Because nearly 7 million Wiis are already sold?

Nintendo's usual strategy is to dribble out games slooooowly, so that there are never too many hits in the marketplace at one time consuming each other's oxygen. That makes sense--usually. But right now is a completely different case. Nintendo needs to maintain its sales rate advantage if it's going to overtake the 360 in the US and maintain its lead over the PS3 in Japan. A slow second half of 2007 could cause the Wii to lose momentum and fall at a time when it's crucial to reach escape velocity. If by December 2007 the Wii is still in the lead, developers are going to start moving all their new projects to the Wii. Once that happens, if you want the game you need the system, and Nintendo has it made. If the Wii juggernaut slows in the second half of 2007, then the developers will split. US devs will follow the 360, and Japanese devs will follow the PS3. If that happens, Wii is going to be stuck in the middle and (while doing quite well) won't dominate. Thus, the pressure is on for Nintendo to churn out as much as possible as soon as possible. We'll see how that works out for them...

One problem with tweaking the controls for stuff like tennis is that the Wiimote is unable to get at the rotational degree of freedom around the vertical axis unless the sensor bar is within viewing range (and even if the bar is within range, we're talking hack city) - for tennis, this will not be the case, as during a swing the front of the remote would be pointed away from the TV. Similarly, sword-fighting is never going to be quite possible with the remote as it is.

It's too bad they didn't add something that could pick this DOF up; I must assume they considered it and determined that it would be prohibitively expensive (the most efficient way would probably either be a gyroscope or several distance sensors in the remote - 3 should be enough, I think - but I suppose both of these methods must have been found lacking for one reason or another, either moving parts or cost).

That said, I love the system and have had lots of fun with it. I look forward to more games coming out.

Nintendo didn't drop the ball with online play. They're not even playing in that field, they're over there, playing a different, more interesting game. It's called single player games

Nintendo's usual strategy is to dribble out games slooooowly, so that there are never too many hits in the marketplace at one time...

I haven't seen a Wii on the shelf yet, so I'm just hoping that I can casually purchase one by the time these games come out. It may have nothing to do with titles competing with each other, but more to do with waiting until they've sold their current round of hardware and aren't engendering ill will by being unable to provide consoles. If I were the big N (aka, making a profit on console hardware), I'd want at least a million Wii's sitting on shelves and warehouse palletes before launching my sure-fire hits.

Basically, demand for consoles (in the absence of the hit games) should be satisified before the game increases console demand. Anything else would be lost sales. Claiming that the extra time is being used for debugging and quality assurance might just be PR smoke and mirrors.

So, because the "revolutionary" control gets old you go back to play with another non-standard, and older, control in a music game.

Calm down, Yes, there aren't many games worth playing now, and when you play a lot you finish them really fast. The problem is that third party publishes didn't invest in developing for the Wii earlier, so now we have to wait to get more games. I guess we'll have a mediocre first year and a half, before everyone gets their games done.

The control scheme is all but getting old. You could do without moving the hands around, but the way to play Zelda is just great. I couldn't simply go back to play a similar game on a ps2 controller (my other console, and yes technically I could). It just feels right, only with mouse and keyboard I'd get the same degree of control.

Obviously it's not good for all types of games, I believe fighting games would be better with classical controllers. But a control good enough for people from 3 to 300 years old can not get old fast. The controller isn't the problem, the lack of games is (partly).

Resistance has turned out to be the greatest online game I've ever played

You must have missed out on the last ten years of PC gaming. Putting aside the fact that FPS games are utterly horrible on consoles, Resistance is mediocre at best.

Then slowly as the ps3 gains traction along with cost reductions in manufacturing and increasing tech availible for the ps3 you'll see the ps3 come back in 2008 as a dominating system. In fact, I think it makes long term sense for it to work out that way. Sony loses less money, and ends up with a 2 generation system that sells faster at a profit.

What you're missing from the parent post is that, if Nintendo can dominate this Christmas--heck, even if it can just run even with the 360 and double-team the PS3--then Sony won't get a chance to gain traction. The PS3 is a technological juggernaut. If Nintendo lets up, even a little bit, Sony will eat their lunch again. But if Nintendo can stay definitively on top for the next eight months or so, the PS3 is unlikely to recover.

I'm not sure this is what you meant, but when you say "2 generation system" I think you mean the PS3 to span the life of the Wii and the Wii's successor. That actually woulnd't surprise me. I've noted elsewhere that the PS3 (and even the 360, to a lesser extent) are in many ways actually hampered because they push the technology envelope. Game development is more expensive, mor complicated, takes more space, consoles must be sold at a loss, a lot of games look like crap in standard-def, ad infinitum. In many ways 2008/2009 is where I would expect the PS3 to be hitting its stride technologically, so if this is what you meant, I tend to agree.

The problem is if, by that point, the 360 will has more or less dominated the HD/early adopter/hardcore markets and the Wii has dominated the casual/retro/we-just-want-fun-games/kids markets, the PS3 may basically be a wash. Plus, Nintendo is sitting on a huge pile of cash due to its recent successes, and they know, perhaps better than anyone, that the Wii launch was a perfect storm. The Wii successor will need to come a little bit earlier than its competitors, I think, but as the Wii sells for profit Nintendo will be in a decent position to make that happen.

I'm no oracle, and the PS3 is an impressive machine, but I don't think it's ever going to be the market juggernaut that the PS2 was (heck, that the PS2 still is). The only current gen console I own is the Wii, and frankly I don't want anything else. Which is probably good because I can't afford anything else right now, but when I graduate from Law School maybe I'll change my mind.

Regardless, Christmas cannot come fast enough. d^_^b

Mario Sunshine, Mario Strikers, Metroid Prime, Super Smash Brothers Melee and Paper Mario 2. The Gamecube is looking better and better...

Whenever I look at the Wii I kind of get a déjà vu, I already played all those games or their prequels on the Cube, adding a bit motion control here and there is all nice and good, but where are the new games? I mean the completly new ones, not the franchise recycling that is going on here. So far I see only Disaster Day of Crisis and Project HAMMER, but they look like generic shovelware that you wouldn't even waste to look at when they would be announced for a PS2, not like the potential tripple AAA titles that I would expect from Nintendo.