Success for Nintendo's handhelds come not from their innovations or gimmicks, but rather (like most consoles) their impressive libraries. A notable exception is the Wii. It largely got by on it's control scheme, which was literally a game changer. However, if casual consumers didn't drive the market, then I doubt the Wii would have the largest market share of the current generation of consoles. Like the Gamecube before it, the third party support was lacking, and as such, what you largely have in the Wii library are shovelware and quick cash-ins that aim to take advantage of the novelty of motion controls. The 3DS is will no doubt have an impressive library, but what of the Vita. The PSP didn't do so well in the US, probably due to the higher cost compared to the DS. The DS reached out to casual consumers as well as core gamers, while the PSP was generally for people already invested in gaming. On a side note, Nintendo already seems to be burning some bridges...namely, in relation to their marketing strategies and their established fanbase. It's no secret that they are actively seeking out a larger audience by appealing to people who aren't gamers. However, it seems to come at the expense of us who are "hardcore" gamers. I don't speak for everyone, but going into the future, Nintendo is going to have to give me more than Pokemon/Mario/Zelda to keep me happy.

Huh...it took the death of a social game for them to think about this? How about the countless MMOs that have gone under? It's the main reason I've got an issue with online-only gaming. As others have said, when the servers shut down, you're left with a completely unusable product. People didn't pay money for Tabula Rasa to have it end up as a coaster less than a year later. And alexLmx6, you're absolutely right. The same thing is inevitable with cloud gaming. As a streaming service, when the servers go down, your game is unplayable. That's not acceptable to me. It's been 22 years since I got my NES, and I can still play every game I ever bought for it. Will gamers of the "cloud computing" age be able to say the same down the line?

Of the games noted for being connected to ARGs, the only one I've had any interest in is Bioshock 2, and I definitely missed the boat on that one. To think, there was this whole facet of the gaming community that I was largely unaware of...and it's something I'd like to get in on. The world is wide indeed.

THIS was the straw that broke the camel's back, huh? The "downloadable content that shipped on the disc but needed to be purchased separately" should have raised red flags for everyone whose ever bought a retail game, but as others have said, consumers have bought into these price models and will likely continue to do so. They continue to nickel and dime us, yet they consider me the bad guy because I buy used? Second hand users aren't the problem here: dishonest and greedy businessmen are. Because at the end of the day, no one can justify to me why I should have to pay to access content I have already purchased (DLC or "disc-locked" content). The thing is: we're not getting the same game for full retail anymore. They can say they are trying to combat the used game market all they like, but it's clear that a number of companies are now simply chopping that 100% back to 70% and simply making us pay a premium for that last 30%. It's one thing for Rockband to sell you addition songs to cater to your personal tastes, but it's an entirety different thing for Capcom to sell you something purely aesthetic at a high premium (alternate costumes at $5 a pop).

The developers would love to guilt me into paying full price to support them, but they are completely overlooking the flipside of that: the consumer side, if you will. They want to make as much money as possible...and I want to SAVE as much as possible. To me, you can make any argument you please about "supporting the industry"...but why would I pay more when I don't have to? If Game X is retailing for \$60 (new) a full six months after release, yet someone is willing to sell me their (like new) copy for \$35, why pay the extra money? Because I'm not "supporting" the developers otherwise? Hardly. If it's a good game, then I'll spread the word whenever I can. I bought Okami, and loved it. In fact, I watched it for over a year before release, purchased it on release day, and told everyone I knew who were into games about it. That's also how you support the industry. Forget all that nonsense about games not being worth \$60. I cut my teeth on Atari 2600 and Collecovision, and have been a gamer for life. I recall the days when a new SNES or Genesis title might cost \$70 or \$80 at Toys R Us. Without us "oldschool" gamers such as myself, the industry might never have gotten to be the billion dollar industry it is today. So listen devs...give it a rest. I've been supporting you since the late 80s. Stop trying to make me out as some ne'er-do-well because I decided that I want to play games AND save money as well.

I don't like where this is going. Personally speaking, the only genres that I feel motion controls make superior are first person shooters and racing games. Using the Wiimote to aim onscreen and improve accuracy.aiming speed is simply an evolution of light guns, whereas steering in games like Mario Kart eliminates the need for racing wheels. However, every other application seems to vary buy developer or game. Swinging a melee weapon still is imperfect, and is better suited to button presses at the moment. Same deal with sports equipment (ie rackets,clubs,sticks, etc.). I'd still rather just use directional pads and button presses to place that tennis ball just behind the net to trip up my opponents. But perhaps more importantly is the cost. Generally speaking, the Wiimote is necessary for every game made for Wii, while Move will be an optional peripheral. A PS3 is already more expensive than a Wii, but when you add the additional cost trying to move casual gamers to a more expensive option becomes an uphill battle. I own a Wii, not because the motion controls interested me way back when, but because I knew there would be new entries into Nintendo's established franchises that I wanted to play. I already have vanilla-flavored motion controllers, so I don't see a need nor have a desire to own another flavor. Sony, prove me wrong.

I'm with Muzzy on this one...no Fatal Frame? I don't see how people find zombies more frightening than ghosts. Zombies have to obey the laws of physics for the most part...ghosts come straight at you through solid objects while you have to run around tables and tombstones...

To the many who have made cohesive, intelligent arguments thus far, thank you. We're talking about gaming systems here, whose primary function is to play games. If you're looking at the tech specs and making a selcetion based on power, I think you're going about it the wrong way. That kind of analysis would be more plausible when selecting a PC, as opposed to a console. As it's been said before, if you're going to pick and choose then do it based on what games you like, and not on popular opinion or media pressure. Sure, I don't own an Xbox, but that's only because it has a poor selection of RPGs when compared to its competitor, the PS2. I have no doubts that the PS3 will offer a similiar selection, so I've already resolved to purchase one in the future. As for the Wii, that will definitely make it into my home, as Nintendo has earned my loyalty and trust over the years. With regards to the 360, I'll reserve my judgement. It seems it's garnering the support of large companies which are known for RPGs, but whether it delivers or not remains to be seen. I'll wait for now.

Amen to that. But the cost of actually upgrading my PC to a level where it could run something like Oblivion or KOTOR would probably dwarf the price of a new PC. I'll likely go with Alienware concerning the later...this old Compaq needs to be put out of its misery...