A lot of these statements about relative power are becoming confusing; especially comments like “minimum as powerful as 360”. This mainly stems from E3, where Nintendo didn’t show anything “next-gen”. It’s no longer a matter of Wii U’s HD capability, but whether it will be on par graphically with Sony and Microsoft’s next consoles. Essentially: will it get multiplatform games that are noticeably different?
Miyamoto even admitted Wii U most likely won’t be as powerful as its competitors. I don’t think anyone was really anticipating that anyway. When he says it’s about a balance of power and cost, this means two things. First, Nintendo has an image and a track record of offering a good value to its customers. Nintendo could put out a $400+ console, but then they alienate a large base that some of their games cater to. Not Kids necessarily, but it becomes a too expensive for “a Nintendo”. By comparison, $299 looks much more attractive. Secondly, Nintendo doesn’t want to take a loss on its console like Microsoft and Sony are willing to do. People joke about $599 USD, but in reality that was still $200 under the component cost. How many games would they have to sell, especially 1st-party, to make up the difference? The gamble it too risky, because if it doesn’t pay off, Nintendo either goes bankrupt, or won’t be able to finance new consoles or games. They would rather err on a sure bet that they can control. They are a business after all, and they have to make a profit for the shareholders. What Sony and Microsoft are doing could be compared to someone who goes out and purchases a lot of nice, new flashy things on a credit card that they can’t afford. And if everything eventually goes to hell, they still have the chance their “parents” could bail them out if it gets too dire. In Nintendo’s case they prefer to pay in cash; yeah, it might not be as flashy, but there is significantly less risk attached.