Microsoft gave Nintendo an easy ride with the wii. It was literally a re-packaged gamecube with a new controller and on most levels inferior performance to the original xbox yet Microsoft didn't exploit this at all in marketing. I don't pretend that all marketing should be about specification, it should be about games and lifestyle etc but they never even bothered to get that information out there.

There was a long time on forums where people were pretending the wii was much more powerful than it was using the classic excuse lazy ports, new architecture and all the normal fanboy nonsense. As time went on their viewpoint became more and more un-sustainable and the voices became quieter as hackers etc exposed the full spec of the wii. Microsoft could easily have capitalised on this. 10x the cpu power, 25x the gpu power etc, high definition graphics, true 5.1 sound etc, etc

I'm sure such marketing would have eroded some of the wii's success at the very least. It's not like the gamecube, original xbox and ps2 generation where the performance difference was much smaller and each console having some advantages compared to the other, both 360 and PS3 represented a huge performance advantage over wii.

There may never be a generation again where a console manufacturer makes such huge profits from just the console itself.

I can't believe someone wrote an article over a blurb that was said on a podcast. At least he linked the podcast at the bottom of his article.
This podcast was a great listen whether you're a fan of Xbox or not. I hope they can talk to other console company higher ups past and present, and recreate this. Listening to the struggles of a software company trying to create hardware, and all the animosity the Xbox division encountered in the beginning from other MS employees, and share holders, talk about backs against the wall.

Not really. The NES had close to a year head start on the SMS and the 7800, had exclusivity contracts with massive 3rd party developers like Konami because of the infamous lockout chip, and their ruthless negotiating tactics with big-box retailers.

People always look at this issue through rose-colored glasses. Because of these factors I listed, Nintendo secured a huge market share. Because they secured a huge market share, they're enshrined in our minds as instant classics because those were the games that everyone played and loved. Very few kids owned multiple same-gen consoles, and the SMS was effectively nonexistent in the US, along with the 7800. Had the above factors not existed, it's entirely just as likely that we'd be hailing Ys, Phantasy Star, Alex Kidd, and Altered Beast as instant classics that helped define video gaming for decades, just like we do for Super Mario, Zelda, Contra, Mega Man, etc. By 1991, Nintendo was being outsold by the Mega Drive 3 to 1, and Sega competed squarely against the Super Nintendo, yet the Super Nintendo had just as many "killer apps" as the NES; including the best game ever made, Super Metroid. The reason Sega closed the gap has little to do with the quality of games as both systems had excellent libraries. It has virtually everything to do with the fact that the CEO of Sega of America, Tom Kalinske, was a marketing genius who had previously turned Mattell into the giant that it was in the 80's and knew how to market toys to Americans far better than Nintendo of America did.

Take PC in the 80's as an example of this. What people don't realize is that while the console wars were going on, there was an entire undercurrent of PC titles, particularly RPG's, which were far and away superior to just about all console RPGs that existed at the time. Ultima, King's Quest, Phantasie, Gold Box, etc. They aren't remembered by millions of people because of the economics of the market, not because the console alternatives were more compelling.

I wonder if the same will happen, when both Sony and Microsoft are planning their next generation consoles?

Not sure why we need this discussion when in the podcast they said that the original xbox was kind of a disaster, they had no idea how to make a console but the fail of the Xbox helped to make the X360 succesfull. They learned especially Phil Spencer. 

The Master system had only 3 3rd party games.  99% of it's library was first party.  WiiU has it easy compared to what Sega had to with the master system.

*applause* If anything, it shows that NO one should ever assume they own the market going into a gen. Thinking you can come out on top just because you throw a lot of money around means you're probably missing the bigger picture in gaming.

I never knew M$ had such an influential presence on how much a console can sell for. M$ created the 360 nicely and it's abilities must have struck fear in Nintendo. Nintendo therefore had to launch their console at a discounted price, due to this. You play a good game of cards M$.... Sooooo gooood.

Dumb decision, never underestimate a long time campaigner.
Kudos to Nintendo last gen they brought something fresh to the table, something MS & Sony struggle to do.

Everybody underestimated the Wii. I don't think anyone could have predicted it would be so successful.

And that first to 10m wins thing is silly since the 360 still came in third place.