| bdbdbd said: @WereKitten: You know what the biggest difference here is? Basically you're arguing about the architectural differences of the processors itself, that are required in order to make multicore processor work, in relation to a single core. I'm not arguing about technical details or basing any argument on them. What i'm pointing out is, that a single 360 core and Broadway are very close to each other, and the production cost of a single core and Broadway aren't far from each other. ... |
And I'm saying that they are not very close as processors go, and that the costs are very different, even if you were to find a way to put a cost on a single Xenon core - which is not a given.
So my suggestion was: skip the faulty technical details if that's not really your forte, and let's go back to the root issue. You don't really need to compare broadway to xenon to talk about the fact that putting a much more modern CPU in the Wii would have costed Nintendo something in the ballpark of tens of dollars per piece, because that's the scale of cost of any console CPU.
As I said before, leaving aside the technicalities, this is what makes your statement that Nintendo would have profited just as much by creating an HD, highly performant Wii a speculation.
On one side you would have higher hardware costs and higher software development costs, at least at first (because going heavily multithreaded or changing your CPU/GPU architecture from last gen's implies new tools and dev retraining, even if you don't push on the pedal of graphics). On the other side you would have easier multiplatform ports, most probably leading to raking in more license money.
So what is your reasoning in saying that this counterfactual scenario would have brought just as much profit to Nintendo?
