Wii vs PS3

===Refutation of Pro's Case===My opponent has made three distinct points in favor of the Wii's superiority. I intend to show that either these claims apply equally well to the PS3 or that the PS3 actually surpasses the Wii in terms of the relevant contention.(A) Innovation.While it certainly cannot be denied that the Wii has provided sound innovation to the state of the current gaming industry, I would argue that the PS3 has also provided innovations which in many cases surpass the level of the Wii. Consider the 360. While it went with including a DVD player standard in its consoles, the PS3 went a few further and made a digital Blue-Ray player standard in all of their consoles. Sony in doing this became the first console ever to do so with the Wii still trying to catch up. Along with this, PS3 also includes 3-D capabilities (the first console to do so whereas Wii has no official plans to incorporate it)[2] and even a wireless media keyboard[3] to make Internet navigation through the console infinitely easier then through a Wii remote. Wii has provided some innovations to the market but the PS3 is still way in the lead in that regard.(B) Reliability.While it is generally acknowledged that the Wii is more reliable than the PS3, my opponent is not including the entire story here. Square Trade (an extended warranty service provider) did an extended study regarding the rates of malfunction between the three major consoles and analyzing the possible causes. While on first glance the Wii would appear to come out easily as the winner over the PS3 (with malfunction rates at 2.7% and 10% respectively), the gap becomes much less when time usage of the console is factored in. Both the 360 and the PS3 had higher usage per session, more sessions per month, and had more sessions per day. In fact, the biggest difference was that PS3 and 360 users used their console over twice the amount of minutes that Wii users did per month. 360 = 1191 minutes used per monthPS3 = 1053 ^Wii = 516 ^Once these figures are factored in, the Wii only comes out as marginally more reliable then the PS3 with the Wii's failure rate per 24 hours of use only making a difference of .26%. The problem with general analysis is that it usually only looks at the gross malfunction rates without looking at possible causes. When over-use is factored for, we see that the Wii and the PS3 are more or less the same in this regards. All statistics for this contention can be found here[4].(C) Familial Enjoyment.The contention of both familial enjoyment (and elderly enjoyment at that) can be applied equally to the PS3. While titles like Wii sports and Wii fit did a good amount to allow users to enjoy games in a more physical manner, the PS3 has their own share of such titles and software. PS3 released Play Station Move in 2009 to rave reviews by Game Informer [5], PC Magazine[6], and a plethora of other electronics reviews. PC Magazine even stated that the Play Station Move represented "a step above the Wii[6]. While my opponent's contention relies on the Wii being somehow alone in it's release of user interactive games and software, the Play Station Move clearly shows that this is not the case.===Defense of the Con Case===The crux of Pro's attempted refutation of my case lies in the faulty equivocation of quality with popularity, similar in structure the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The reviews I posted were not in regards to how many games PS3 released, it was in regards to how well those games were reviewed by critics. This point in itself was never refuted or even addressed by my opponent. On his point that Wii released more games then PS3, I actually see this as a boost to the Con case. Even though Wii released more games then PS3, even this was not able to boost their number of quality games. The fact that PS3 got a higher number of good reviews for less games shows that a higher percentage of the games they released were rated well compared to the percentage of well rated games released by Wii.On the charge that the reviews from Metacritic are somehow biased, my opponent bases the entire criticism on the fact that the critical ratings of games does not necessarily reflect the popularity of that game. But that's entirely the point! Something being popular doesn't mean it's good. If if did then Alvin and The Chipmunks: Chipwrecked should have been reviewed better than The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo since it made over thirty million more at the box office[7]. So clearly Alvin and The Chipmunks is more popular but does that make it qualitatively better? Of course not. And the fact that Just Dance was popular does not necessarily translate to positive reviews. On the charge that any positive reviews were bought, I sincerely ask for evidence.===Sources===[1] http://www.pcworld.com...[2] http://us.playstation.com...[3] http://www.logitech.com...[4] http://www.squaretrade.com...[5] http://www.gameinformer.com...[6] http://www.pcmag.com...[7] http://boxofficemojo.com...