Many people, while they are slowly being forced to come to terms with what's actually going on now, are ultimately writing it off as a fluke outcome (some even out of hope that things will right themselves back to where they were). For those of you who need the Wii to fail to validate your manhood, enter the flock of Sony Fanatics, I will now prove that the Wii's current success is both demanded by all actual precedent, and that furthermore the Sony run which is now ending was the actual proverbial house of cards that couldn't go on forever. You will learn that the so called common sense knowledge was exactly what you were led to believe at Sony's hand.
First of all many of you don't see how the Wii can ultimately win out in the end because it is the inferior hardware and clearly the inferior hardware always fails. If you're still holding this belief, then you haven't even once ever looked at the facts. In the first real console war victory went to the Atari 2600 over the Intellivision (yes, both are equally fugly by today's standards, but one look at the George Plimpton's adds will instantly show that the Intellivision was for it's time a clear technological winner). While the Intellivision looked better, and allowed for games with more depth, the Atari 2600 still won out. However, since a lack of giving a single fucking damn by Atari also killed the entire market just as the first successors were coming in, I will bypass the extremely short lived era of the Atari 5200 and Colecovision as both were basically birthed on a nuclear testing site minutes before the detonation metaphorically speaking.
Next came the war between the Nintendo Entertainment System and the Sega Master System. The SMS was the NES's superior in more or less every way imaginable (except for one rather bizarre choice of pause button placement), although most of you are probably not even aware of this fact due to the SMS's limited exposure during its life span in the US and the fact the most well known SMS game, Phantasy Star, does the SMS great dishonor (in both graphics AND gameplay). However, the NES won hands down almost the entire world over (even in parts of the world such as Japan where the SMS managed to launch first). Yes, Nintendo played dirty during this era, but developers would not be open to being yanked around by dirty tactics unless they are being pulled by the one already leading the market (thus meaning the NES managed to first shoot past the SMS to pole position, who had an earlier start, SANS the foul tactics in Japan). During this time period time Nintendo also refused to have their NES, or Gameboy even, cave in before the Atari Lynx which was a system superior to everything else at the time (the fact that it was a battery guzzler sure didn't help).
The argument of which system was better in the next great war is a matter of great debate if you look only at system specs. That said, one can't argue that the Super Nintendo Entertainment System did not produce better images and sounds than the Sega Genesis (partially due to the SNES's custom soundchip and hardware scaling, but largely due to the fact that more and more games built for it over time used coprocessors built into the cartridges (of which the commonly known Super FX chip was only ONE of many)). All that said, the systems were quite similar in output in most cases. Sega had the advantage of getting to the market early by two years building confidence through a lack of challenge, and Nintendo had the advantage of their exclusive titles and being the incumbent winner from the previous generation. Where as Nintendo played it smart this era (with the exception of bad business dealings with Sony that eventually lead to the creation of the system that became their actual bane), Sega would ruin their chances for the rest of the console war this era with repeatedly slapping the consumer with add on peripherals that largely weren't worth the cost and extremely unsupported. Remember that all the technologically superior challengers to approach this era, before the coming of the Sony Playstation, all failed due to price despite inherently superior abilities for the time: the Neo Geo (not that SNK actually intended for it to win the household battlefield), the 3DO, and the Atari Jaguar. Thus while Nintendo and Sega shared victory in this era, they did so against all superior challengers.
In the next round of the war, things get complicated. However, by paying attention to the forces actually driving the market, we'll realize the real reason the Sony Playstation won compared to the story Sony propagated to ensure they continued to win. First of all, I can safely say the inferior hardware won again. For those of you who still think the Playstation was more powerful than the Nintendo 64, please spare us all your contamination of the gene pool and put a gun in your mouth as you still haven't figured out that pretty FMVs don't reflect anything related to actual system power (meaning you are too retarded to be allowed to procreate). The Saturn failed as Sega had done much to ruin their name in the previous generation (and finished off what little credibility they still had this era by discontinuing it early in the US). Nintendo's Nintendo 64 lost, however, because of a large number of stupid decisions driven either by really bad market predictions, Hiroshi Yamauchi's arrogance, or often both. CDs were cheaper to produce than Cartridges, thus games made for the PSX could be sold profitably for less than games made for the N64 which had heavy production costs just to bring a game to market after it was programmed (which also ensured that if the game got marked down, you lost money when it sold at the lowered cost in many cases). Despite all this, the Nintendo 64 did start off well. However, cheaper games (often in both price and sadly quality) was an attractive thing for the PSX because it made its library larger (the bulk of which, again, was predominantly crap). Once you become a market leader, it's easy to stay the market leader because more games get made for the winner as that's where the customers are.
It must be said, though, that Sony, both to get revenge for Hiroshi Yamauchi slapping them in the face the previous era, and to ensure that nothing happened to sway the momentum they were building, began to heavily push the concept that if you own a Nintendo system you are gay(ED note: Anyone around back then should remember the phrase "Kiddie"). I hate to say it, but most gamers, despite the fact they are often socially considered rejects, are still image conscious by virtue of the fact they are still in fact human. So when you're already shunned for being a gamer, you don't want to double slap of being viewed amongst your actual gaming peers as some sort of fruit because you'd rather play good games with quality in them than bad games featuring gratuitous content and bad gameplay. Don't believe me? Look at how many people constantly hoped that Nintendo would go the way Sega did so that they could have their Nintendo games on a system that didn't make them gay for having it. Many gamers wanted to play Nintendo's offerings, but couldn't act on it and had to convince themselves otherwise lest they be gay according to Sony. This image, combined with Nintendo's screw up performance with the N64, greatly helped to create what happened in the next era.
When people are programming for real, and not doing crap ports, it is known that order of quality from best to worst performance wise of the next era is Xbox, Gamecube, and lastly Playstation 2. The winner, again, was the lowest power performer: the Playstation 2. Being out a year before all the actual competition (the Dreamcast pre-buried both by Sega's past sins and Sony's incumbent status hype machine), ensured that they won despite being more expensive than the Gamecube. Like the Playstation 1, the Playstation 2 had a library that was large (and again largely dreck). The Xbox carved a niche for itself by putting forth a hard core marketed image that were not gay, and by having a library with a far better quality to dreck ratio than the PS2 (thus being the choice of refined gamers). The Gamecube, while not repeating any of its sins from the previous era, was forced to carry around the weight of sins still remembered from the previous era as well as the stigma that you're trying to tell everyone you're gay if you play it. Because Nintendo was actually worried about the quality of game play, rather than producing bad games that let image conscious gamers feel they were mature because they had blood and sex (and no game play), Nintendo unfortunately produced many classic gems with graphics that only fed Sony's lie machine. However, the direction Sony was pushing the market in, to keep their throne, was killing the potential of the market by excluding too many potential customers and many companies all around began posting massive losses. Some were beginning to wonder if a second collapse was nigh.
People say to me that the Wii can't win because it's the least powered, but reality has shown us that least powerful system amongst the real contenders (half-baked abortions that never contended at all like the TurboGrafx not counted) has always been the first place winner. People say that most gamers must have a PS3 because they want graphics, to that I tell them to relook at the previous point. People point out the controls are weird and under-buttoned, to that I point out it's brought back the portion of the market that Sony drove off when they dethroned Nintendo. People say that Nintendo still can't win because they can't have third party super sellers be on the system because it's not the most powerful and companies like Square Enix must produce only for the PS3 or XBOX entirely because of their system power. Again, I tell you that Square (before joining Enix) chose the least performers PS1 and PS2 because they had the most support, not because of their power. Also, while Square was always known for phenomenal graphics, those were always the FMV CUTSCENES which don't rely at all on actual system power. Already Square-Enix has committed the most important series in Japan, Dragon Quest, to the Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii. While Sony did have incumbent status, it blew its house of cards up when it proved to all but the most fanatical Sony fans at the last traditional E-3 that they are in fact idiots that can't deliver on any of their claims. The Xbox 360's secured position comes from both a head start, and their continued stance of title excellence from the strictly hardcore only market viewpoint (which where as Sony pandered to them with their claims that the PS line made you not gay, Sony continually failed to provide games that catered to their real gameplay content desires).
I think I've said my piece here. I could go on to show that the handheld wars show the same thing, but no one needs that proved to them as it has always been obvious without saying. Although, it must be said, even though it was quite obvious some still did get hosed on Sony's house of cards made from lies with the promise of the PSP. Thus, with all I have shown you, the Wii, due to a lack of GCN sins to pay for, is actually a very logical winner as per past market trends. Sony's sins this era actually makes it far more likely they don't came back next time as they've left a foul taste in people's mouths, and unless Nintendo does something especially stupid again (unlikely after Hiroshi Yamauchi mercifully retired himself) they will find it very trying to get back to pole position against incumbent winners from this generation (and a pack of lies only helps you keep pole position, not get into it).