What would have happened if, instead of innovating with the Wii, Nintendo produced a standard HD console for Gen 7?

- Same November 2006 release date

- Similar power and architecture to Xbox 360

- $300/$350 at launch, pricier model has a bigger hard drive

- No motion controls, no blue ocean software like Wii Fit

How do you think Gen 7 would have played out in this scenario, and why?

Note: This isn't the same alternate history timeline as N64 using CDs in the other topic, for the purposes of this thread, let's assume Gen 5 and 6 played out as they did IRL

An HD Wii, or whatever it would have been, would have lagged severely behind the 360 and PS3. There were three major advantages that worked in the Wii's favor. 1) It was significantly cheaper than the competition. 2) It was innovating and captivating with its motion controls when it launched. 3, and most importantly in my book) It was easier and quicker for Nintendo to develop games for than if the architecture and hardware was on par with the 360 and PS3.

In this alternate history games like Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3, while they would have been visually mind-blowing, some of the most beautiful looking games of their generation (which they are already in the case of Galaxy), those games would have turned out noticeably different than they were on the Wii, due to their motion controls. Most importantly, they would have taken much longer to develop for and release. So instead of Galaxy coming out in late 2007, it would have been pushed back to mid-late 2008. All of its major games would have come out later than they originally launched, which would have been a huge problem. Remember the Wii U and its software droughts? There you go.

If Nintendo went with a GameCube 2, they’d be last. I think tye 360 would’ve won in that case, because with Kinect, it’d have gotten all the casuals.

As others have noted, Nintendo had significant problems with HD development with the Wii U which they would have had with a 2006 version as well. So games in general would have taken longer to make. There;d be no Wii Sports, Wii Fit, or Wii Play. Twilight Princess would be a Gamecube exclusive.

I'm not even sure the system would get that many more 3rd party multiplats. Mass Effect 1 and Bioshock 1 were Xbox exclusives at first. Assassin's Creed was supposed to be a PS3 exclusive went multiplat because Ubisoft saw the lead the 360 had built in its first year on the market alone. This hypothetical Nintendo system wouldn't be successful enough to warrant bringing that over. It would probably get Japanese games like Final Fantasy 13 and Resident Evil 5, but Japanese developers like Square and Capcom were not at the top of their game that gen anyway. Eventually developers might port games over if it's easy and cheap, but they won't be high-effort, high-quality ports, but cash grabs. The 360 versions will be the best.

Literally everything that created hype for the Wii and sustained the system's momentum in the first 4 years would be gone, the first Mario would probably come out in 2008, the first Zelda probably in 2011 like Skyward Sword. Nintendo would need to put out shovelware just to have a lineup in 2006-2007. Best case scenario it sells N64 numbers based on the market growing. Worst case scenario it sells Wii U numbers because of no momentum, no killer app, and no library for 1-2 years.

The Wii wouldn't have had it's standout feature and thus lagged behind. However, if it still has it's Virtual console, then it certainly would have caught on with nostalgic (or should I say classic?) gamers.

It reminds me a bit of the scenarios in an old french gaming magazine as to how the Wii would play out. They had 3 options:

1. Just like the Gamecube, the Wii would tank and Nintendo go third party like Sega did before
2. Wii does okay, not really well but not super hot either (so probably like the XBO did this gen)
3. Everyone flocks to the Wii just because of the Virtual Console, reigning over the end of console gaming with it's classic games.

So yeah, my opinion is that the classic games of the virtual console would have pushed Nintendo sales somewhat. With that alone, I'm sure it would have beaten the Gamecube in total sales.

The other question is about how Twilight Princess would have been handled. Would the Gamecube version or the Wii version be scrapped since the technical difference between the two would be too great otherwise? If they scrapped the Cube version for the Wii HD, then that also would have given the console a nice starting boost.

Alas, I don't think it would have been enough to retain the gamers, who really were getting into real is brown territory so much that colors were eww for the usual hardgore dudebros who make up the biggest part of western console gamers.

So I think it would potentially have sold around what the XBO is doing, better than it's predecessors, but not really going anywhere big.

I honestly think a big reason why the Wii was such a sucess story, was the more casual games.
That and the motion controlls in ads, made non typical gamers want to give it a try.

Which just fit right in, with its low cost (it was like 99$ at one point).
If nintendo had instead launched a more expensive version... I think sales would have suffered from that crowd.

If this was just Nintendo HD console instead of Wii in PS360 era, then it would not go so well.

On the other hand, if in this alternate history N64 with CD happened (and everything that leads to/stems from that), which means GC is different as well, then it's different story altogether.

Ah, yeah I should have clarified that; this isn't the same alternate history timeline as N64 using CDs in the other topic, for the purposes of this thread, let's assume Gen 5 and 6 played out as they did IRL. I'll add that to the OP, thanks.

Nintendo needed the Wii. Why would people trust Nintendo after two generations lagging behind and losing 3rd parties by doing the exact same thing over and over again? The Wii gave the edge they needed, it gave Nintendo an easy to develop console that allowed them to focus on their strenghts.

I think it would have been about a 3 way tie, although I'll give the edge to Sony, since that is what actually happened between Sony vs. Microsoft.  Here are some factors to consider:

-As others have said, Nintendo does not get most of its new customer base that it would have gotten from Wii. 
-I agree with Bofferbrauer2 that the Virtual Console was something of a selling point, and "Wii HD" would still have brought in some old school gamers like myself.  
-Nintendo launches at a $300/$350 price tag means it is the cheapest HD console on the market.  That gives it something of an advantage as well.
-Third party companies were gradually transitioning to making their games multiplatform.  Microsoft was the main company championing this, but Nintendo would get some of the benefit.  This means that the "Wii HD" would have had a better third party library than the Gamecube, but not as good as PS3 & XBox360.  (Take the average of the Gamecube and PS3 library sizes and that is a decent estimate of the "Wii HD" library, and then add in Virtual Console games.)

In the end I think Nintendo steals a very large chunk of the XBox360 audience in NA, and it also steals a decent amount from Sony in Europe in Japan.  The "Wii HD" sells to 3 groups: 1) Gamecube fans who stay loyal to Nintendo, 2) People who just want the cheapest HD console (a huge selling point for the XBox360 originally), 3) old school gamers who return for the Virtual Console.  Put that all together and I think Nintendo sells about as much as XBox360 and PS3.  Perhaps they all sell about 60-65m each, and again I give Sony the edge.

Also, given the lack of a $250 console that appeals to new gamers, I'd say DS sales go up about 10m, which would end up putting the DS above the PS2 in lifetime sales.