^Samus you might want to change your first sentence if you don't want to get banned. Someone will prob report that (can't do personal attacks to users / name calling or that blatant).

True that.  However, even now it wouldn't be dramatically expensive to make something that's considerably more powerful than either a 360 or a PS3 (as evidenced by the jaw-dropping computers you can build for only a few hundred), so even if they don't break the bank, as it were, they could easily make a reasonably-priced machine in five or six years that was several leaps beyond what this gen can do.  Combine that with the fact that Microsoft and Sony definitely won't want to go with the loss-leading strategy again, and I think that (if indeed we do see new 'traditional' consoles) everyone will be relatively equal like they were last gen.

Here is the list of the processing speeds of the sixth generation gaming consoles. Surprisingly, the Gamecube is faster than the PS2.

Xbox: 733 Mhz
Gamecube: 485 Mhz
PS2: 294 Mhz
Dreamcast: 200 Mhz

As one poster as already said, though, Nintendo did lose a lot of money on the gamecube because everybody else was playing PS2 or Xbox. So instead of spending billions on a powerful console, they made a cheap console with almost the same graphics as gamecube and named it the Wii, and targeted it towards the casual. And what do you know? 50 million units sold in 2 1/2 years versus 32 million lifetime for the 64 and 24 million lifetime for the gamecube.

They didn't lose money on GCN they just didn't make as much as they could have.

They did not knew that the other companies would jump as high, but almost all the other consoles that they did was the most powerful in his time (snes, n64,game cube).

Only if Nintendo wants to.

- the gamecbue didnt lose money
- didnt everyone know that gc > ps2 in terms of hardware ? im more surprised by the difference between xbox and GC, i didnt expect that much

please don't start that whole argument again whether the n64 or ps1 was stronger, you can't find a REAL solution, they were just different ( open world vs cinemativ )

@ sethnintendo : they won't miss me but they will miss the money from me and all the other pissed nintendo lovers who will buy furtehr nintendo consoles for 100 € at ebay

Nintedo 64 was more powerful than PSX.

Game Cube was more powerful than PS2.

That's the wrong question. This is the real one: What will the two others players do with graphics or hardware? Will they follow Nintendo? The answer is probably yes. Nintendo's new strategy works without a shadow of a doubt, so the others are forced to act in a similar way.

It seems clear that graphics have reached a certain point where megaleaps of hardware increases shows less and less difference than before. The differences between this generation and the last were smaller than the one between PS1 to PS2 and those were smaller than the ones between snes to PS1. Isn't that the reason that Nintendo came with the focus on fun and not graphics? That wouldn't have worked well before the wii. There was a staleness creeping in the gaming bussiness. Nintendo saw it, acted after its feeling and struck gold.

Neither company's will not throw much money down a hole when it's not needed. None of the three. The funny thing is that Nintendo doesn't depends on graphics but on color and style. So it possesses a clear advantage over its rivals. The next generation could be very interesting.

I think it's very possible that they could (don't know if they really want to, though). It's not like Nintendo being behind everyone this generation as far as hardware is concerned that it is behind in the long run. The PS2 was behind as far as hardware is concerned, but they seem to have the best hardware now with the PS3. One generation can make a big difference for Nintendo as far as hardware is concerned.

I do have a question about graphics in general, though: We say "good graphics" means that it looks good, right? Or does it mean something more than that?