Even at $250 the Wii could have been a lot more powerful than what it was. Again $200 was what the GameCube launched at just 5 years earlier and that was a monstrous upgrade over the N64. 

Nintendo didn't want to risk it. I also think the Wii was probably supposed to cost $199.99 ... they only went to $250 once they started to get positive word of mouth from initial showings of the system and Sony dropped the bomb of $599.99 for PS3. With PS3 being $600, I think Nintendo realized they could get away with $249.99. 

But Nintendo themselves has said now in hindsight not making the Wii more powerful to support things like HD resolution was a mistake (well Miyamoto has said it). 

I think some people here are forgetting how new the execution of motion controls was at the time, it would have surely been the main factor pushing the price up, as for HD that's just a plain no don't care what Miyamoto said as lets go by what happened with the WiiU where Nintendo said they underestimated just how demanding development in HD was which lead to the platform's trouble output. Had the Wii had HD they would have experienced those problems with that platform instead which with the position they were coming off with the GC would be disastrous so they were right not going for HD with it

The $250 price was bullshit lets be honest. 

They were effectively selling $99 hardware that was modestly overclocked with a new controller that was maybe $10 or $15 more to manufacture than a regular controller at best. 

The hardware was a rip off. But the experience overall felt new enough and it took on fad/craze status that Nintendo could've charged $300+ for it at that point. 

But actual hardware value was a joke. People who complain about the Switch 2's price today ... at least you are getting your money's worth. That is easily $450 of value in today's dollars in terms of hardware features/tech. Wii was a massively overpriced GameCube effectively at a time when GameCube's were sitting in discount bins for $79.99 the same year they launched the Wii. 

New to the general public maybe, but we added motion sensors to GPS navigation devices in 2001 (for dead reckoning in tunnels) and the costs of the sensors themselves was 30 cents each... Of course the same motion sensing tech was in the sixaxis while the wiimote didn't even have analog sticks. The internal sensor in the Wii mote is 128x96 monochrome, with built-in processing scaling it for high-rate tracking (around 100Hz) to detect up to 4 IR lights and transmit the coordinates of the IR lights on the 'sensor' bar back to the Wii.

No, Wii's simple yet elegant tracking solution was cheap as hell!

But you're right about HD, it would have slowed down Wii game production a lot. 

"2007 was a landmark year for the Nintendo Wii, featuring major releases like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, alongside popular titles such as Mario Party 8, Mario Strikers Charged, WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Guitar Hero III, and Pokémon Battle Revolution, solidifying the console's family-friendly appeal and expanding its third-party support with games like Zack & Wiki and Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition."

Compare that to WiiU's 2013 :/

In 2006 I believe it was reported Wii manufacturing costs were $160.

When talking about the Wii, it is very crucial to keep in mind that Sony and Microsoft lost massive amounts of money with the PS3 and Xbox360, especially at the start of the generation. They literally lost billions of dollars and Nintendo could simply not afford a scenario in which the Wii was sold at a loss or even at a break-even price and then would go on to do Gamecube numbers. 

We should also keep in mind that HD software development would've been too expensive and time consuming for Nintendo at that time.

In hindsight, a Wii for $299 with a better CPU (for example: 1 GHz instead of 729 MHz), higher GPU clock speed (say, 350 MHz instead of 243 MHz), more RAM (128 MB instead of 88 MB) and HDMI output for better picture clarity, in a slightly (!) larger form factor would've been a better idea. But we should keep in mind that the small size of the console was part of the marketing message. It was a clear differentiating factor for the console.

But in the early 2000s Nintendo was not in a position to gamble on profit margins, especially because they also had the DS competing against the PSP - and back then everyone expected the PSP to kill Nintendo's handheld business.

I would also like to add something in regards to disruptive innovation and the Switch "not being like the Wii" because it is more expensive and more powerful: This is exactly what the theory of disruptive innovation predicts. Disruptive innovation does not state "Nintendo consoles will always be weak". Instead, the theory says: "The disruptive technology will move upmarket and close the gap to established technologies in terms of old-market-value" (in this case power).

Mainframes > Personal computers > Laptops > Smartphones, or in the case of gaming consoles: Arcades > home consoles > handhelds is a perfect example of technologies disrupting prior tech. In 2000 many people didn't want to buy a laptop because it was too slow for many things. In 2007, many people did not want to buy an iPhone because it was too slow for many things. In 2017, many people said the Switch wasn't powerful enough to substitute for a home console. In 2025, fewer people say that about the Switch 2. This is exactly what the theory predicts.

Another example would be HDDs decreasing in physical size: The main purpose of an HDD is to store a lot of data and access that data at a decent speed. Every time smaller HDDs appeared (5 inches, 3.5 inches) they were at first slower than their larger counterparts, but found use in disruptive products (prime example: the iPod, which used a 1.8 inch HDD, I think). SSDs are the same: I remember when the MacBook Air was new and had an SSD option, that option was ridiculously expensive, the SSD was really small and it wasn't that much faster than a regular HDD. SSD is a disruptive technology.

Edit: Also, ARM technology is a prime example of a disruptive technology and an often-used case study to explain the theory.

Is that an AI summary, cos Smash Bros Brawl came out in 2008, not 2007.

Which means that Nintendo would not have charged less than $199.99 since they typically make a profit on hardware, even at launch.

3DS was sold at a loss for a time following its price cut. GameCube was most likely sold for a loss when it was cut to $99.99. Wii U was apparently sold at a loss from the beginning.

Even with its weak processing power, Wii was not going to cost anything below $170-$200 at launch. 

Yep Google AI :/

It says the same thing for any year you ask lol. Landmark year for everyone.


AI summary for SMBB

"Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the Wii was released in Japan on January 31, 2008, followed by North America on March 9, 2008, and then Australia and Europe in late June 2008"

AI and numbers, not a good match, but lets rely it anyway :)