If the Wii cost 4-600 dollars, no matter how advanced it was, I wouldn't get it.  Too much money for just a console.

I'd say that graphics have an influence but it's the gameplay that wins. I don't buy a game cause it has pretty images, I buy it cause I think I'll have fun...

Here you´ve got it - listen to the women they know those things better than men do

Well the $300 XBox was outsold by the $300 PS2 inspite of having better graphics ...

The $200 Gamecube was outsold by the $300 PS2 inspite of having better graphics ...

The $200 N64 was outsold by the $200 Playstation inspite of having better graphics ...

All else being equal people will choose better graphics, but lets face it all else has never been equal and probably never will be. People choose to buy the Playstation over the N64 because it had a far larger library of games which lead to it having more good games; people chose the PS2 over the Gamecube and XBox because it had a far larger library of games which lead to it having more good games.

I think the question is put in the wrong way. It should be put does graphics sell any game system independent on price and performance in key areas.

First I would like to adress what I mean with key areas. The main competion against GameBoy failed in the most important thing, Portability or bad battery life, that is unacepteble when the competion also have more games.

Second: Graphics werses price, most possible if Sony could have put the PS3 in the same price range as the Wii, and have some good games out, it would sell better. Now this means that Graphics sells if it is worth it! Most possible many thinks that 600 USD is to much for a gaiming system, and therfore doesn't buy the PS3.

Gameplay is more important than graphics, I think most people agree with that. Graphics are still important.

But I don't think either sell systems as much as the number of games available.

Probably like 99% of people that buy games do not research anything about them or read reviews. They see a game in the store and buy it. Maybe you see a game with a license you like and buy it, or maybe you see a lot of games for the genra you like.

Graphics are always improving, but this gen Sony and MS took a huge jump that was not really necessary. It adds a lot to the cost and in the end won't matter that much.

Now if I had a choice for TP to be 1080p or 420p, of course I would want the best graphical version (assuming everything else was the same). But I, and many others still bought TP to play in 420i or 420p anyway. So from a business stand point, there isnt much need for the really high graphics...

Now, Nintendo had a strangle hold on the hand held market so more powerful systems failed. But Sony had a strangle hold on the console market and launched with the most powerful (or at least equal with 360) system and they are now in 3rd place, and may stay there forever.

And how many years was the PS2 on the market before the xbox xame out?

What? What in the hell do 2 and 3 have to do with what I said? Were you reading another post while typing this?

lol come on... 

What Xbox game in 2001 looked better then GT3 of FFX.... yahh NONE.

What GC game looked beter then MGS3 FFX or GT3..... yahh NONE.  Since when did xbox or GC have anything better lookig then God of War ?

 N64 got owned cause of Nintendos idiot decision to use cartriges and not CD.

I'm pretty sure RE 4 beats MGS in that department.