That's what I wanted to know, your replies are spot on. But the question is, why? What did Nintendo use for Flipper was it ATI? So, are you saying that Nintendo couldn't find an architecture and work it over 2-3 years like they did for cube, as HappySquirrel mentioned in the other thread?

And that would be because both, Microsoft and Sony, were putting really cutting edge stuff into their consoles, right?

Well, it obviously was a much bigger push for high-end technology than usual, because not only did the Xbox 360 and PS3 start at higher price points than previous consoles, but on top of that, they also sold at a bigger loss per unit than anything before them.

The brute force power Sony and MS used in their X360 and PS3 was magnitudes greater than the brute force power of their PS2 and Xbox.   ATi had stopped development of fixed function pipeline GPUs.  Technically, the GC GPU was developed by ARTx which ATi purhcased after the GC was launched.  To that whole GPu architecture was no longer even in development at all until Nintendo requested ATi develop Hollywood for the Wii.   Going with more modern shader based architecture would have cost more and removed all backward compatability from the system.

The same goes for the CPU.   IBM didn't develop multicore versions of their PowerPC 750 CL CPU so Wii's Broadway had to remain a sigle core CPU.

Indeed.

So this leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask since forever. Let's put aside cube SW BW-compatibility for a sec.

1 Given Sony and MS went brute force (I'm surprised you are saying that about MS's xbox but I'll go with it), what is the feasibility of creating a console that was HD capable, and capable of producing high texture res, high poly count, and enhanced shader operations, using a new CPU/GPU combo architecture (from another vendor), working that over 2 to 3 years (as they did for the cube), and be gen7 ready? Let's say, something a little lesser than the xbox360, but still HD and high texture/shader/poly ready? That's my million$ question.

And then let's get back to the price analysis you brought earlier about the Wii, Wii sports and Wii-mote nunchuck with the new architecture in mind. Granted, this is all a hindsight analysis.

2 As an idea, what graphics card for instance would you have chosen to being the customization process as was done for the cube if you were in their shoes in 2003-2004?

Granted, this R&D would have had to have been done in parallel with the motion control R&D and focus on motion control within the SDK, but let's keep it simple for now.

1 They'd eithe still take some losses or would have a price in the $400+ range.   Now for about $300, they may have been able to use a shader based GPU (again we are ignoring B/C) which could have give the Wii better on screen effects and maybe some better AA but it would still look quite far behind the other 2 consoles.

2 If we are ignoring GC G/C, a Radeon X1300 was have been a good choice.  Probably drop the clocks a little for thermals. You'd get about 3 times the power compared to the Hollywood chip.

With that point 2 plan in place, (and happysquirrel also replied to me in the other thread), how feasible would it have been to market it at a Wii pricepoint, given that the cube was priced at 199$ with its capabilities?

Not very feasible without taking major losses.

Keep in mind that the Wii remote and iother peripherals were initially planned to be released on GC as a meansw to extend its life (like MS did with Kinect) but Nintendo felt it would work better with a new console that can be better branded and better marketed than simply as GC peripherals.    This is also largley why the technology in the Wii is an extension of the technology in the GC.

What about cube controller compatibility though? Didn't cube owners also buy the Wii? Wouldn't red-ocean (the HD twin customers) likely own some cube controllers? Why didn't they market the controller in the states? I know they sold a white cube controller in japan (I bought 2 imports), but why did they just cut it in its infancy? Why discontinue the wavebird? Why the classic controller (what a PoS, seriously).

Why not just give people the choice, that's basically the question. Give customers the choice, give 3rd parties the choice.

*rolls eyes* I've been saying this since 2006. Nintendo always intended Wii to be a five year system. In 2006 HD rates were insignificant. Nintendo internally argued about whether to go HD or not, but felt it would be more cost effective to go without, the next system would be HD and but that time HD would be pretty standard.

Their thinking was sound. Wii sould incredibly well, had lots of 3rd party support and won the generation. Not to mention was the fastest selling and probably the most profitably console in history.

Problem is, it's past it's expiry date. Wii U should have been out a year (or two) ago as was Nintendo's original plan. I believe Wii's stellar sales plus Apple's presence in the portable market caused Nintendo to focus on 3DS instead (dispite DS still having incredible sales) instead of Wii U bumping Wii U's launch to this year. In hindsight, I think that will prove to have been a major mistake. It's controller is no longer innovative and Wii U's graphics look dated even before it launches.

If the system was meant to be a five-year effort, then the most the WiiU is "late" is one year.

--Agreed, although 2 years ago WiiU would have been an amazing revolution.

No other console has a tablet controller, so it is innovative in that arena.

--Except for tablets themselves - which have become a major source of game playing and competitor to traditional consoles (although PS3/360 specialize in big theatrical experiences, Wii does not and many Nintendo games could easily be done on an ipad (NSMB, Rythym Heaven, Big Brain Academy, Fire Emblem, Pilot Wings, Kirby, etc.).  Having a tablet, a lot of 3rd parties will likely port tablet games (WiiUWare) blurring the line between WiiU and an Ipad further.   If the general consumer views WiiU as a competitor to Ipad - it's DOA.  No one will pay $50 for a game on a tablet when they can get a similar game for $5 on ipad.    If Apple or Android allow TV play of tablet games (likely), that'll further blurr the line.     Bottom line: There is nothing innovative about playing a video game off a touch screen in 2012. 

--Note: I'm not arguing core gamers here.  Core gamers are irrelevant to Nintendo's success.  They havn't supported Nintendo in a major way since SNES or maybe N64 and WiiU won't change that no matter how many VGChartz users buy it.   Nintendo needs to retain/regain their expanded Wii audience and in that respect I don't (currently) see WiiU as being able to stop the bleed to Ipad/tablets/Kinect.  Slow it maybe.

And I am not sure how the graphics for a console for which we have not seen any full demos or games can be said to look dated.

-- Considering no matter what report you listen too, WiiU's graphics will look a lot more like 360's than something cutting edge.  That is to say, like graphics from 7 years ago (2005 when 360 launched).  That's dated.

Mike from Morgantown