> Hardware design is extremely important, and with Nintendo's commitment to continually finishing last in the GFX arms race, it's all they have.
I'd like to point out that the Gamecube was much better than the Playstation 2 in terms of graphics.
In fact, I'd say that they learned their lesson about being a "Me Too" player that generation, and began to focus on usability and innovation instead of raw speed. This is a lesson they should have learned from their portables, but somehow never applied it to their consoles.
The Gamecube edged out in certain aspects like lighting and color accuracy, and the Playstation 2 won out in other ways. It was definitely a beefy GPU that stood toe-to-toe with Sony's... ATI did a good job.
Unfortunately, Nintendo thought it was a good idea to barely increase GPU performance between generations and with the Wii we basically got a Gamecube V2 instead of a console that actually competed with the new generation on a hardware level.
Right and the GameCube sold ~20 million units, which is abysmal for Nintendo. Far fewer than any other Nintendo console up until that point, only the WiiU has sold worse. But the Wii sold ~100 million units and was an unqualified success.
I think elsonrodriguez's point was this. Nintendo has released consoles with enough power to best all or some competition previously, in the form of the N64 and the GameCube. That power didn't translate into sales. The N64 sold 1/3 as many units as the PSOne. The GameCube sold ~1/8th as many units as the PS2. But the Wii sold more units than the Xbox360 or the PS3.
>Unfortunately, Nintendo thought it was a good idea to barely increase GPU performance between generations and with the Wii we basically got a Gamecube V2 instead of a console that actually competed with the new generation on a hardware level.
Given the Wii's success it seems clear that they didn't need to compete on the hardware level to be successful. And seeing how competing on hardware hasn't worked out for them (terribly well) in the past it's arguably not a good strategy for them to continue.
It certainly seems like Nintendo's biggest success stories don't center around unparalleled technical specs. Rather, low cost hardware that's used really well.
Certainly, but I think there are a lot of factors at play for why the GCN didn't do well. For example, Nintendo tends to get its customer base wrong and often doesn't engage in the kind of hype that Sony and Microsoft do because Nintendo isn't trying to bleed people dry.
> Given the Wii's success it seems clear that they didn't need to compete on the hardware level to be successful
Again, several factors involved, even Nintendo was surprised by their success.
However, very few fans above 8 y.o. looked at their Wii and said, "Yes, I'm satisfied that this is 480p when literally everything else on the market is 1080p".
A lot of people had expectations going in that were not realized because they were just kind of expected as standard, and Nintendo failed to deliver. Resolution, performance, even DVD playback. They really skimped on the latter, even our toasters can play DVDs these days.
> It certainly seems like Nintendo's biggest success stories don't center around unparalleled technical specs.
So what do you believe can be attributed to their success?
And the answer isn't low-cost hardware. That only appealed to a certain casual market, and Nintendo suffered for it with the Wii U because that market had already been burned out on Wii gaming and most saw no reason to upgrade.
I'd like to point out that the Gamecube was much better than the Playstation 2 in terms of graphics.
In fact, I'd say that they learned their lesson about being a "Me Too" player that generation, and began to focus on usability and innovation instead of raw speed. This is a lesson they should have learned from their portables, but somehow never applied it to their consoles.