I guess it just depends where your priorities are. Would I rather have Nintendo show up with a completed console? Of course.

But am I going to be so excited by the xBox 360 that I won''t pay attention to Nintendo? Not a chance.

Zelda looks amazing. I''m damned excited about an online network for my DS. Maybe it can be more stable than Sony''s stupid Infrastructure. A lot of us are saying ""The GBA was where it''s at."" Well hey, guess what, now you get one with built in wireless and the ability to download games and demos. Pretty cool, huh?

The NeXtBox (or whatever they''ve decided to call it), on the other hand? We get to see this thing that they''re going to release in November, and we get to see all the bells and whistles, for what? We''ll see the unit with the wireless controllers and the hard-drive, only to find out that that''s $200 extra on top of the $300 system (which will come with one wired controller and no hard drive). Not to mention the thing is WHITE. Seriously. Make it chrome or something, but WHITE? So ugly. It looks like it belongs next to my mom''s blender. ""But you can put skins on it!?"" Awesome. Really. Because I''d much rather have a garish blue and yellow sunburst color system than a WHITE one.

And I haven''t even heard mention of what exactly Sony''s going to talk about. More about how amazing the Cell processor is? More PSP ports?

Don''t get me wrong. I''ll be buying an xBox 360 (eventually) and own a PSP. But at some point, the Nintendo hate gets a little tired.

Nintendo''s incessant yammering about how ""Revolutionary"" their new console will be raises the level of intrigue surrounding the device, but also raises expectations. They''re going to have to produce something pretty spectacular when they finally unveil the product. As to why they''re waiting, we can only speculate: maybe the design''s not finalized, maybe they don''t want to compete for press with the 360 and PS3, or maybe they want the other two consoles fully unveilled so they can plot their counter-attack.

I''m certainly disappointed by the announcement that the Revolution won''t be on display. They''re going to come in last place in the e3 hype competition this year, and if it weren''t for the playable Zelda demo and their handheld announcements, they wouldn''t even register on the hype-o-meter. It''s too bad - if Nintendo really did have something truly amazing up their sleeves, this year''s e3 would provide the perfect opportunity for them to blow everyone away and get people thinking that they''re on their way back to the top.

My suspicions: the Revolution is a big gamble for the company, and they''re not going to drop the bomb until they have a better idea of what they''re up against. Of course, by waiting they run the risk of letting everyone get all excited about what their competitors are doing.

It''s interesting how little we''ve been hearing about the PS3. I''m sure there''s some news buried out there about what will be presented, but I don''t recall reading it. Meanwhile, we''ve got a vertiable deluge of Xbox rumors, snapshots, and announcements, plus and MTV special this Thursday.

I''ll save my critique on the Xbox 360 until I''ve heard the whole story, except to say that so far, I''m not as excited about it as I could have been. I''ll probably buy a 360, but right now, I''m a lot more interested in figuring out what Sony and Nintendo have up their sleeves.

Maybe that''s the point. Nintnedo (and maybe Sony) simply may not be ready to launch this Christmas and their tech may not be far enough along to really have a lot of games to show for it yet. In that position I''d probably do exactly what Nintendo is doing and sit on my stuff until I can REALLY show off what it can do. Why try to beat Microsoft when you don''t plan to launch anything for another year and a half? You want buzz to build up from May steadily on to Christmas and then launch. I think that''s the best way to go about things rather than show too much too soon and lose some of the ""wow factor"" a year down the road when you actually have launch titles to show off.

That''s my guess anyways. It was a nice idea to think all three consoles would be neck and neck in terms of development and release dates but that''s not likely to happen.

And then Nintendo comes in at E3 2006 to a score of Microsoft fans with buyer''s remorse (""My Console''s WHITE, Ma! WHITE!?"") and a bunch of disillusioned Sony fans (""Yeah, great, Cell, awesome... what''s the CONSOLE going to be like, guys?!"") and they lay it all out on the line... here''s the product, here''s what''s Revolutionary, and here''s where you can buy it this Winter.

I odn''t understand what the problem is. MS has a firm release date... we don''t even know if the Revolution or the PS3 will be ready NEXT year... this is just what we''re assuming at this point.

Looks like what myself and Warlock are suggesting is that it''s not a big deal if Nintendo doesn''t have a lot to show yet. Why is it a huge risk?

Problem is, they''re not doing the Apple approach correctly.

Apple does things first. And when they''re not first, they''re not far behind. They try to one-up whomever was first in the fastest way possible.

Nintendo does things last, and while we wait, they explain to us that we don''t really want what we''re waiting for.

I''m guessing were not seeing eye to eye on the level of sucess Nintendo currently enjoys in the marketplace.

I guess you and Warlock are in the everything is hunky dory camp...whereas I take the opposite approach and see Nintendo is serious trouble..

I have little faith in their ability to execute in the console market...especially with viable Third Party development.. I think their online strategy is questionable... and I have serious doubts on their long term control of the handheld market.

In short.. a lukewarm E3 will only help further the notion in the average gamers mind that Nintendo does not equal Videogames.

Microsoft is launching a handheld...its a few years off...but make no mistake..its a market they will be in at some point...there is no piece of the pie that Microsoft will concede over time.

I guess I sort of fault Microsoft for all of this. What is going to be the graphic difference between the xBox and the 360? The difference between an FX5700 and a 6800 Ultra? Instead of making us buy a new console 3 years into your console''s life cycle (without backwards compatibility, of course) continue to make good games for the console you already have out, the console that is already out-performing its competitors, both in market share and graphics. Now, Nintendo looks like the red-headed stepchild for taking more than four years to make its new system.

Gotta disagree with this one. Yes, this generation, they very well may be last. But the Gamecube came out 3 days (the 18th of November as opposed to the 15th, 2001) later than the xBox... hardly enough to say they ""do things last.""

I wasn''t aware we were talking about marketplace, I thought we were talking about E3 info on the Revolution for this year.

Maybe I''ll just keep my mouth shut and let you carry the rest of my side of the conversation, I''d hate for my actual opinions and comments to get in the way or any proclamations you might want to make.

I don''t disagree with you there. What I will say though is if Nintendo rushes out some half-baked prototype of what the Revolution will be and doesn''t have anything ""real"" to show for it we''d be denouncing them for that too. Unless they''re ready to ship this year and have launch titles to show for it I''d say many will label this show as a failure for them. Personally, with MS pulling out all the stops I''d be keeping up some air of mystery around my product rather than scrape together a line-up that may not be very impressive yet.

I know this is Microsoft and not SEGA but Sony did much the same thing knowing the PS2 was coming out a year later than the Dreamcast. The general idea that you should wait for the ""way more awesome and powerful"" PS2 that''s coming in a year stopped a lot of people from buying in to the next-gen early. I think Microsoft can avoid this but they''d better have one hell of a launch game line-up backing them.

I think there''s room for different paths in this growing industry, just like the car industry spread away from just a Model T. XBox is pretty clearly trying to push cutting edge hardware, online support, and a mass market philosophy. Nintendo seems to be pushing innovative gameplay. Will the next XBox outsell the next Nintendo console? I think that''s basically a certainty. Does that spell doom for Nintendo? I don''t see why. Nintendo strikes me as being increasingly niche, much like Apple is, but like Apple that doesn''t mean that Nintendo will be irrelevant or bankrupt (even with the Gamecube ''failure'' they''re still making money.) I''d agree that the GameCube was somewhat disappointing, but hopefully they can turn it around in the next generation.

It''s a risk, but not a huge risk. If Nintendo simply isn''t far enough along in the development of the Revolution, they just need to show enough to keep gamers - a skeptical bunch, as far as Nintendo is concerned - convinced that the company is on track, and the Revolution will ultimately be worth the wait.

I''m sure it''s a fine line to walk - releasing enough tantalizing tidbits to maintain the enthusiasm while still keeping the big surprises under wraps. This may be especially true in Nintendo''s case, as most of the Revolution''s rumoured features probably strike a lot of gamers as unnecessary, gimmicky, or just not very feasible from a gameplay standpoint. It''s probably in Nintendo''s best interests to delay confirming those features until they can be demonstrated.

Remember two E3s ago when they showed all that Half-Life 2 stuff?

Wasn''t there even some stuff about HL2 at the E3 three years ago?

In short, an amazing showing at E3 does not guarantee a fine product, and a fine product does not guarantee an amazing showing at E3.

First, I don''t buy the report since Nintendo hasn''t said anything to anyone. I think people are expecting Sony to release information that they aren""t ready to release. Did people trash Microsoft for not showing what the console looks like, playable demos, and what the specs are, 18-months befor the release date?

So, you''re saying they should have a big coming out party for a console that isn''t coming out for 18 months? Microsoft is jumping the generation gun and they have a HUGE chance of pulling a Sega when the PS3 hype train happens.

I would agree with you if they were releasing this year but they aren''t. Following your logic, Microsoft had a luke warm E3 last year since they didn''t have the E3 they are having this year.

Well, how can Microsoft compete if they don''t show us what the handheld looks like, let us play games, and tell us what is in the console, 18months before we can buy it?

Who said that is their strategy? Their strategy isn''t to show off a product that will not be released for 18-months. If they don''t show any tech demos or footage, that is one thing. I don''t understand how you can hold Microsoft and Sony to one set of rules but not Nintendo. If the console were to be released this year, that would be one thing. Nintendo did not suffer this generation because they didn''t let people play games for a console that won''t be released for a year and half.

What exactly do you want them to do?

http://cube.ign.com/articles/611/611660p1.html

IGN just posted that the Revolution will be at E3 with some real details. What they plan on showing is everything I want.