His question was followed by...

"360 has the top total software and third party software for America.

Wii is 100m-53m=47m, 360 131-28= 103. Now I believe this is because third parties think like you do, and don't think about the Wii. They are bad business people and are throwing away potential business by making no compelling software for the average NA "core" gamer."

...which impies the Wii is being ignored for the wrong reasons for some according to steven787 (which I agree), not because of some general acceptance of being first.  Context, baby, context.  And victory... what victory???  I ain't got no beef with you or for anyone else.

:)

so you want to shift arguments now, okay if there were two qestions up there, i can go for the second one.  for developers, you need look no further than high profile games such as cod:waw and madden to see why they are not getting more high profile games. devs will continue to test out the waters trying to figure out what works in terms of major 3rd party games, but until they find that formula, you are going to see lots and lots of shovelware, that has worked for them. things like carnival games.

this is the same thing you see on the ds, it took along time for the ds to get menaingfull 3rd party games to work out, most of which are rpgs, i feel the wii will do very well on this end too.  honestly i think the wii would do very well with classic side scrollers being remade for it, because the ds, and wii userbase overlaps tremendously. so there is a solution.

as for why the 360 and ps3 keep getting the major 3rd party titles, look no further then the 360s million seller list, and then remember that a port ebtween these two consoles is fairly easy to do vs reducing the game for the wii. 

there you have it

i replyed read my next post. there were two questions there i addessed the first one

"Seriously, why is the Wii never counted." doesnt have a question mark, but is a question

anything can happen and if this gen is supposed to be 10 years then we have a long way to go. th main reason sony is not doing well is because they dont have the games. For the last 2 years the 360 has had the best line up.

I know you replied.  I read you post, and I respectfully disagree with it because I agree with Steven787 for asking a rhetorical question which he fleshed out his intentions.  I understand your point, but just backing what he said with my understanding.

1. This gen won't be 10 years

2. Sony has the games. That excuse is old

3. Miracles are unrealistic. If sony drops the ps3 to $100, M$ will give the 360 away for free just to "win"

Really, what I see if MS was to hang on and beat Sony in Europe or others, then you would see some EU company or UK company try to come out with its own console. I think Sony or Namco or Sega or someone else would try to release a console to try to reach the Asian market if Sony decided not to release a dedicated console next time, the 360 would win America in the next gen, and much like this gen Nintendo would win worldwide because of the fact that they have characters that are popular in all regions.

So Nintendo would win worldwide and still compete in America (but I think they would come in second to MS' next console there), another European company would enter the picture in Europe and there might be several companies vying for second place spoils to Nintendo in Asia. Asian gaming would become much more insular. I don't know if an EU developed console could gain any real footing in the Americas.

Basically it could become much like the time when they had all those microcomputers competing in different territories and they usually didn't appear in other territories like the days of the C-64 in America, MSX in Japan and Spectrum, and Amstrad (I think in Europe).

But what would that do for high budget gaming? Certainly, Nintendo and MS games would still be well supported; however, if you liked all those little Japanese games that were so good yet introduced to American only because of the popularity of the PS2, then you might be disappointed that you wouldn't be getting too many of those.

The problem is why pay £200 for a bluray player then £20 for 1 Blu Ray movie? Ok so the quality of picture may be slightly better (according to first reviews it's not much) and I understand DD 6.1 is available for HD streaming on 360. So for £160 + £60 + £40 = £260 for unlimited at your fingertips HD movies. Thats 12 months live and 12 months Netflix converted to Enlish £. The PS3 is £300 on it's own with no BLU RAY films. PS3 + 5 HD BLU RAY films is £400. Streaming is certainly the future and I expect BLU RAY in America to slowly die out from Christmas onwards.

there's a group of people that would always like to have physical copies. Here's why: For example, what if sony corp cans their gaming division and my ps3 breaks, what happens to the games I downloaded from PSN?

I was originally thinking about buying a PS3 when the price dropped another $100 or so. However, then I saw the Xbox 360 fall from $250 to $170 and the 20GB HDD for $20 (which turned out to be $30 for me). I thought hey, there are a few games on Xbox 360 worth buying, renting, and borrowing from friends. I also like many of the demos. So I got the system. I am happy about my purchase. The 360 complements the better Wii and DS systems which I also own.

Since 360 and PS3 have mostly the same games and while some of the games tend to be slightly better of the PS3, some are better on the 360. Even though the games are similar, the 360 costs much less (about what the PSP costs), comes with 6 games, and has less expensive games. And yes, I understand that many of the games start at the same prices, used Xbox 360 games cost less than used PS3 so the games cost less. Heck, used 360 games are often less expensive than used Wii games.