Alternate history, 7th gen: Clash of the HD dreadnaughts

[The_Liquid_Laser]

curl-6 said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

For Wii U, the $300 model had 8GB, while the $350 had 32 GB.  That can be a very big difference if games require a 2-4 GB install in order to play.  For the XBox 360, the Core model had 256 MB at launch while the Pro had 20 GB.  That is a pretty big difference in storage.  I'm not even sure what you could play on the XBox360 with only 256 MB.  I would think most people would need to buy a bigger hard drive for their XBox360 if they wanted to use it as their dedicated console.  I owned a PS3, and I know I played a lot of games that required an install that was bigger than 256 MB.

For both the XBox360 and our theoretical "Wii HD" the more expensive version would basically be the "real version" of the console.

Realistically you probably would've needed a hard drive to get much use out of even the expensive one though, just like you pretty much needed one for the Wii U and Switch. Nintendo have always been very stingy with internal storage. The historical Wii had what, 500MB of internal flash memory?

It is possible to get by with 20 GB on a PS3, and I'm sure the same is true with an XBox360.  You really can't get by with just 256 MB.  Quite a few games require an installation that is greater than 256 MB.  On the other hand, I've never had problems with gigantic installs from Nintendo first party games.  I've never even had to delete anything off of my Wii, Wii U or Switch.  It's not an issue.  When it comes to storage 10 GB on a Nintendo console goes much farther than 20 GB on a Microsoft or Sony console.

This is another reason why a $350 "Wii HD" would be a better value than the $400 XBox360 at launch.  Effectively you would get more storage space, since Nintendo uses their storage a lot more efficiently.