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

[Bodhesatva]

HappySqurriel said:

Legend11 said:

 

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.

You can claim this but Nintendo's design philosophy has enabled them to produce inexpensive and capable hardware time and time again. Regardless of whether you believe that the XBox was more powerful than the Gamecube, the two systems were very close in power inspite of the fact that Nintendo sold the Gamecube for $200 at a profit while the XBox was sold for $300 at a loss.

Certainly, Nintendo may have had to choose a somewhat lower performance system in order to protect profitability but it would not have been really all that noticeable. The decision to go with the hardware in the Wii was largely driven by the need to keep development costs down and their uncertaintly of the Wii's eventual success; Nintendo is not the type of company to go $2 Billion in the red under the assumption that they will be successful in the end.

Honestly Happy, do you think that Nintendo could have continued with the same strategy that they used last generation -- and the strategy that Sony and Microsoft continue to use -- and come out on top? I suspect they would have been even further marginalized than they were last generation. 

The "make the graphics a lot better and sell the console for a loss" strategy requires deep pockets and heavy spending. Nintendo has shown a predeliction for penny pinching and does not have the pockets that Microsoft does.