Was Nintendo right to opt out of the graphics arms race?

[curl-6]

Pemalite said:

Wman1996 said:

Which means that Nintendo would not have charged less than $199.99 since they typically make a profit on hardware, even at launch.

3DS was sold at a loss for a time following its price cut. GameCube was most likely sold for a loss when it was cut to $99.99. Wii U was apparently sold at a loss from the beginning.

Even with its weak processing power, Wii was not going to cost anything below $170-$200 at launch. 

Nintendo was actually originally planning for a $100 price point for the Wii.

With that said... 
If Nintendo had a digital output (HDMI)
And threw in 256MB of GDDR3 memory on a 128bit bus.
And clocked the GPU at a modest 450mhz with an 8-pipeline layout~
And the CPU at 1Ghz.

It would have given the system much better creds.

It didn't need to match or beat the Xbox 360/Playstation 3, it just needed to be good enough.

I mean I'd argue the system was "good enough" for most folks, just maybe not so much for some enthusiasts.

While the lack of HDMI was a shame, with a set of component cables I'd argue it's better-made games actually looked fine for the time, obviously a generation behind PS3/360 but still acceptable enough.

Stuff like Mario Galaxy 1/2, Metroid Prime 3, or Monster Hunter Tri looked satisfactory to me, and I had a PS3 and 360 too.