@Dr. Grass: On a side note, Sony have launched all its three home consoles second. Saturn -> PSX -> N64, Dreamcast -> PS2 -> GC -> Xbox, 360 -> PS3 -> Wii.

Wasn't the NES launched first?

And it isn't fair to say that the SNES and N64 launched last because in each case there were new entrants to the market who preempted their launch. I don't think Nintendo planned their launch strategy around the Genesis and the PSX.

The GC launched after the PS2 likely because of the fact that the N64 launched after the PSX. This is to be expected... It launched around the same time as the XBOX.

The Wii launched after the XBOX 360 because the original XBOX had only a 4 year life cycle which is shorter than any "successful" console that has ever existed. Also, the Wii launched around the same time as the PS3.

Of the 3 major console manufacturers, the Nintendo is the only 1 in its 5 generation. Nintendo has like clockwork launched a new console in the US every 5 years. I don't think they intentionally launched last in any of them.

It seems obvious to me that the next Nintendo console will be launched in 2011. I don't think Nintendo is much concerned with the prestige of topping the PS2 in sales. By then they will likely be selling the Wii for under $150.00, and would prefer to launch a new console at the $250 - $300 price point.

Also, Sony is not the only two generation in a row winner. NES and SNES both finished first.

1. While anything can obviously happen, SNES, N64, GC, and Wii have all launched ~1yr after their earliest competitor and all are about 5-6 years after their parent.

2. Did NES and SNES just dissappear off of the history records? Keep in mind SNES came late and still won, which is why Nintendo has never really cared about launching later. Granted, you are right that there is incentive to launch first as shown by PS2 and 360s lead over PS3. Which is why I keep saying regardless of what PR say, this gen will be replaced in 2012 at the latest.

3. All three have the same incentives to wait or launch early. Waiting for all three will maximise profits on current hardware. Launching early gives them a possible benefit of getting a big enough lead and potential big gains resulting from market share lead. However, the question is which will pay off more? Keeping in mind that MS/Sony will definitely not allow each one to launch before the other in any significant manner.

i think it has a chance of being called Super Wii. Keep the momentum flowing like from NES to SNES days.


hard to say when it will launch. Personally i would talk to all the big RPG and maturer game 3rd parties to get off to a better relationship on the next console so we get some awesome surprises. ie final fantasy (main stream game), a GTA game etc..

Microsoft has proven in the past that they don't give a rat's ass about profits. Their whole goal in this is marketshare, plain and simple, and they'll do whatever they think can get them the most. Sony, however, does, which is why i believe the PS4 will launch last.

In Nintendo's case, they can build a new console which is also profitable from the beginning, and while they'll let Wii hang around after a while, much like they did with NES, SNES, and GBA, they could easily be first (or tied for first) to move with. If they tie, it will be with Microsoft, for sometime in Q4 2011.

You have to consider it from a software perspective, too. Nintendo's internal engineers are going to want new hardware to be working with on schedule. With their current upcoming lineup of games, i think we'll be seeing the Wii not necessarily maxed out, but have all of it's possibilities explore. Zelda Wii will be the definitive motion-driven experience, and after it comes out, Zelda will have nowhere to go but new hardware. We'll see other projects in the next year or two that will see Nintendo fully utilizing Wii's capabilities. This is why i really don't see them holding out past 2011.

@catofellow: It did. Famicom and Sega SG-1000 were released at the same date.

And also, NES was released in NA 1985 and Super NES 1991, making it six years (in Japan FC 1983, SFC 1990).

Super NES was released so late because of the success of NES, N64 got delayed because of the hardware development took a little too much time, GC was just released for the sake of releasing. But Wii was intentionally released last to prevent the controller getting copied.

Nintendo doesn't have financial incentive to release Wiis successor early, but if they intend to make something new for the new console, they have an incentive to wait until the competition is out.

*please dont be called the WiiToo. pleeease*

maybe its time for that Revolution...? sounds much more serious than Wii

You are right about NES in 95, but SNES - 91, N64 - 96, GC - 2001, and Wii - 2006.

That is 1 console with a 6 year span followed by 3 consecutive consoles at 5 years per generation.

The whole advantage the Wii has was that it had motion controls and a significantly lower price point. Both will be out the window next year, and from the point of a Wii owner, the 360 and PS3 will still offer a next generation (graphics) experience.

Nintendo will need to match the graphics of the 360 and PS3, in the same way that 360 and PS3 had to match Nintendo's price and motion controls. Otherwise what exactly will be the selling point of the Wii?

Here is my speculation on WiiHD.

It will likely have a derivative of blue ray tech as its disc medium. It of coarse will not play Blue Ray movies.

There is no way they will have 4 controller ports and two memory card slots. The Gamecube just wasn't successful enough for this to be an important feature. GC games will be sold on the VC.

It will have 1080P support, but will not support standard HDMI. They will likely have a digital out port that will require a Nintendo cable.

It will have at least a 16GB SSD, although at present prices this would be expensive. I think having a 1 TB HDD would be better, but Nintendo seems to be against large storage.

It will cost 300 USD. You don't have a console sell out for 2 straight years and launch the successor at the same price.

Software, like it's always been.

How did that work for them on the GC?