By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
noname2200 said:
Squilliam said:

They staked a console release but they anticipated a much lower release price ($199) and much lower sales. They had confidence enough to release a new console based on the technology but not enough to go without hedging their bets. This wasn't the first time they hedged their bets, they released the N64 with only a single analogue stick when the industry finally settled on two and they didn't move to make any adjustment either after the PS1 obsorbed their innovations.

The pre-release period where developer confidence set the tone of the whole course of the lifecycle of the Wii would have been completely different had they actually bothered to release new hardware. Before the release of the Wii the developers essentially voted no-confidence and moved on to larger projects on other platforms. The only developers who developed for the Wii essentially were given no other choice whereas the developers with some market power decided against the Wii, hence the fact that the Wii was supported by the least capable developers plus Nintendo. Whilst new hardware would have cost more money, hindsight more than suggests that a $299 price point was supportable given the price so many were willing to pay for access to the unavailable hardware.

That's merely Nintendo being itself. This is the same company that used parts made in the 70's for its first home console. It's the company that released the Gameboy when technology like the Game Gear were available. Consider that the Wii was the most expensive system Nintendo had ever released, and that they manufactured more of them from day one than they have any prior system, and you'll realize that the only reason they were hedging their bets is because conservatism is in their DNA. Remember, they were barely leaving the generation where they had to stop manufacturing their newest home console, two years after its release.

I also must point out that your N64 example has its timeline reversed. The N64 controller was the first home console to use an analogue stick. Dual analogues didn't come along until after its release.

 

As for the idea that the system might have done better with third-parties if it was beefier: perhaps. It's fun to speculate, anyways. But as this article points out, the industry as a whole was (and still is) pursuing a direction that's not healthy. The system's success demonstrates, indisputably, that the general market placed less value on horsepower and more on accessibility and games with a wider appeal. That others, and eventually Nintendo itself, chose to ignore this message is unrelated to the subject matter.

I think ignore is a strong word, but underestimate and fail to fully pursue to full potential, I much agree.