I think 360's poor reliability reputation is hurting it also.

Anyway, t_of_c, all I can do is echo what everyone else here has said. I don't think there are many people here who think it's intrinsically wrong that Nintendo chose to release a $250 machine instead of a $400-$600 machine. I don't think any of us are even bothered by Nintendo making a profit instead of losing $100 per box--it's not like that model worked last time for Microsoft. Heck, and we all knew its early lineup would consist mainly of Nintendo titles and crap, as 3rd parties had all but abandoned the Gamecube.

It's simply that we have certain expectations when we hear "$250." We're geeky enough to notice when a $250 box has $100 worth of machine in it, we don't like it, and we're going to say so. Our expectations were not high; they were quite fair. Face it: You're paying $250 for a machine that is about as powerful as the old $150 Xbox (some ways more, other ways less).

Its not that I disagree, I actually do agree. I only try to see it from nintendo's pov and I see that it makes sense and actually now im playing wii im not even that botherd by the gfx. I agree about the price too. Given the hardware 250 is relative high, otoh its also relative low to a ps3. I find 600 to much even if the hardware is defenitly worth it but I didnt really had a problem with the wii price even though I knew it was relative expensive.

All im trying to say is that even though the wii isnt that powerfull and its relative expensive, that doesnt make it less of a (hardcore) gaming machine than a ps3. Its just different.

Except the cost of a machine isn't all dictated by the hardware you can do so but that's not how it really works. Even if it was the shipping, packaging, and along with other elements would still justify a 250$ price do I like it no, but I can see why nintendo does it.

The other elements don't add $100 to the cost of the system, sorry.

Tally up all the components than factor in shipping, and what it cost to pay workers to produce such a system and lets not forget about the software that runs it. Wii sports also is jacking up the cost if you're talking about the US version of Wii. Nintendo still has a right as a company to charge what they feel the product is worth. Nothing to be sorry about, but price of a product is not always about the the cost of the components involved.

The graphics component in Wii might be 5 years old, but it got every new peripheral components compare to xbox360 or PS3 if not more. BT, WiFi, and all those sensors. :lol:

But I agree. Wii could have looked much better >

The consumer does not care about the power of the hardware. Every single generation was won by the weakest hardware (not counting "mid-gen" releases like 3DO, dreamcast). The sole exception also being the one generation where neither console was truly "more powerful" than the other (SMD & SFC weighed in as a tie in the end).

Right. And then we're talking about $100-$120.No one said they didn't. They can charge $75,000 if they like. This was never about legal rights.

If you're not counting 'mid-gen', then why discuss this in the context of the Wii at all? It's the definition of mid-gen to me, much more so than dreamcast or 3D0 even.

I remember that the Atari ST, being more affordable and easy to develop for, beat out the Amiga 500 initially, but as the price on the latter came down and the complex hardware was starting to overtake the ST and eventually it was significantly more successful. You may not remember, but these two machines have been major gaming platforms and were fierce competitors. It was a great time for gamers, I think, and a lot of game innovations stem from that era.

Unfortunately history hasn't got much by way of examples of consoles not even being in the same hardware generation. If you compare NES to Master System, or SNES to Megadrive, you're looking at comparable hardware, like XB360 to PS3. Wii is at best a mid-gen hardware platform, which you're discounting. Yet looking at those systems, where you had mid-gen hardware, how well did it do? The platforms that released with a large disparity between the common hardware platforms of the time, tended to flunk. Jaguar and Saturn were to PS and PS2 what Wii is to PS360, only less so. The comparison is more like Wii is to PS3 what XB is to XB360, or what NES was to SNES, or Master System to Megadrive. It's not comparable hardware, so doesn't fit the 'weakest member of generation n hardware' model. It's actually a 'strongest member of generation n-1 versus generation n hardware'. Is there any historical precedent for that? And any precedent that shows multiple times the outcome, from which a trend can be made?Wii's situation is way to different to look for any historical pointers. It's hardware is way behind, but it's control scheme is way outside the norm, and the entry level price for new tech is lower than usual, and way lower than the rivals, and it's initial reaction is way up there. History has no lessons for such a system.