Shrug, Gamecube was more advanced that the Ps2, had better graphics and system specs, and it got bent over. It was even better than X-box in some areas. I can see why some in Nintendo might think about being really powerful won't exactly help them.

Plus, you are an investor, your choices are invest in a company that: Sells at a 200 dollar loss and a high premium, sells at a 50 dollar loss and a medium price range, or sells at a 100 dollar profit and has the lowest price range.

Who you gonna pick? Which gaming division actually makes sense as a business?

Then in a less theoretical offering, not only are they selling weaker cheaper hardware, but are in many cases providing a superior desired gaming experience to knowledgeable consumers, not just fooling the inexperienced, though that happens too.

You can claim this but Nintendo's design philosophy has enabled them to produce inexpensive and capable hardware time and time again. Regardless of whether you believe that the XBox was more powerful than the Gamecube, the two systems were very close in power inspite of the fact that Nintendo sold the Gamecube for $200 at a profit while the XBox was sold for $300 at a loss.

Certainly, Nintendo may have had to choose a somewhat lower performance system in order to protect profitability but it would not have been really all that noticeable. The decision to go with the hardware in the Wii was largely driven by the need to keep development costs down and their uncertaintly of the Wii's eventual success; Nintendo is not the type of company to go $2 Billion in the red under the assumption that they will be successful in the end.

I knew you owned a Wii as soon as I saw the topic of the thread.

And as for PS3 and 360 fans getting defensive it more like getting tired of people trying to tell us that the graphics of those consoles is unneeded and that the Wii changes everything.  To most people who bought the PS3 and 360 it changed nothing because we're constantly looking to be wow'd, to be even more immersed in our games.  And we'll be just as excited when the next generation of consoles comes along that offer the promise of even better graphics.  If the Wii does cause Microsoft and Sony to start taking baby steps when it comes to graphics it'll be a disappointment but if that happens some of us will probably just turn to computers to get the experiences we're looking for.

ps.  In no way am I trying to put down the Wii, it's great for what it is and does bring new things to the table with it's controller.

Honestly Happy, do you think that Nintendo could have continued with the same strategy that they used last generation -- and the strategy that Sony and Microsoft continue to use -- and come out on top? I suspect they would have been even further marginalized than they were last generation. 

The "make the graphics a lot better and sell the console for a loss" strategy requires deep pockets and heavy spending. Nintendo has shown a predeliction for penny pinching and does not have the pockets that Microsoft does. 

I understand your sentiment and frustration, but I think it misdirected as this thread doesn't seem to be trying to defend the Wii. The truth is there is a divide in gamers insofar as graphics and their importance goes. It is perfectly reasonable to ques...

Damn Opera browser...

 OK, where was I? Oh yes. It's perfectly reasonable to question if the emphasis some gamers place on graphics is a generational one (ie - do those raised on "poor" graphics care less than those spoiled bastards who grew up with more powerful game systems). Rather than being a "gameplay>graphics" thread, it seems to fit more in the vein of "kids have it too good" genre. Again, I disagree with the hypothesis, but I do acknowlege it's validity as a possible source of this dichotomy.

But really I think there will always be a segment of the population drawn to eye candy. How many people do you know who seem to like even the shittiest movies because they have good FX? (Hell, an entire subdivision of the music industry was founded on selling cute but talentless guys to preteen girls).  Why should games be any different?  

To be honest, Legend, I don't entirely understand why you don't join the ranks of PC gamers already. There's no question that the graphical experience is superior; the skill level is ratcheted up even higher, and the possibilites of the controller are more varied. I'm sort of an all-or-nothing guy, however. I strongly support the completely casual games, I love the hardcore, professional gaming available on the PC, and the in between stuff -- which is how I view almost all 360/PS3 material -- is just not for me. 

 sorry the Wii version is worse then Gears and Resistance.. the Cube version is awesome.

Depends on what you mean "come out on top" ...

If you are refering to producing the most advanced system, or the most profitable system I think it is possible that Nintendo could have come out on top. In terms of market share it becomes far more difficult to tell.

I believe that the high price of the PS3 and the XBox 360's limited apeal in some regions would have given them the opportunity to gain a lot of market share; the problem they would face is that high development costs would cut into their margins, limit the number of games they can produce and give them a product which was nearly identical to their competition. Basically, I could see Nintendo gaining market share yet still comming in second or third worldwide.

Anyways ...

What I was mainly saying is that Nintendo (being a game developer) makes their money from the games they sell; this means that they are really concerned with keeping development costs down because if you spend 4 times as much developing a game you have to sell 4 times as many to maintain your margin. The strategy which they used on the N64 and Gamecube would no longer work for Nintendo because this generation would make it difficult for most games to break even.

i don't think age is correlated what graphics preference... probably has more to do with how much gaming experience they have. even that seems iffy. one thing is for sure, and that is, people don't get hooked to playing video games because the graphics is great.

"No game with crap graphics is ever best." -- The information content of this statement is practically nil. With the word "crap" that basically guarantees it can't ever be the "best" game, especially since we already have tens of thousands of games at our disposal.

Sorry, Twilight Princess was far more enjoyable than Gears or Resistance.

So, our opinions differ I guess.  I enjoy games too much, and have so much less time to play them anymore, heh.  Most games I play, I'm happy to be done with them when I finally finish, so that I can move on to the next exciting game.  I just finished Twilight Princess today.  And I actually felt something I haven't in a long time.  I'm kinda depressed I finished the game.  I was just thoroughly enjoying it.