If that is how you count for generations then PS1 and PS 2 also were a generation behind.

Investors defines next generation consoles? then consumers follow? I am asking. I do not know :(

That may have been how the powers at be at Nintedo felt at the time, but as we all know a console isn't finalised until they start the mass production. Even the dev kits are often very different in terms of specs (gpu, cpu, etc) up until very close to the release of a console. This doesn't mean Nintendo's leadership changed it's mind on how they saw project dolphin. It was orginally a Add on for the GameCube.

That pattent was submitted just a couple of months before they unvield the Wii console. A lot can change in a few months let alone two years before release.

^True, but don't you think that may have been a plan running in parallel with the Wii, if it was submitted only a few months before the unveiling? The Wii certainly took more than a few months to design, at least a year if not 2-3.

I've always wanted to know for sure whether Yamauchi was really the leading mind behind the Wii philosophy and this thread confirmed it. Thanks.

^You're very welcome Valdney.

1. Wii-remote, Wii Balance board and Wii Wheel were conceived as GC add-ons to extend the life of the console (much like Kinect is for MS and the X360).

2. The corporate marketing philosophy was 'new gen, not next gen". Again, it's a marketing philosophy which falls in line with the oft mentioned Blue Ocean strategy.

3. It later became understood that the concept would be better realized and successful with a new console rather than as a market divergent peripheral of the GC.

4. Wii console itself conceived AFTER gesture based controller was developed.

5. Wii is launched in November of 2006 as the flagship console successor to the Gamecube thereby establishing itself as a 7th generation video game console.


Any questions?

Yah. *raises hands* For point five, what exactly was the philosophy for Wii, the flagship console, and how does it differ from what Yamauchi said about what we now know as the Wii?

Not really a whole lot.   But a marketing philosophy and a systematic generational organization construct are 2 seperate things.

In other words, "new gen, not next gen" is a marketing ploy like "blast processing" from Sega.   The intent is to get you to think of the hardware as something different, something unique, something unseen.   It doesn't alter it's place in the actual heirarchy of video game generations.

Thank you. The marketing side of it I understand.

When it comes to the technical side of it (hardware performance), mind you, how does the the philosophy in the article differ from what we now know as the Wii?