Most anything done with motion control can be adapted to the standard controller, the problem is that the experience will suffer.

Perfect example: Wii Sports: It would probably be one of the most boring games ever if it wasn't for motion controls.

Tiger Woods Wii: swinging a club verses doing it with a control pad is a huge difference.

RTS games on consoles can't compare to an RTS on a PC.

Metroid Prime loses a lot when going to normal controls (Metrid Prime 1/2 vs. Metroid Prime trilogy versions). It's simply a better experience using IR aiming.

Developers shouldn't be using motion controls just to use motion controls, they should use motion controls when they would add to the experience, something Nintendo only seems to have understood until recently.

Anyway back on topic. I think Nintendo will look at the state of the market, find out how much they want to price their console at, and then pack as much in that will keep them under that price point. I'm thinking they will jump to $299 next gen.

"Anyway back on topic. I think Nintendo will look at the state of the market, find out how much they want to price their console at, and then pack as much in that will keep them under that price point. I'm thinking they will jump to $299 next gen."

Not likely. If they are packing in as much as the price point can fit, they would do it for $200-$250.

Every Nintendo console has sold for roughly $200 in the past. $200 is a lot less now than it was 20 years ago, With the Wii selling as good as it is, and the sky high prices of the other HD consoles at launch, $300 is realtively cheap. Plus I'm sure the recession will be on it's way out when Nintendo launches their next system, so people won't be low on cash. I'm just saying That they will first decide a price point (which i'm guessing $300) and then put as much in to keep it under $300 to manufacture.

That ignores that tech prices in general fall. Nintendo keeps the system prices low to keep pace, not because they think they can get away with that price. They can't afford not to make the systems as affordable as possible.

Nintendo have stated many times that their next home console will support HD graphics. And they would be crazy not to. By 2011//2012 when it comes out, a system capable of playing 1080p 60hz games will be hella cheap

well its not about the graphics, its about third parties. IF they made Wii Plus then third parties wont have a hard time porting games to the wii , it will be easier for the devs and easier for nintendo.

alot of devs have the experience on HD consoles now. and they feel they don't want the extra work to make games from scratch just for the Wii.

Bring on the Wii Plus!!! (i hope its not an addon though, that would fail)

Not necessarily... but it sure does help when it comes to what's under the hood of the latest gaming systems.  The GC was as powerful as the Xbox because it was a no-frills gaming system that had a custom CPU by IBM and a custom graphics chip by ArtX which was owned by ATI, whereas the XBOX basically used modified versions of off-the-shelf Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs, which although were technically more powerful than the GC's on paper, they were made for multitasking PC applications, and raw horepower doesn't necessarily equal better performance when it comes to game consoles.  MS, being the multi-billion dollar megacorporation it is, was able to simply buy Intel and Nvidia's top of the line hardware in bulk and integrate it into their system.

This generation, we've seen Sony come out with a system that not only pushes bleeding-edge hardware in the CPU and GPU department, but also features a brand new custom storage medium that offers the best in visual and audio quality currently available.  If they didn't have billions of dollars from their previous successful systems and their electronics division to pour into researching and developing that technology, then the PS3 wouldn't have been nearly as advanced as it was.

And I beg to differ with that last statement... see the Dreamcast's short life span for reference, or any number of failed systems for that matter.  SEGA was hemorrhaging cash when the Dreamcast was released, and despite it being more powerful than the current sytems on the market (which isn't saying much since they had already been out 3-4 years at the time), it simply was no match for the PS2, which was released just a year later and featured a custom CPU and GPU hardware, dubbed the "Emotion Engine",  which Sony had been able to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into researching and developing thanks in part to the enormous success of the PS1, and to their hugely successful home electronics division which was also pushing a new storage and video medium at the time... DVD.

"IF they made Wii Plus then third parties wont have a hard time porting games to the wii"

They couldn't port at all. They had to do conversions. The difference is that with a port you can have the goal of being as close to the finished product as possible, and with a conversion you have to totally do the game over.

But then again, developers could have ported many of their games to the GC during the 6th gen (even loads of FMVs would just mean multiple discs), and they didn't bother, so it's not the porting that is the issue here. It's this stubborn refusal to give Nintendo more support.

I do believe that loosing money bad in previous generations puts a company in a bad position to release new consoles.  Just a few points I want to throw out there:

One of the reasons the Dreamcast tanked Sega was because people decided to wait for the PS2.  Bad market decision by Sega.

Another reason was that Sega sold the Dreamcast at a loss, like many companies do (except Nintendo apparently)

Shenmue didn't help Sega's situation either.  Did you see the development cost for that game?  They said that every Dreamcast owner would have to buy the game twice to make up for the cost.

You make it sound like Nintendo lost money on the N64.  Even though it was beaten by the PS1 by a big margin, it did fairly well.  Even considering that, Nintendo made a lot of money just because most of the games people were buying on the N64 were Nintendo games.

Despite that, if Nintendo thought that a powerhouse gaming system would make them profits, then they would have a system that rivals the PS3 in horsepower.  They didn't, because they thought the best business decision would be to make what eventually became the Wii.  Worked for them, didn't it?

As for the technology that goes into any console.  Any technology that goes into a console has already been developed.  The R/D is adapting that technology into a console form.  In other words, they use technology that has already been made for other electronic systems/computers.  Nintendo can use that technology too.

I am just using what I think is common sense.  If I am wrong, feel free to give me a source that disagrees; preferable from someone reputable and not some random blog.  I am always up for learning something new.

You cannot be serious. Many of the best and most defining games in Nintendo's history have been so exactly because they were designed around the hardware on which they were placed, specifically the interfaces, which for consoles means the controls. Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, the first Super Mario Bros, Starfox 64, Goldeneye, Eternal Darkness - all of these games were in part masterful exactly because they were designed around the controller.

One can take a game concept based around a controller and make it into something amazing. Phantom Hourglass is amazing because of how it's applied to the hardware. The same is true for Kirby's Canvas Curse. The same will likely be true for Zelda Wii.

You have this idea in your head that controls should be secondary to the design concept of a game, but that does not need to hold true unless yo uare working with controllers that basically have not changed since the last generation, as in the Playstation and Xbox lins. In the case of bigger leaps, like with analog sticks on the N64 and motion/IR controls on the Wii, it can be just as effective (possibly moreso) to take an approach to the controls and say "Okay, what can I do with this?"

The problem is that developers have been failing to do that, save for Nintendo's own efforts. Too many people making games are trying to look at pre-established genres and figuring out how ot make them work on the Wii, when the truth of the matter is that they need to be thinking about how they can be breaking out of those molds.