Let me just ask, what would the industry be this generation without Wii if we look at the salesnumbers at current standings? Pretty meh if you ask me.

Why can´t certain Sony and Microsoft fanboys appreciate what Nintendo does for this wonderful hobby of ours?

It´s fine if you don´t like the games that are on Nintendo´s system, we differ in taste. But give credit to Nintendo, they are unique after all, they offer a whole other experience with both the games and the way we play games than Sony or Microsoft does and Nintendo are the number 1 reason the videogamingindustry is still expanding and this in harsh economic times.

Just face it, Nintendo won this generation and that´s it. Oh well, I´ll stop my rant here.

lol lol lol lol

 You bring up a very interesting parallel. One of the things that I have thought for a while was that gaming was stagnating, with nothing but graphics mattering, we were starting to approach a crash similar to that in 1984. If it were not for the risky (but now commonplace) move Nintendo made in 1985 (assuring stores full buyback of unsold units), console gaming would be dead, and the only thing we'd be playing games on would be the PC. (Conversely, the shovelware being thrown on the Wii is very reminiscent of said days, making me wonder if a different crash could be approaching.) Truthfully, though, arguments similar to this do surface every once in a while; I remember end-of-gaming comments when Nintendo insisted on "sweat" in MK1. As long as the companies wisen up, and start actually putting games with an effort out consistantly, this "end-of-gaming" will be another step in history. Conversely, if they don't get their acts together, and we (as a society) instead stop buying said crap, then we'll have another reset on our hands, creating a hiccup akin to 25 years ago. The real question for now is, who would step in to save it again, should that happen?

Historically, the industry shows some pretty consistent trends. There's generally an antimainstream period of about 10 years (the pre-arcade days, end years of the Atari 2600, the PS1 and PS2 generations), and 10 years of mainstream interest (arcades, NES, Wii). The cycle, if not properly restarted, leads to an industry failure about 5 years out from when the cycle hits the end of a 20-year loop (though funnily enough, the industry is only ever threatened with a crash during an antimainstream portion of the cycle).

The industry can be rebooted at any time with a disruptive product which draws mainstream attention back to it, of course, and that's what Nintendo did in 1985 and 2006. Following the cyclical trends, we should see the antimainstream side of the cycle emerge in about 2016 (1995 was the definitive shifting point last time, with the PS1), and a need for a full industry reboot around 2026 or so (give or take a few years), with an almost inevitable industry crash by 2031 if no successful disruption occurs.

^fair enough.

Following the logic of the original poster, we need to have this happen:
1. Bow to the words "graphics are what matter the most", and instantly stop production of the PS2. The PS2 is an embarrassment graphicwise today to videogames.
2. Force every game to use a joypad controller, because that must be the only REAL controller.
3. Get the world to see games like Grand Slaughter Deathrace 2000 are the ONLY games everyone MUST play.
4. Abolish all retro gaming. NO Super Mario Bros, Tetris, or Radiant Silvergun for you!

I personally don't like this world, so I reject the original poster's comments.

as the PS2 left the race to let the Xbox and Gamecube fight??

I don't find logic on this thread!

@Sky Render

You've extrapolated a lot from a single twenty-year period.  I'm not sure if you're allowed to do that! :)  You're assuming that future twenty year periods will be the same as the previous twenty years but why should anyone believe that.  Many variables have changed.  If we had multiple twenty-year cycles in the past then your argument would have weight but that's simply not the case.  Also, how do you know that after twenty-year loops there exists the distinct possibility of industry failure.  I believe there's only been one loop and there was no industry failure.  I believe your cycle is 1985 to 2006 and I don't think people were concerned a couple years ago about industry failure.  Some may have been concerned for Nintendo's failure pre-Wii but was anyone thinking the industry would fail in 2006?  If you're thinking that Nintendo revitalized a dying industry in the early 80's that wouldn't help your argument since I don't think anyone was console gaming in the early 60's.  I admit to being a noob and not very smart but I don't follow your logic.  Please help me if I'm missing something.

dunno001 - Thanks for saying that simply stating something doesn't make it true.  If I say, "Not to be mean, but you're quite ugly," to my wife.  That would be still be mean.  Original poster should know this.

Also, should Jordan, Ali, Tiger Woods, Jim Brown, Montana/Rice, the Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, Yankees, etc. all at their peak be considered the equivalent of referees and not competition simply because nobody could hold a candle to them?? 

 Not to be mean to the OP or anything but there isn´t any logic in this thread.

I'm just looking at the most likely scenario. The industry, technically, hasn't ever crashed on a whole. A sector of it (consoles) did crash in 1984, but PC gaming kept on even then, and in fact a few PC gaming series had their debut in that time (such as the King's Quest series, the first of which came out in May of 1984). There actually is a pattern if you look at the industry as a whole, an industry which has existed for a considerably longer and more consistent time period than just looking at consoles would suggest.