Videogames can be used to tell stories, but it's best represented by its uniqueness.

Gaming started with sports, which was pong. You can develop a story into it, but eventually you'll turn it into something else entirely. I think many gamers who have bought into the PlayStation revolution got caught up in the promise that games can be as glamour as hollywood films, and they can be.

I think they have already done that to an extent, and that was a good field toexplore for a while, but now this drive is turning gaming into somekind of passive medium.

I believe gaming's true identity is proactive. Not only in regards to gameplay, but also to players in real life. Games used to be, and need to be more engaged with lifestyles, not less.

I know it's already been commented on but i can't believe the amount of fail in this statement.

Even if you ignore their actual respective bottom lines for a second and concede that the 360 does actually have a higher attach rate, you are ignoring; Nintendo's much higher install base, NINTENDO sells a crapload of software on their system, Nintendo gets far more money for first party game sales than Microsoft for their 3rd-party-dominated game sales and Wii games cost less to make which is important when you are talking about profit, not revenue. 

And if Microsoft is making so much money on software it counts for nothing if it doesn't show up on the balance sheet.  Nintendo's "hail mary pass" has merely shifted their profits from consistently excellent to astronomical and to suggest the Wii was somehow an accidental success is severely underestimating Nintendo's business savvy.