I just saw the other thread about Wii being underpowered and it got me thinking, were the HD twins overpowered?
Ive read multiple times that both systems were initially sold at $200+ losses and it took a few years for them to begin selling at a profit. To my knowledge neither have made up those early losses.
Another thing to consider is the cost of developing games skyrocketed, causing many developers to go under, maybe thay could have been avoided if the HD twins werent so powerful. If it werent for cheap to make casual games on Wii, I could see alot more devs going bankrupt. It seems like gaming is coming to the point where most games are either AAA blockbusters or indie titles, mid level games seem to be going extinct.
Games like Gears/Uncharted/Assassins Creed/etc could all have been done on weaker hardware just with less fancy graphics and not so big worlds. Top of the line graphics are nice but most games would have been just as fun without them.
PS3 could have a cheaper alternative to the Cell and DVD instead of Blu-Ray (DVD only became popular in 2000, people were still content with it), they could have always added it in a redesign anyway.
So lets say 360 and PS3 were both released in 2005 with one sku at $400 selling at a small loss, something like $50-100 per unit. Would they be better off and would the game industry in general be healthier?
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
