The memories of 360 fans playing together the best games on the best online service,what else?

Hmm... nobody asked the question that, in my eyes, bears asking: are we talking successful from a customer POV, or a business POV? I'll try looking at both:

Consumer-
1. Lower entry price. For the same price as a Wii, you can get a system capable of HD output. Those who've fallen in love with HD like this.
2. Pay only for what you want. The Sony fans insist that you have to buy everything that the PS3 comes with, then try to claim how it's cheaper. But what if I don't want all that crap? I can pick and choose what extras to get with the system. (We here got a Pro for $250, and don't want or need the wireless and BR playback. And at a time when PS3 was $400, that $150 was a lot cheaper. And that doesn't include the $50 giftcard either.)
3. Willingness to back the system. MS knows they screwed up with the RROD. So they went ahead and extended the warranty on this, so that you could buy a system and not have to worry about it dying in a year with no recourse.
4. XBox Live. Sure, it's got a down in having to pay for it. But if there are people still playing a game, you can find them and play along. Note how many XBox 1 games are still being supported and played. In addition, the price does give us another game (1 vs 100), and more that I'll get to.
5. Online marketplace. There are a TON of games in the marketplace, though you will have to dig to find some of the best ones. And if you're a XBL Gold member, MS is one of 2 companies that seems to have regular sales on something to download. (Steam being the other one.) And there are demos for EVERY game, something that would be nice for both Nintendo and Sony to learn.
6. Backwards compatibility. If you had an XBox, you don't start from square one with your game collection. Many of the games are still playable on the 360. And slowly but surely, if you missed an XBox game you want, some of them are being added to the online marketplace; MS is the only company putting this past gen games up for download.
7. Game library. No matter your taste, there's likely to be quite a few games for you. Sandbox games? Check. FPS? Check. RPG? Both Western and Japanese ones are there. Almost all of the cross-platform games with PS3 will look just as good or better, so there isn't the degredation that some would associate with the smaller media.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I still have more to go on the other side...

Business-
1. The red ink has stopped flowing. Yes, the XBox division is still red. But it's being patched up, and is showing quarterly profit consistantly. With persevereance, the red can be cleared up, and profit can be generated.
2. High-margin accessories. Yes, a 360 decked out is more than a PS3. But by setting the entry bar lower, you can sell these add-ons later for more money, and continue to profit. And it could be argued that part of what the consumer pays for is the customability.
3. XBox Live. Those servers do have a decent cost to maintain, but the revenue being generated from the subscribers is easily making money. And the matchmaking service means that you don't have to physically drop support for anything as long as people are still playing it- giving the older games a seemingly longer life, and thus, seemingly more value to the consumer.
4. Game-hungry fanbase. 360 owners buy the most games per system on average. This means that a quality HD game is much more likely to sell on the 360 than the PS3. Pairing the larger current fanbase with the attach rate makes selling more games that much easier.
5. DVD format. Again, the Sony fans blast it, but really, it's a much cheaper format. All of the bugs have been ironed out, more plants with the ability to press them exist, and the lasers to read them are cheaper.
6. Support from MS. If you're a 3rd party, you have the best odds of MS promoting your game over the other 2 companies. While this does cost more, it gives developers the impression that you want them, and makes them more likely to stick around as a multi-plat even if system sales start to sour.

Again, I could probably do more, but this post is getting a little long for my tastes. And I'd be willing to bet that most people here are only skimming this post, and not reading it, from how long it is already.

By that point of view in a Boxing Match the guy that gets defeated isn't a loser, is a successful boxer instead. He's only on second.

 Are you a 50 old homeless since you were 10 years old? Congratulations, you are successful at keeping alive.

I just think this thread is a little fanboyish, but it is my own opinion.

1 year head start 10x

I'm on a Wii, bamboleo so I can't quote but if the Gamecube made Nintendo money from day 1, it's technology is still used in consoles today, and it featured several AAA games, how is it NOT a success? It didn't die like the Dreamcast. It didn't bleed money like the Xbox.

I'm not a billionaire, but I'm successful. Can't there be a grey area? Must it be: Sell the most, be the most powerful, make the most money, or you're a failed console?

But, like I said: Not the time or place for this discussion.

And the 360 IS no failure. And since it's currently #2 worldwide, is the #1 software seller, and increased Microsofts marketshare dramatically, it's no Gamecube, either.

Just thought I'd play devil's advocate on the points above (in blue).

So what are your thougts then? Is only the Wii successful then? Because selling the most and having the most profits the only definition of success? I just have to ask. Are there no levels of success?

Eh, sure, why not. I'll reply in red.

Why don't you tell me, because you mentioned them..

I guess I would say because the playstation community sees this as "sony forum #2?"

Put yourself in the shoes of Nintendo for a second and you will understand what triumph and disaster really means. 

After being dethroned as the king of video gaming during the NES & SNES's reign wouldn't you be back on top of the competition again? For almost a decade Nintendo was used to owning most of the video game market. Don't tell me they didn't want to take it back because no company in its right mind doesn't want to be numero uno. Nintendo was always criticized for having monopolistic tendencies over their game developers ever since. They invested millions of dollars with that goal in mind but did they hit their goal?where did they end up with the Gamecube?

Nintendo with the N64 & Gamecube tried to fight fire with fire as being the most powerful & expensive consoles of their generation. But they went against their own claim with the NES & SNES: "the more powerfur and expensive consore doesnt arways win." History also proves that theory. And what did these consoles had something new to offer compared to CDROM, DVDROM, HDD, Camera etc? CDROM was way more cheaper than cartridges & the Gecko processor was way mor expensive than the overly hyped but cheaper Emotion Engine etc. etc.

The good thing is Nintendo learned its lesson with the Wii. The hardway, hell yes! And Nintendo's success and revenge couldn't have been sweeter if it weren't for its past history.

Relatively, Microsoft Xbox is considered a success bieng a newbie entering the business at the heat of intense competition. That's 4 consoles mind you instead of the usual 3. Nintendo and Sega were seasoned veterans in console hardware manufacturing business compared to Microsoft. Xbox was the underdog and darkhorse of video gaming at that time.

Microsoft Xbox's goal as Bill iconically stated, " Our goal is just to get in the game." And the hell they did meet their goal and even Sony or Nintendo will agree with me  that its a success story in video game history.