shouldnt it be the other way around???

The point is people are hyping it so much they're calling it game of the year and arguing over the scores its getting, etc.  And bringing it up in totally unrelated threads (even here on the Nintendo Board).  And its not even out yet (aka no one has played it). 

why do people always think that if it sells more its good??

its like saying "since the jonas brothers are sooo popular, they must be good!"

imo sure the wii is in the lead in sales but it doesnt mean its any good.....
the wii is the worst nintendo system ever, it had potential and promise. But that all seems to be in the past as the system seems more so like a gimmick.

Asll companies have done many things for gaming including the wii, BUT i think with the wii nintendo sold out. So many causals on this site and in general who think wii games are the greatest.
mind you it has come up with few great games like MG, Metroid3, No more heroes, mad world and wii sports....(sorry SSMBB just sucked hard balls)
but thats not enough for me to waste my time with
yyeesss i think vgs are a waste of time, but...a good waste of time!

So imho
Nintendo did wonders with the NES, SNES, 64 was alright (all 3 systems creating classic games!!), gamescube was a dissapointment to many but i loved it and wii just sucks

sony matured gaming in all aspects with ps1 and ps2
rocky start with ps3 but it seems to be picking up

MS created online gaming which was revoltionary and set the standard for online play and who knows what natal will bring.

i dont venture to much into this business, this is all i really know. why search this $hit up when i can be playing a video game or do something contructive with my time. honestly i can careless if nintendo, sony or microsoft make profits from gaming but i'm against the wii, i'm a nintendo fanboy not a wii fanboy...nintendo never created the wii in my eyes.

"BUT i think with the wii nintendo sold out."

Please. Sony and Microsoft were selling out with their systems. They just assumed processing power would be what sold, not accessible games.

So old gen graphics and inaccurate idiot proof wave you hands foolishly around controls is real gaming.

ha.

@WereKitten: You know what the biggest difference here is? Basically you're arguing about the architectural differences of the processors itself, that are required in order to make multicore processor work, in relation to a single core. I'm not arguing about technical details or basing any argument on them.
What i'm pointing out is, that a single 360 core and Broadway are very close to each other, and the production cost of a single core and Broadway aren't far from each other.

@shinsa: Other than sales it's hard to measure how people perceive a product fitting themselves. If something doesn't sell, people don't see the product to fit them.

As "good" is purely subjective measure, your perception of what's good is just as good as anybody elses. You don't have to like Wii, or any other console for that matter, but that goes for the rest of the people just aswell.

Gaming have matured as gamers have grown up, not because of a company entering the business.

For the NES part, Nintendo is doing the same with Wii as it did with NES. There are lots of titles that will be remembered as classics after two decades.

@Doobie wop: Hanafuda cards were hugely successful, which means they didn't "fail tremendously".

Disliking Sony or M$ doesn't make you a Nintendo fan, so let's not generalise here.
I don't know a single hifist that didn't dislike Sony. Disliking M$ is pretty common in Linux and Mac communities and even among Windows users. So, some of the "dislike" comes even outside the gaming community.

Then, a lot of people who have been playing games for longer, dislike Sony for bringing the huge amount of shovelware into the business. If Sega and Atari would still be "alive", Sony and M$ would get the same "dislike" from their "fans" just aswell.

Gamers do dislike BD getting shoved up their ass and last thing people wants to see, is a Windows operating system on their console.

@LF-A: If not, what would be "real gaming" instead?

And I'm saying that they are not very close as processors go, and that the costs are very different, even if you were to find a way to put a cost on a single Xenon core - which is not a given.

So my suggestion was: skip the faulty technical details if that's not really your forte, and let's go back to the root issue. You don't really need to compare broadway to xenon to talk about the fact that putting a much more modern CPU in the Wii would have costed Nintendo something in the ballpark of tens of dollars per piece, because that's the scale of cost of any console CPU.

As I said before, leaving aside the technicalities, this is what makes your statement that Nintendo would have profited just as much by creating an HD, highly performant Wii a speculation.

On one side you would have higher hardware costs and higher software development costs, at least at first (because going heavily multithreaded or changing your CPU/GPU architecture from last gen's implies new tools and dev retraining, even if you don't push on the pedal of graphics). On the other side you would have easier multiplatform ports, most probably leading to raking in more license money.

So what is your reasoning in saying that this counterfactual scenario would have brought just as much profit to Nintendo?

Thank god they didnt fail selling videogames ;)

@WereKitten: And multithreading is needed in a single core excactly where? Or atleast differently how it's done with Wii at the moment.

If i recall, there were estimates when 360 launched, that Xenon would cost ~100 USD to manufacture. Of course, taking one core out doesn't cut the cost to a third, but would still be greatly cheaper. Of course, the cost would come from other parts just aswell.

Now, the high performance part would be something along the lines "Dreamcast to Gamecube or Xbox". If Wii had a single core PPC CPU clocked somewhere around 2,4GHz, GPU between 350-400MHz, had (V)RAM maybe half of what 360/PS3 and keep the design familiar from Gamecube, it wouldn't be the "latest" hardware at the time of its release, would still be dirt cheap to manufacture and it would still easilly surpass the average graphical level seen on PS360.
Even in the example above, there's still room for debate, but it still illustrates what i'm after.

The higher production cost of software is pretty obvious, but considering the sales of Nintendos 1st party titles, the difference would be rather insignificant. And even if it would make significant difference, Wii games would retail for higher price. So, it wouldn't make a difference to Nintendo.