You are questioning the strategy of the console that won the generation. Why?

PS3 was actually being sold at a loss at $600. Anyway, Nintendo, at the time, didn't had money to lose on any new console they released. Wii's motion controller wasn't cheap, and with comparable hardware to the 360, you could easily expect Nintendo pricing it at $600 to not lose any money on the console. $300/$350 is still fairly low and reasonable price for a new console, but step above $450 and I bet Wii wouldn't have sold nearly as much as it did during 2006/2007. If they lost money on each Wii sold, of course you could have a $450 console like the 360 when it released, but just like MS, Nintendo would've been losing a lot of money on it.

Look at the Gamecube, 199$ at launch, cheaper than the other consoles and was competitive in terms of hardware power with the competition (more powerful than PS2, and just slightly less powerful than Xbox) I'm pretty sure that Nintendo with their expertise could have created hardware with at least programmable shaders and near the power of 360 at a reasonable price, along with the Wii Remote and motion control. They could have done it, but they were a bit foolish not to in one way. On the other hand, they made profit from the start, so they have a ton of money in their bank right now.

It's hard to say as the Wii wouldn't of been so cheap to start with. It might have attracted the core more though.

It had reasonable third party support for its first two years, but devs bailed once Nintendo's own IP couldn't get the job done in selling the machine (ie: Mario Sunshine and Zelda: WW notably).

Sony was also smart enough to use their one year headstart to lock up several key exclusives like the GTA series, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, MGS2/3, etc.

No, because that would mean the Wii would have been much more expensive at launch, plus giving away one of it's highest selling points. The Wii still had the motion controls thingy which was obviously the biggest selling point, but at higher price it wouldn't have had the impact it did.

As for the games, some few multiplats here and there, but nothing more.

That doesnt make any sense, N made billions with Wii, which puts them in the best posible position which is having bilions in da bank

If youre talking bout public opinion then is also a no. People didnt give a shit about GC and it was purely a powerful gaming machine.

Because that worked for GameCube?

Nope. Nintendo succeeds or fails on their own merits.

You're philosophy concludes that Nintendo needs 3rd parties to be successful, however, history has proven time and time it again that when Nintendo caters to 3rd parties they fail or at least don't make nearly as much money.

I love 3rd party games and continuously have argued that Nintendo has to make moves to get their games on Nintendo hardware so they can pwn the competition, however, even when Nintendo does attempt to do what it can for 3rd parties, it still fails and they lost games there is legitimately no reason for Nintendo not to have.

So I've given up on that argument and focused on the only constant. If Nintendo makes quality games that are clearly "Nintendo" games, they will succeed and I'll still be happy either way. I just may need to pick up another console at some point to play other games I want too. That or upgrade my PC.

No. Nintendo would have more market share right now, but that $10 billion in the bank wouldn't be there. It amazes me how so many fail to grasp that Sony and MS's overpowered machines, while fine for gamers and 3rd parties, are terrible business decisions.