LOL IGN. Now I remember why I stopped reading them even before the wii appeared.

Morons.

Oh you're reading the article as if it's attacking the Wii rather than reading it for what it is, which is why your points make very little sense in regards to the article trying to prove a point. If that's the case I'll just continue letting you think it's an anti-Wii article rather than an article that is giving reasons as to why the next generation shouldn't come faster.

....What does this have to do with Nintendo?

Oh my this thread is quite something...

@OP, seems like there are games who vehemently disagree with you about that IGN article:

"This is the best IGN article I've read in a long time!
It absolutely makes sense, it's well written (for IGN), and summarizes all of the main arguments well. I hope that Sony and Microsoft are listening..."
(POST FROM COMMENTS SECTION ON ORIGINAL ARTICLE)

"(Edouble replying to elmerion) Just incase you didn't know this article is about why we should NOT move onto another gen faster. Try reading the whole thing rather than...whatever the hell it was you did."
(POST FROM THIS THREAD)

Now I actually read the IGN article:

"We're really now at the point where it's artistry and art direction that makes games stand out, and we don't need another set of consoles to make the most of that kind of talent. "
(FROM ARTICLE)

I HAVE to say that this^^ is one hell of a point. In fact, the article is full of very good points.

Don't you know? IGN was anti-Wii before the Wii came out.

It has to do with Wii because what IGN calls evolution and next-gen is what the Wii already does.

The article tries to spin the reasons why the PS3 and Xbox 360 "lost" the console war into an article about why it's a good thing that Sony and MS have lost so much money this gen, that they have to sell upgrades, "safe games," and delaying titles and can't afford to make new consoles or risky-creative games.

Edit: Besides, the article mentions Wii several times.

I think many of the users on VGChartz are from parallel universes somehow connected and able to communicate, though with very different laws of logic.

That wasn't what the article was saying but if the Wii is already doing this stuff than why should we go onto the next gen? What you said supports the IGN article really. You guys really seem to be looking for Wii bashing when it's not there. This is an article about why 360 and PS3 should stay around longer than the typical 5-6 years. If the article is so stupid why isn't anyone here actually proving their points wrong? The article has very little to do with Wii yet you all seem to think it does. Why is that?

The article makes a lot of good points.... but 3 years late. Development cost? Game's prices too high? Gaming is not all about graphics? A lot of this issues are precisely the reason Nintendo made the Wii in the first place, but the Wii is not mentioned until the end with phrases like:

"the Wii has proven to be a support system at best for core gamers"

or

"Console war-leading gameplay. Does anyone else want to clock this kid in the head with his own balance board?"

Is it so hard for IGN to give credit to Nintendo for addressing all of those issues even before they knew about them? That's the problem I have with this article, it has good points... but 3 years late.

It's not 3 years late! Game prices being too high will be a huge problem IF we move onto the next generation. Gaming not being all about graphics means that we can use these current consoles for longer, so don't bring on the high powered next gen consoles, because we all want those to be very powerful. This article is NOT about the Wii. It's about 360 and PS3 so all of their points as to why 720 and PS4 shouldn't come so soon are valid, aside the last one.