I have a goal for each console I buy.  I would ideally like to buy at least 30 games for it.  Why spend such a hefty financial investment in something that you won't use?  Thirty games more than justifies the heavy pricetags. 

For the previous era: 2001-2006, the thirty game run was upheld.  Especially toward the end of a system's lifespan when games are available for cutthroat prices.  Both of my PS2 and XBOX libraries made it to the 30 game mark, while the Gamecube made it to 17.  But 17 is not so much a failure because there were two other systems to supply so many games.  And with a concious effort, I could bring the cube's library to a respectable 20.  There are a couple of RPG's that I wouldn't mind getting.  But it really isn't necessary.  Nobody has enough hours in the day to play everything they want.  And with two consoles reaching the 30 mark, it is not needed (or maybe even wanted) for another 30 games to be added to the already 60+ for the hardcore gamer.  So I consider the last round a complete consumer success. 

But this era is in it's infancy and I am left wondering how the 30 game standard will fair this round.  With the X360 already piling an impressive and lengthy library (a dozen in a little over a year), and with exclusive titles getting harder to find, can Sony or even Nintendo deliver 30?  I don't think so, and maybe its for the better.  My current forecasts goal for this round is for the Wii and PS3 to deliver 20 games each, with Microsoft coming through with 40.  The 40:20:20 Goal doesn't have as nice a ring to it.  But in the end it doesn't matter where the good game comes from, only that it comes.