WiiNi!

A market is ripe for disruption if the values that drives the industries overshoot the customers' needs. This is how Wii disrupted the PS3/Xbox 360 as the values of realistic graphics, epic storylines, violence and gore overshot the market. The Wii instead introduced pick up and play, social gaming, motion controls which seems to attract more people to gaming today.

So the next console of nintendo will likely not disrupt yet, but will be sustaining upgrades on the new generation values (motion controls, pick-up and play, etc.) The industry haven't overshot those values yet. We will see this sustaining upgrades with the wii motion +.

Or how about use sales to judge?  The "authorities" you cite tend to be a group of like minded individuals whose opinions don't usually mean much to me.  Judging from sales, they're not speaking for most other people, either.

neither, because hopefully nintendo will pick a better name. like the ds system's codename was "atlantis". gamecube's codename was "dolphin", i think nintendo should use whatever their codename is going to be for their next gen system.

@ thekitchensink - I think having no controller at all would be a deadly mistake for two reasons. One, the Wii Remote set up is now standard (or will be in a few months when Wii crosses 50% marketshare) and people see that as the defining aspect of Wii. Not having a controller at all may actually increase the barriers of entry - most people know how to use a TV remote and most know how to shake a stick.

Another reason is that it would alienate many genres - I'm sure Nintendo could make their games work but third parties would definately give up on the system very quickly.

I think Nintendo will try to make their next controller more precise, more functional, more feature heavy but also continue simpifying. As long as they don't make the same mistakes that they have in the past - more is better, see the SNES pad then I see no reason why they can't continue their dominance or even expand upon it.

 Sorry, but naming "fanboy-based" sites like GR and MC does nothing to prove a point. And by saying that, I know I have to prove my side. Observe the sheer number of games that get a multitude of reviews even before a game is out! I'll take KZ2, since several of the Sony fanboys are heralding its MC score. The was not yet out when it had 100 reviews! I would put money on at least 95% of them being fanboy hype. And of course the fanboys are going to give it a perfect 10, artifically raising the game's score. (I will also say this happens with all the companies; I do not intend to say it is only Sony games that do this.) With the sheer number of fanboys there, I'd want a salt block before I trust those numbers as a guide to quality.

So what about "professional" VG review sites? They all sold out to graphics long ago. It's easier to say a game looks pretty and score it high for that, than it is to tell someone why to play a game despite it not looking that great. It's no question that the PS3 and 360 are capable of putting out better graphics than the Wii. (Though I would also argue that part of the Wii's problem is companies not trying to push it graphically; they only try to tack on poorly thought-out motion and want it to sell.) Why play the Wii version of a game when the PS360 version(s) look better? I would even go so far as to say that reviewers stopped reviewing actual gameplay back in the PS1 era. It all came down to looks. The reviewers have forcefed the mainstream that prettiness = good game for so long, that people started to believe it. If it wasn't for Nintendo, I do think there would be severe market stagnation, if not retraction, with another crash eminent.

So... quality of games. Step back from the graphics, and measure how the game actually plays. I'm not saying that being on the Wii means its better; there are some games, especially early in, that were simply atrcious for playing. (Red Steel, I'm looking at you.) Nonetheless, Nintendo has found a market that never really bought into the graphics issue, or, in some cases, even really cared much about gaming. For those people, the "quality" of Wii games is vastly higher, as they can figure out what to do. For some of the displaced from gaming (like myself), we finally get to see a different way to interact with the games. No longer is it simply a case of button-mashing. The games on the Wii that are done well (and yes, there are plenty) are far more immersive than just sitting there with a controller, and by actually finding another way to pull me into the game, are thus, higher quality.

Regarding the original topic- both will come out at the same time, in 1 system. Given the way Nintendo has expanded the market so much with the Wii name, I do think it would be foolish of them to discard it now. Although they will try to find a way to further branch out, and get those last holdouts.

"The Wii color"

The wii in many different colors.