Yeah, back then Ninten's hardware was the strongest in the business since Sega was their only main competiton, and Sega was kinda weird. The N64 was a weird case in that with the cartridges made loading easier, but couldn't hold as much as a CD, so that kinda set it back. And the GC I hear was stronger, but the design choice of special CDs also set it back, and the PS2 with its DVD player helped the PS2 as well as PS1 being such a big success. Weird how GC was stronger, but still fell flat.

Because it was a year late to the market and third parties had already pledged exclusivity to the PS2. FInal Fantasy X, GTA3, Tekken tag, Metal Gear Solid (all of the mega sellers of the time) were PS2 exclusive and arrived before or literally during the gamecube's launch.  The gamecube really didn't do anything much wrong, the PS2 was just unbeatable (+DVD support helped). Similarly nothing the XBox could have done would have changed its future much. Third Party exclusivity was the norm then because each platform was drastically different, and everyone picked PS2, that is no longer the case now. 

1. Nintendo will be early, not late. The same way the PS1 and 360 being early allowed them to make huge ground.

2. Third parties are no longer exclusive to sony just for the sake of being exclusive, despite some Nintendo fans thinking third parties just hate Nintendo (look back at the Wii U's third party launch support) the majority would support them if they made a console targeted at their said audience (core gamers) and was technilogically signifcantly more advance then any system out at the time. 

BTW I'm not in anyway entertaining the idea of Nintendo doing what OP suggests, but going the route of power is a really safe bet and the gamecube still outpaced the WIi U quite easily.

Crazy when you think that Nintendo and sony were working together on a platform before Nintendo screwed them over. If that never happened their would be no playstation and the N64 would have used CDs, the whole industry moving forward from that would have been completely different lol

the ps4 and xbone should stay longer than 5-6 years? pls no! they are allready to weak...

I think it's more important that Nintendo can sustain a steadier output of games, and that the console launches at their traditional $250 price point. Honestly, a $250 PS4 would be doable for Nintendo in a few years. With the way they optimize their games, Nintendo could well have the corner on graphics for 2-3 years (until the next wave of home consoles comes out) without breaking the bank at all.

"the ps4 and xbone should stay longer than 5-6 years? pls no! they are allready to weak..."

No their not. They are pretty powerfull even compaired to most avg pc's.
Also theres more room for growth via software codeing squeeseing out more performance
(currently still stuff left on the table).


hUMA/HSA, is the secret sauce that isnt being used currently that could speed things up abit more.


"There’s one other thing to keep in mind when it comes to considering the benefits of HSA for gaming. Ever since the dawn of 3D acceleration, gaming has been a combined effort between the CPU and GPU. Game developers have a great deal of experience when it comes to minimizing latency and the impact of CPU-GPU data sharing on conventional architectures, which means taking advantage of HSA to deliver improvements on the standard way of doing things is going to take time.

With multiple studios rushing to finish games, it’s unlikely that HSA/hUMA will serve as the distinguishing technological features on display come launch day." Quote from http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/164557-ps4-will-use-its-unified-architecture-to-pound-xbox-one-into-the-dust-eventually


I personally hope the PS4 & Xbox1 hold on for a decently long time. With game support for the 10years or so they said they would.

GPGPU wise:

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/PS4-Clobbers-Xbox-One-Ubisoft-GPU-Benchmark-67877.html

Look at cloth simulations run on the CPU vs running them via GPGPU:

Theres plent of things in games you can off load from the CPU onto the GPU, and get really high speed ups.

Hmm, I'd probably say the improvement in games graphic-wise would take longer if Nintendo continued the charge. Though I wonder if the Wii would have ever happened in that case...

10 years??? o.O Nintendo never supported a console longer than 5 years (even Wii)...

I totally agree that there's no point discussing the dominance of the PS2 that generation, as it was already a juggernaut by the time the other two consoles released.  My arguement is that price did not even secure the Gamecube second place.  At $100 cheaper, and later selling for a mere $99, Gamecube still finished behind even the original XBox.  I am disputing a statement that was made that "pricepoint guarantees sales".  It absolutely does not.

Hmm... Lynx, Game Gear, Game Boy... I wonder why Game Boy won and continues to make Nintendo the king of dedicated handhelds? Yes, the games of course but energy consumption as well.