Nintendo has always been a leading manufacturer of high-end consoles.

So, what happened? If Nintendo was able to pull off a performing yet affordable console with the cube, which, sold at a 9$ loss only for its first quarter if Viper is correct, why didn't they pull it off with the Wii, and what would have gen 7 looked like had they offered the HD option to 3rd parties?

Before we go into discussion, keep in mind devs were getting PS3 ready for gen 7, having everything set up to support Sony's platform. When its launched flopped, Nintendo was not there to capitalize, but Microsoft was.

What happened? And why did Nintendo lack so much foresight. With hindsight being 20/20, what are the answers??

The Wii is actually capable of internally rendering an HD image. But it's output is capped at 480p. There are 2 reasons for this.

1. Initial HDTV adoption rates were minimal. Upping the Wii specs to do HD well would not have been cost beneficial.

2. Just because you can render at a resolution doesn't mean your textures, polygon counts, frame rates and everything else will be dandy. In fact, resolution isn't the end all, be all graphic factor to begin with. Look at how many HD consoles games are not even rendered in actual HD resolutions. A lot of them...but you can't tell because the shaders, texture resolutions, polygon counts and other factors are more predominant in how 'good' your graphics look.

NES more powerful than the Master System...

Back then COLORS were a much bigger thing than resolution... and MS had a whoping 16 (!) more colors than the NES!

To Vic and Rol, I was actually talking about the japanese one (wrong names used), I'll update the OP.

I copied this from another thread because I want to make a full thread out of this, it's an important topic for me.

How can selling almost 100m consoles and whipping the competition be considered as "lacking in foresight"?

I know you are making a point about more than sales but as money talks I would almost make it the no. 1 pointer to success.

You do however ask a good question with the wii U around the corner and talk of it's graphical power - or lack off.

I can only answer your question with two questions.

1) I believe if Nintendo had gone with the HD option with the wii-remote it would have been still successful but would it have sold as many consoles being more expensive?

I think it would have still won.

2) Would a more power console have brought more third-party devs onboard?

I don't know but I like to think yes.

Remember nintendo tried something new (moving away from graphical power to promote innovation) with the controller and was taking a risk. Better to take a less expensive risk by keeping the console cheap.

In a nutshell:
Nintendo made a lot of money with wii sales and in-house software with a cheap low powered system.
Nintendo missed out on a lot of money lacking good third-party support because of a cheap low powered system.
Could they have had the best of both world's with decent hardware? I like to think yes.

So maybe they were lacking on foresight but it would be harsh to hold it against them considering what they acccomplished with a cheap low powered system.

I understand this point, but look at it from an SDK standpoint. How feasible would it have been for Nintend to offer an amphibious SDK, one which leveraged SD/cost-effective development, and one that leveraged HD development, the HD one being evolutive, improving over time. I know this is all in hindsight but assuming forsight was 20/20 how feasible would this option be?

The biggest reason is due to the fact that, 6 years ago, HD adoption was incredibly small. It'd be like releasing a console with 3D technology only 12 months ago. It could have gone either way.

But, as others have said, the Wii being in HD wouldn't necessarily make it look hugely better, and having sold 100mil already, thrashing the competition...can we really blaim Nintendo?

Can you let it go and discuss the actual topic please? The famicom was superior to the SG-1000, period. The Wii was clearly a step below its competition. Case in point now I'd like to hear your POV if you'd care to move on.

1. One is a good question because as Viper mentioned, the Wii was priced cheap in Japan (212$), and in the states came bundled with Wii Sports at 250$. But to think that Wii Sports was a refined demo, couldn't they throw it in for free with a more high-end console at 250$ in the states. Japan's pricepoint is more sensitive in the topic I think though. Raising the price up for HD capability would have been tough, because Japan was laregely favoring Sony while coming into gen 7, it wasn't as bad stateside.

2. I really, really think so. Remember, the Wii wasn't just a risk for Nintendo, it was a risk for everyone partnering with them. It was a huge paradigm shift that involved a reformation of business processes within the partner organizations. Way too much to ask from the clear loser in the home console space coming into gen 7. Since they were all getting HD ready for the PS3 entering the gen, had Nintendo been HD ready, they would have been in MS's shoes from a red ocean standpoint, or at least sharing it 50-50 with MS or 3-way with MS and Sony, and would have been still printing money on the blue ocean front. I think that's what they're trying to achieve with the WiiU, but had they believed in themselves they could have done it a gen sooner when the golden opportunity (the PS3's flop launch) was there for the taking!