I don't know why the OP is reading into this so much. Let's look at what Sony did compared to Nintendo, this generation, when it came to the home Consoles.
Nintendo basically put all their development budget into the controller. Yes, that was a risk, and it payed off big time. But the rest of the console hardware? At best it is a Die shrunk slightly over clocked GC. There was hardly any investment in that area. I am not trying to be derogatory but the big N basically Slimmed the GC, got a faster clocked version and then rewrote the firmware.
Now look at Sony. They invested into a Cell chip factory, invested into Blu-ray development technology, completely left behind any architectural links with the PS2. They literally invested billions knowing full well that when they started selling the thing they would loose a lot on each unit.
Sony knew they had a fight coming with HD DVD. There were no guarantee's for any of this.
Nintendo had to take a conservative approach when it came to capital investment but kudos to them, they took a non-conservative approach to the way that the console would be used. Remember, the code name for the Wii was the Nintendo Revolution. There was no revolution or billions being put on the line with factors and literally technology that had not existed before.
I think Sony's strategy was by far the more risky, from an upfront investment point of view. Nintendo did not do so well with the GC so they had to think outside the box. At the time of developing the Wii I seriously doubt they had the balls to invest literally billions on new CPU development and something like Blu-ray. It would have been silly for them.
Nintendo did the best thing they could have. In that respect, they took a risk but at the same time, they had less to loose when you see how well the GC did in relation the PS2.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
