attempt to do the same things as a PC: it doesn't have multimedia capabilities, its online capabilities are reduced and streamlined, its graphics aren't trying to compete, and so forth. Several notable developers, including Gabe Newell and John Romero (who is now more or less marginalized), both said that they believed that systems like the PS3 and 360 are poorly marketed, simply because they're so much like PCs, but slightly worse. By contrast, the Wii is doing something very different, and can find its own space.

I absolutely agree, Legend, that the console online experience will eventually outstrip the PC, if for no other reason than the larger install/user base. But right now, the fact that PC gamers are splintered only emphasizes the fact that even a single one of these splinters -- Steam -- is twice as popular as the entirety of Xbox Live. Clearly, we aren't there yet.

I'm not sure why this bothers you so much: the Xbox360 and PS3 are both technologically inferior machines to high end PCs for gaming, period. Obviously that will be true, even when leaving specific discussions behind -- since consoles are stable platforms and PCs are constantly evolving, PCs will always be more capable except for, say, the first 6 months of a console's lifespan (maybe). It doesn't make consoles bad, by any means, and I absolutely agree you should get a 360/PS3 if you prefer the games for those systems (umpteenth+1 time I've said that now!).

Anyone who doesn't have a high end PC that they are constantly upgrading has technologically inferior gaming hardware, by definition. This includes me, by the way, as I only spend 500-600 a year on my PC. Why would anyone attempt to deny this? I'm not saying that the 360, PS3, or any other system isn't worthwhile if you like the games on that specific machine; just accept that none of these stable platforms are top-of-the-line for many days past its release date.

God I give up. I don't care about your other posts, I don't give a damn about how much power it takes to run Crysis or the difference in power between high end PCs and 360. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I quoted you as saying. If you can't back up what you said then so be it, and you've said nothing to back up your statement that Xbox Live is mediocre but the Wii's is distinct. Name 6 features that the Wii's online can do that a PC can't. I actually named 5 for the Xbox Live off the top of my head in one of my previous posts. Surely if the Wii's online is so distinct you'll have no problem naming more.

wats the definition of distinct..?

distinct = features?
in wat context is distinct being used here.... ?

distinct = unique

or take it from encarta

dis·tinct

adjective
Definition:

1. clearly different: clearly different and separate from others
The word has two distinct senses.

2. apparent to senses: easy to hear, see, smell, or understand
I have a very distinct memory of that day.

3. certain: definite or undeniable
I had the distinct impression they'd been arguing.

4. noticeable: strong enough, large enough, or definite enough to be noticed
There's a distinct smell of gasoline in the car.

5. emphatic: very great in degree, e.g. as an honor felt or experienced
a distinct privilege