Graphics = "Great games" -- Does Age play a factor to this thinking?

[Bodhesatva]

Legend11 said:

HappySqurriel said:

You do realize that creating hardware on the level of the XBox 360 and PS3 wouldn't have been difficult for Nintendo, don't you?

Consider that the reason that Microsoft choose to work with IBM and ATI was because of how amazing of a job they did for Nintendo; do you think that ATI and IBM would have done a worse job for Nintendo than they did for Microsoft? Do you think that these large multinational corporations are bigger fanboys than you are?

It wouldn't have been difficult but it would have been expensive. Even more so if Nintendo wasn't willing to take a loss on each console sold like the competition did.

As for why Microsoft went with ATI, I think it had more to do with the fact that they had a falling out with Nvidia over pricing of components in the Xbox than anything else.

Exactly. Microsoft is trying to turn this industry into a spending war -- and Sony is playing right along, which is why I think they may be the company to lose out (if any company does) simply because their pockets are much shallower than MS's are. They're playing the same ballgame as MS, but MS is simply better equipped to play that type of game.

Nintendo chose to play a different game altogether; not because they think graphics are pointless, but because they knew they couldn't win a spending war. Simple question: if Nintendo could have made the Wii as graphically powerful as the 360/PS3 without spending any more money, would they do so? The answer is yes, obviously. Nintendo made an extremely savvy move, but it was a financial decision, not a philosophical stand against the importance of graphics.