I don't know. (Those looking for snappy, buzzword-compliant, glib, pat, answers can switch off now!)
Microsoft did OK with their 360, although it's a given it'll be good. They have a history of doing crap initial versions of software/hardware, but significantly better version 2, and this is staying true to form.
Nintendo had a brilliant show. The Wii, despite its infamously stupid name, has introduced so much buzz it's incredible. Afterall, games are about novelty (blog/articles/books passim) and this introduces a novelty. You've only got to look at the infinite growth in additional peripherals attached to games (Sing star, Buzz, Guitar Hero, those Gamecube bongos et al) to know that a console game can do well at any price point provided there's enough novelty value to it. In the olden days, the game engine was the game. And each game had a different engine. Pacman was different to Galaxian. And Galaxian was different to Frogger. Now the same engine powers a hundred different games... and boy does it show!
Sony failed. That's common knowledge in the blogosphere, so I won't comment on it much further. Their PS3 showing was arrogant and dull. Their R&D department have graduated from the school of creative photocopying to produce as little innovation possible with their re-dressed PS1 controller with a tilt switch. The only Sony innovation for the last ten years has been Eye-toy.
So - what's the purpose of this blog entry? A note to self, mainly. So I can remind myself in years to come. So I can see how history does remember this point in time. And so I can accumulate the various links and commentaries that made me laugh.
To begin, there's this clip, which I've entitled "Sony failure" and shows the opening of E3, and everybody running (yes running!) past the Sony stand to watch Nintendo present the Wii. And this cartoon that re-emphasises the point.
Disclaimer: I am not a Nintendo fan boy, nor a Sony-hater, but have developed for all three present consoles (i.e. Gamecube, PS2 and Xbox).