Isn't the Wii2 'romoured' to be around 20 months away anyway?

Also, what about 3rd party exclusives? New HW means a new fanbase and a lot of hype, you want to get your game in their quickly, experiment with the HW. And I see it doing more than just a graphical increase, otherwise why would new gens start at all?

2013 will be Gen 8. No longer. And 2011 is next-gen for handhelds.

It looks like it will be simular but more advanced 360 tech, and if it has a blu-ray drive it will be more expensive than both the 360 and PS3, which both have been revamped over the years to lower costs. And nintendo NEVER sells a console below it's own cost to make. Serious gamers won't be too interested, I and I already have a blu-ray player in my PS3, so that leaves present Wii owners. a younger crowd with less cash. Will they want to spend that much on a new Wii2? Meanwhile the hardcore gamers will wait a few more years for the PS4/720, and maybe pick up a NGP. So, I beleive their timing is wrong, it's too late for a Wii2, they should go straight to a Wii3, something that is incredibly more powerfull like the PS4/720. But even then it would be too expensive right now, the PS4/720's time hasn't come yet. So I think the Wii2 will bomb UNLESS it's cheap (for it's targeted consumer), and has some killer apps. 

Hmmm..  Here's someone else thinking along my same lines in regards to Wii / Cafe

http://n4g.com/news/743956/nintendo-should-support-a-hd-console-wii-and-3ds

You’re trying to justify a market strategy based on unsubstantiated rumours which are likely to be untrue.

While it is possible that Microsoft/Sony could release a system after Nintendo with no negative impact, we've seen similar actions repeatedly cause significant harm to competitors within this market. To understand why this is so risky consider the following hypothetical scenario ...

Suppose Nintendo releases a system in 2012 that has a key innovation that people find remarkably desirable at a price that people believe is reasonable; on top of this innovation, the system also has a significant advancement in processing power and features. The system sells quickly and third party publishers soon decide that they need to support the system well (especially in the launch period of Sony and Microsoft’s consoles) to be profitable; and the vast majority of games are designed around Nintendo’s system, potentially with some enhancements for Sony and Microsoft’s eventual consoles.

Two years later, Sony and Microsoft release their own systems that launch at a higher price and lack the key innovation provided by Nintendo (because they’ve been mocking it since it was released as ‘gimmicky ’); while these systems have more processing power and features most consumers find these to be a minimal advantage over what Nintendo is already providing. This gives Nintendo a massive price advantage after their price cut, a massive library advantage because they hit the market first, and they’re still getting the vast majority of the same games released to their system and (while there are some enhancements) the other systems don’t get any significant advantage from these games because they were designed around Nintendo’s system.

This is not a certain outcome, but this is the desired outcome of the company that uses the first mover strategy. The whole point of releasing first is that you intend to offer enough of an improvement over the previous generation to get people to adopt your system, while also being able to defend against systems released in the future by positioning your system in a way that your competition can’t offer a significant improvement without taking on a significant disadvantage (like a higher price). In raw processing power at an affordable price I believe we hit this point already, as it is unlikely that next year's $600 graphics card will really be that much better for most gamers than a $150 graphics card that is available today; obviously, I mean when you're comparing these cards based on relative improvement over the HD consoles.

Im going to have to agree. The HD twins have tons of steam left, paticularily the PS3, to keep them going for several years.

Also, more importantly, Sony and MS can just copy and then improve whatever Ninty does 2-3 yrs. after release of Wii2. Take out the key unique innovation of Ninty's next console and i feel they would be in the worst position out of all of them.

Should have said 3 years. If they just started planning it after throwing out previous designs, they are much further away from launch than Nintendo.

I think its less about raw horsepower and more about consumer and industry buzz.  We haven't seen the 'Cafe' or what it's unique characteristics will be.  If it brings something cool and unique to gameplay, the enhanced graphics won't be the differentiator anyway.

The tough part is going to be for MS and Sony in justifying the existence of a next gen console.  Better graphichs just isn't going to cut it.

That sounds pretty neat, but after reading it I thought of something else

Why not make two versions of the same console, one with more power (call it A), and the other with the new innove controller thingy (B) and each had there own library of games

If someone with version-A wanted to play the version-B games, they'd buy the add-on (kinda like Kinect/MotionPlus's situation) - - - The problem would arise if someone with version-B wanted to play version-A games (like next gen 3rd party multiplats)...

Could Nintendo offer an upgrade solution the same way a PC would have? Like leave a slot for expansion or maybe send the console in for the upgrade?

Of course the system's architecture would have to build with this in mind, but I kinda like the idea

While I think there is potential with a manufacturer offering multiple versions of the same console in a generation, I think it would be a massive mistake to have these systems play different games. Where I would see viability (although I don’t know how much of a market there is for it) is to release one system around certain output expectations (720p @ 30fps) and another system a couple years down the line for higher end output expectations (1080p @ 60fps).

You know that idea's pretty cool too...

I think multiplats on Wii would be different if things were like that. I mean if PS360 games had moderate detail/models with 1080p/60fps, then the Wii could play the same game at a lower resolution and lower framerate

Instead, the way the games were made, they ran at barely HD resolution (sometimes less) at low framerates with very high details. You couldn't just run the game on Wii at lower outputs cuz that would mean something like 15fps?