No one ever argued that the Wii was on par with the PS3 and Xbox 360 hardware-wise. I have argued that the Wii is not just a GC in a different box, and that is true. Even if it's just more powerful GC hardware, then it's more powerful and more capable.
The criteria to be truly "next-gen" is completely arbitrary, based on whatever the speaker wants to argue.
As far as diminishing, the GBA is still the #1 selling portable game system.
To answer the former, I don't think it matters. To answer the latter, if Harmonix is making the same profit margin as Bungie/MS, then they don't have to sell nearly as many copies. Personally, I think their profit margin is probably substantially higher than that which Halo earns. The revenue generating ability of Guitar Hero and Rockband are not in dispute.
Do you mean margin of profit per unit sold? I cannot imagine something being more profitable in that sense than Halo. It's only a disc. Rock Band, on the other hand, has all kinds of fragile equipment, and if you've been keeping up with it, you'll see a lot of people sending equipment back RMA already.
What does Miyamoto's quote show me? It is similar to the GC in framework, and I am not sure why that is necessarily something I should care about. It certainly isn't a repackaged GC. Even if it's just a higher-clocked GC, it's not a GC.
Any of the sports games if your inclined but yes, you can cheat and do minimal movement on nearly all of them, even bowling. I dunno if that's really a plus though.
Cheat? In what way is it cheating?
So...if its basically a gamecube with a nifty controller then there's no technological leap for MS or Sony to replicate the gameplay now is there?
There's the nifty controller…
Yes, Nintendo has been very profitable and stable. But we're not talking about which company's stock to buy but which company's console.
And people seem to think the Wii is well worth buying. Why? Because game systems are about games, not about who put the most R&D into the hardware.
No, the point to address is that Nintendo has effectively written itself out of the uber-console market.
So they're uncompetitive in a market they apparently didn't want to compete in… what a revelation.
No, your assertion was that no one would use motion controllers if Sony and MS introduced them. Why wouldn't they?
I have already discussed this. The controllers that ship with the console are what developers will develop for. People will not be willing to continually buy new controllers just to play new games. There might be exceptions like Rock Band, but those are rare exceptions. If you want evidence, please think of an add-on controller than became widely used across many different game titles.
Wii's success relative to the PS3 is like asking "how, then, do you explain the success of Toyota Corolla relative to the Porsche 911 and BMW 7 series? "Necessary?" Are you quite sure that "luxury interior" and "performance" are the words you want to use?"
Uh-oh, people, we have entered the land of car analogies!
I am not sure where to begin when someone starts comparing Xboxes and Playstations to Porsches and BMWs. There is no similarity here. What makes the 911 and the 7 series special is their brand image, for the most part. Anyone who gets hard over the name "Sony Playstation" or "Microsoft Xbox" isn't worth considering. The image of an Xbox or a Playstation is not worth anything, except to those whose approval no one seeks.
As for "performance", what
performance, specifically? Teraflops?
You cannot both assert that the Wii is equivalent to a "next-gen" console and then claim its not the same thing and therefore can't be compared. Either the Wii is an uber-console and should be compared in terms of CPU and Graphics capability to same generation uber-consoles or its not a "next-gen" uber-console.
I never said the Wii was equivalent. I merely said it was not a repackaged GameCube (which is true) and that it is obviously not an attempt to be like the PS3 and Xbox 360. I don't know how that qualifies it from being "next-gen", you still haven't provided any kind of criteria for that.
Buy the very words "next" and "generation" it seems that the Wii is obviously "next-gen" because it came chronologically after the GC and has different/improved features.
Software is key right? Because you've been arguing that hardware specs are irrelevant.
Yes, it is key, and what first-party makes better software than Nintendo?
And if Nintendo is making profit and cannot adjust to better graphics (a baseless assertion on your part), they can do exactly what Microsoft did, buy your intellectual property and its developer (Bungie).
Microsoft and Sony, for the most part, buy their exclusives with money. Nintendo could easily do the same if they chose to, especially since they sell more units and are more profitable.
As far as hardware, Sony did a lot of the hardware work on the PS3 that it likely won't do on the PS4. Many current hardware companies are going to bow out after 45nm. The last fab that TI will build is 45nm. Going the next process step will be too expensive for everyone except Intel, IBM, AMD (if they're lucky), a couple other companies like Toshiba and Samsung and the uber-foundries. But not Sony which is why it sold its Cell production to Toshiba.
Did Nintendo not do any of the "hardware work" on their consoles?
You make grand statements about what these companies do and do not do, yet you provide no evidence.
The types of games that Nintendo is moving toward are the same kind of games that would most likely appear on Apple products.
Again, confident statements about a reality you can know nothing at all about.