Topic: XboxOne ~News/Rumor/Speculation~ Biggest Console Released This Gen!!

[Adrock]

Why would any Xbox need to run Windows 8?

[Chozo Ghost]

Why would any Xbox need to run Windows 8?

To do spreadsheets and whatever else people do with computers. Hasn't Microsoft's strategy all along been to use the whole xbox thing as a Trojan horse to continue (or even expand) their Windows monopoly?

But doesn't the 360 only have 256 or 512MB of RAM? Would that even be enough to run Windows 8? The only way I can see this happening is if this supposed new revision has at least double if not quadruple the RAM, which would actually be comparable to what Nintendo did with the DSi (the DSi has like 4 times the RAM as regular DSes, which it needs in order to run the web browser). I suppose it is also possible Microsoft could create a stripped down barebones version of Windows 8 which could manage to work on the 360 as is.

[TJ Spyke]

I have to agree with you insano, Pahcter saying it won't happen doesn't mean squat to me. He is wrong so often that I don't believe his predictions for a second.

[SixthAngel]

Pachter seems to think that the Wii/Nintendo will disappear if he ignores it hard enough (outside of screaming WiiHD).

I don't think MS has the luxury of giving the sequel to best best sellling system a 2 year headstart, especially since they seem to want that causal audience with Kinect.

[Adrock]

To do spreadsheets and whatever else people do with computers. Hasn't Microsoft's strategy all along been to use the whole xbox thing as a Trojan horse to continue (or even expand) their Windows monopoly?

I remember reading that Microsoft entered the console market to stop Sony from taking over the living room. If Microsoft wanted to expand Windows to their home consoles assuming, for example, that anyone would want to make a spreadsheet on a videogame console, they probably would have kept using Intel processors instead of switching to PowerPC. I believe that's one of the main problems with Pachter's prediction. He believes Microsoft is going to modify the Xbox 360 to run Windows 8. Why would they do that? While I'm not expert on CPU architecture, it just seems like a lot of work for a revision of a 6 year old console. That would mean Microsoft would have to either alter Windows 8 code to support PowerPC or this new Xbox 360 model running Windows 8 would have either an x86 or ARm processor and would need to emulate the entire Xbox 360 library (pretty much the reverse of how 360 emulated original Xbox games for backwards compatibility). I find neither to be terribly likely.

[NWR_insanolord]

Windows 8 may have been designed to be architecture-agnostic. Apple did that with OS X, and you know how Microsoft loves to copy Apple.

[TJ Spyke]

And how Apple loves to copy Android. LOL

[Ceric]

Windows 8 may have been designed to be architecture-agnostic. Apple did that with OS X, and you know how Microsoft loves to copy Apple.

*cough*Bullshit*cough*

Seriously enough Window has support everything from x86 to PowerPC to Itanium before.  Microsoft has already stated that Arm processors was a targeted processor and I'm fairly sure XBox runs a flavor of Windows already.  Making it Windows 8 just really means they use the same APIs.

[BlackNMild2k1]

2 SKU Future!? Set-top Kinect Box & the Elite Gamer Edition?
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/digitalfoundry-next-gen-xbox-in-2012-analysis?page=1

In terms of how we see the next-gen Xbox panning out based on what our own sources tell us, we understand that Kinect is set for a significant upgrade and has a very strong likelihood of ending up bundled with the machine. It is understood that Microsoft hosted a developer soiree at Disneyland just after E3 this year where the platform holder invited partners to pitch in with ideas on where they would want the technology to go, and the challenges they had with the current platform. This signifies that it was early days for the design just a few months ago, making the 2012 story seem even less likely.

It's also believed that Microsoft will continue its successful two SKU strategy, and indeed take it much further with its new platform: a pared down machine is to be released as cheaply as possible, and positioned more along the lines of a set-top box (the use of 360 as a Netflix viewing platform in the US is colossal) and perhaps as a Kinect-themed gaming portal, while a more fully-featured machine with optical drive, hard disk and backward compatibility aimed at the hardcore would be released at a higher price-point.

This does sort of tie into previous rumors about the set top Xbox that was sort of a MS version of AppleTV.
Next year should be very interesting.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I know this is really really late, but...

The next Xbox will not be called "Xbox 720". Not only does it not make any sense, but 720 would confuse consumers because 720 is an HD resolution and not even the best HD resolution either, so consumers who own TVs capable of 1080 output or whatever might think the XBOX 720 would not output to the fullest potential. So no, that's not going to happen.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/717093/xbox-720-ad-spotted-in-real-steel-trailer/



Not that I think they are gonna call it Xbox720 or anything, but... umm I'm sure MS is the one who paid for that advertising.

[Ian Sane]

I hate how this multiple SKU thing actually worked out this gen.  The hard drive should be MANDATORY or devs will be afraid to use it.  That shouldn't be an optional accessory.

Though an optical drive as an extra for the higher end SKU?  So what, does the **** one only play downloadable titles?  Did MS not observe how much of a disaster the PSP Go was?  The only way you can not have a way to play physical media is if EVERY game is available for download purchase.  The download option is MORE hardcore and tech savy.  The very market for a download-only dedicated videogame system is not going to get a system that can't play all the games.  Or is the Xbox 720 download-only and the optical disc is merely for backwards compatibility?  That's a little more logical but I think it is way too soon to not offer physical media at all.  We need a gen of all retail titles being available online first.  And how do you do that without a hard drive?

When did that ad show up?  NHL game?

[BlackNMild2k1]

That ad was in the movie Real Steel (aka Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots 2011) starring Hugh Jackman.


But remember the rumors about MS using ARM chips in the neXbox and something about set top box and all that stuff? I'm sure I posted it in here somewhere. It could be that the multiple SKU's are actually 2 different systems aimed at 2 different audiences.

But if that did happen to be true, then maybe Pachter isn't so wrong after all and just got his info confused. Maybe this is an Xbox branded spin off unit aimed at taking out AppleTV before it can get a second wind and is planned on being released end of next year.
While the real console is gearing up for a 2013 release like all the devs have been talking about wanting.

Otherwise I think we have 2 conflicting rumors about what's in the next box and what they are aimed at being. Now I have to go back and look for the ARM rumor and see how it compares to the recent 6coreCPU dualGPU rumor that popped up a few days ago.

[Chozo Ghost]

I hate how this multiple SKU thing actually worked out this gen.  The hard drive should be MANDATORY or devs will be afraid to use it.  That shouldn't be an optional accessory.

Actually, I think this is what Nintendo should do with the Wii U. They should have a no HDD version with some cheap casual tech demo bundled in it for $249.99 and a premium hardcore Wii U version which includes Mario and a 250GB HDD for $50-$100 more.

I don't think the one console fits all strategy is something you would be happy about if Nintendo pursues that, because one size fits all means it is going to cater to the lowest common denominator, and that's something you've been complaining about a lot these last few years with the Wii. We all know Nintendo isn't going to abandon the casual market, so them supporting that is a given, but isn't it better if the casual market is segregated and they have their own thing for cheap, whereas the hardcore gamers can spend more and have the premium edition? This way both markets are satisfied. The people who want a cheap watered down casual experience have their thing, and those who want something better can have theirs too. Its a win-win. And Microsoft has proven this strategy works, so Nintendo should follow that example. Its either that, or we end up with a "one size fits all" console that caters only to casuals, or something that falls somewhere in between and is fatally compromised trying to satisfy both markets but failing to do so because of the compromises being made.

[Ian Sane]

That ad was in the movie Real Steel (aka Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots 2011) starring Hugh Jackman.

Well that doesn't mean anything then.  The film takes place in the future so the ad might be a joke.  By the time the film takes place the Xbox 360 will have been replaced so they went with the obvious 720 name.  If they used a different name the audience wouldn't get the reference.

Chozo, I get what you're saying about not wanting a one-size-fits-all model because it will play to the lowest common denominator.  My concern is that devs play to the lowest common denominator anyway so they'll treat the lower model as the "standard".  If there is no hard drive then devs will be reluctant to make proper use of it because the lower model owners don't have it.  Hell the Wii basically had this.  The Wii remote was standard and the CC was an optional purchase.  Devs largely ignored the CC because it wasn't standard.  I want the important stuff to all be included and that usually just results in one SKU.  The whole reason to go with a console is that there is one standard and everything works for it.

I don't want ANY system that caters to casuals.  Casuals don't need a system specifically dumbed down for them.  They can play their dumbed down non-games on credible videogame hardware.  Don't make a $900 system or anything stupid like that.  The typical core gamer won't buy that either.  But make a normal videogame system at a normal videogame system price and then make some casual games to attract the rubes to their normal system.  Kinect is a big hit with casuals and that requires the purchase of both Kinect and a system.  Casuals didn't care because they wanted to dance.  If you give them a game they want they'll buy the damn thing.  Fuckin' Apple products are insanely overpriced and yet everyone has their overpriced iPad and Angry Birds.

[Chozo Ghost]

The reason I don't see it being a problem is because even the basic low end casual SKU would still come with a few GB worth of onboard flash, and possibly even a memory card, and of course the option would be on the table for consumers to buy SD cards and external HDDs later on to expand the storage capacity if desired.

The low end Xbox 360 comes with 4gb of onboard flash storage, which isn't much, but it should be enough to handle everything any single game could throw at it. Flash memory doubles every year, and even now 16GB flash is cheap enough that Microsoft could include that in their lowend SKU without any significant difference in cost. By the time the Wii U rolls out I would expect it to have 16gb of onboard flash, or even 32gb or higher. Its certainly cheap enough now, and a year from now it will only be even moreso.

But my point is even the low end model would still offer enough storage for just about anything developers might want to put on it. The real issue is in the fact that this is only enough for one or maybe two games and probably nothing else. The advantage of an HDD is in the fact you can have at least a dozen games and all their associated DLCs or whatever installed simultaneously. With the low end model you can still play any game you want, but you can probably only have one or two games at a time and if you want more than that something has to get uninstalled, or you need to get an SD card or something.

So what makes the high end SKU different than the low end one is just you get all this extra storage immediately without a separate purchase, plus a hardcore game which you could buy separately for your low end SKU, but this way you get it right away and for a better deal. That's how it is with the two Xbox 360s. The 4gb model is targeted at casuals, yet it is perfectly capable of doing everything the high end model can. You can play Halo on a 4gb if you really want to, but odds are if you are the sort of hardcore gamer who likes Halo you would probably rather have the premium console.

[BlackNMild2k1]

That ad was in the movie Real Steel (aka Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots 2011) starring Hugh Jackman.

Well that doesn't mean anything then.  The film takes place in the future so the ad might be a joke.  By the time the film takes place the Xbox 360 will have been replaced so they went with the obvious 720 name.  If they used a different name the audience wouldn't get the reference.

The point was that Chozo was saying that we shouldn't call it Xbox720, but in reality, even MS was referring to it by that name and went as far as placing a futuristic ad using the name in a movie.

None of us ever really expected that it would be called that when the final product was revealed and shipped. It's just a common nickname for the 3rd Gen Xbox.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Chozo, I get what you're saying about not wanting a one-size-fits-all model because it will play to the lowest common denominator.  My concern is that devs play to the lowest common denominator anyway so they'll treat the lower model as the "standard".  If there is no hard drive then devs will be reluctant to make proper use of it because the lower model owners don't have it.

It's as if the Xbox360 didn't exist and wasn't very successful at the same time.
You forget the original Xbox360 "tard" came with something like a 256MB memory card or something really small like that, yet many devs still supported the HDD since they were responsible for making it necessary to really enjoy the 360 and all it had to offer.

I don't want ANY system that caters to casuals.  Casuals don't need a system specifically dumbed down for them.  They can play their dumbed down non-games on credible videogame hardware.  Don't make a $900 system or anything stupid like that.  The typical core gamer won't buy that either.  But make a normal videogame system at a normal videogame system price and then make some casual games to attract the rubes to their normal system.  Kinect is a big hit with casuals and that requires the purchase of both Kinect and a system.  Casuals didn't care because they wanted to dance.  If you give them a game they want they'll buy the damn thing.  Fuckin' Apple products are insanely overpriced and yet everyone has their overpriced iPad and Angry Birds.

Now you're just being selfish. Hitting a mass market price is very important for mass adoption, just as important as hitting the pulse of your target audience. iPad is sold a general purpose computer in your palm which is why it affords a much higher price point as a premium product for just about everything. Game Consoles were seen as toys until recently where they are now seen a entertainment boxes focused mainly on games (lots of people bought PS3 for the Bluray and lots of people keep their Wiis for the Netflix. Next gen MS is hoping that one of Xbox's major attractions is the Settop box features with include cable TV, Netflix, Hulu, Social Media, etc etc). To make sure that everyone is willing to jump in and atleast give it a shot before breaking the bank, it might be good to have a basic bundle and a premium bundle.

For Wii U
Basic: Wii U with 8GB onboard storage, 1 uTab, 1 wiimote + nunchuck & 1 packed in game (NSMBMii?) - $299
Premium: Wii U w/ 8GB onboard, 250GB HDD, 1 uTab, 1wimote + nunchuck & 1 packed in game (NSMBMii)- $349

MS could easily follow the same same setup they engineered this gen and allow people to jump in at the price they feel willing to pay and then upgrade their model as they see fit down the line. That is not gonna stop devs from supporting higher storage needs if they aren't told to restrict each game to work within the 8GB's provided just like it didn't stop devs this gen from supporting Xbox HDD even though some bundles didn't include one.


Although I agree with Chozo on the expanded onboard mem of Wii U. DQX is expected to be a flagship Wii U launch game and that requires 16GB of the Wii, so I would hope that Nintendo would bump that 8GB up to 16GB unless they plan on packing in a USB memstick with every copy of the Wii U version of the game.

[Ian Sane]

Now you're just being selfish. Hitting a mass market price is very important for mass adoption, just as important as hitting the pulse of your target audience.

I don't disagree with that but the system can't be handicapped by it.  The Wii was handicapped.  It made too many concessions in favour of casuals that it became a casual system.  They essentially re-released the Gamecube in order to reach the low price point (with tons of mark up; but that's a different issue).  You need a balancing act between having something affordable and not having something too compromised.  The Wii is a very extreme example of this and I don't think MS or Nintendo will do that next gen.
 
As I said, you don't have a $900 system but you also don't have a system that is too compromised for casuals to meet core gamers' needs.  In that sense I don't want any sort of casual focusing system.  It should just be a "normal" videogame system, suitable for all audiences, and casuals can play their games on it.

[Luigi Dude]

I don't disagree with that but the system can't be handicapped by it.  The Wii was handicapped.  It made too many concessions in favour of casuals that it became a casual system. They essentially re-released the Gamecube in order to reach the low price point (with tons of mark up; but that's a different issue).  You need a balancing act between having something affordable and not having something too compromised.  The Wii is a very extreme example of this and I don't think MS or Nintendo will do that next gen.

Only this wasn't the reason.  The sole reason for the Wii being underpowered was because after the Gamecubes poor sales, Nintendo didn't want to take a huge risk by releasing a more powerful system that might do worse.  Iwata himself said the main goal for the Wii before release was to sell more than the Gamecube.

Had Nintendo known the Wii would have been as popular as it did I can guarantee they would have made the system much more powerful so it could have gotten 360/PS3 ports.  But back in 2005 when they were designing the system and Nintendo's home console presence was nearly non existent because the Gamecube was doing less then 100k worldwide every month, it's not hard to see why they took a much cheaper route.

[BlackNMild2k1]

There are a few things Nintendo could have done to make the Wii more port friendly, that I agree with, but I want to stay on the topic here.

If MS or Nintendo or Sony have a baseline target for the console, I don't see the issue with also offering a bundled package that adds more to that.

Having optional expanded storage coming in the box is not going to change the overall gaming  experience as long as the system comes with enough to allow the games to do what they need to do.

The only reason 3rd parties didn't support larger storage solutions for the Wii was because Nintendo didn't provide any. And by the time Nintendo did provide a work around, it was still terribly inefficient, insufficient, more trouble than it should have been and really late in the game.

Going forward, we know the Wii U will have atleast 8GB of storage built in. We know (based on 3DS) that SD card expansion will work just like a HDD, and we know that Nintendo plans to support external HDD's. So we already know that 3rd parties (and hopefully Nintendo themselves) will be supporting the expanded storage route (DQX requires 16GB to play) from the start so I don't think games being "gimped" due to not enough storage space will be problem.

So whether or not ConsoleX wants to provide 2 different versions for their customers to have a choice at how deep in the rabbit hole they wish to go right from the start, the general experience shouldn't be changed just because I got the basic and you got the premium. Especially when I can decide that I didn't really need the premium upgrade until something I wanted to do couldn't be done without it.

It's like a regular cable box and one with DVR.
-most people just want to watch TV and use On Demand every once in a while.
-other people like to be able to pause that show, switch between 2 different shows at the same time and be able to rewind either one and then be able to record and watch other shows later.
You can only do the later with the DVR's HDD.
so most people have basic cable box and other have premium cable box. They decide what's necessary for their enjoyment.

Those extras cost extra and maybe it's not necessary for the majority to enjoy their TV watching experience, so why should they pay extra for features they neither want nor will they use if they don't feel ready for it?

Choices. There is nothing wrong with having them.

[Ian Sane]

I don't disagree with that but the system can't be handicapped by it.  The Wii was handicapped.  It made too many concessions in favour of casuals that it became a casual system. They essentially re-released the Gamecube in order to reach the low price point (with tons of mark up; but that's a different issue).  You need a balancing act between having something affordable and not having something too compromised.  The Wii is a very extreme example of this and I don't think MS or Nintendo will do that next gen.

Only this wasn't the reason.  The sole reason for the Wii being underpowered was because after the Gamecubes poor sales, Nintendo didn't want to take a huge risk by releasing a more powerful system that might do worse.  Iwata himself said the main goal for the Wii before release was to sell more than the Gamecube.

Had Nintendo known the Wii would have been as popular as it did I can guarantee they would have made the system much more powerful so it could have gotten 360/PS3 ports.  But back in 2005 when they were designing the system and Nintendo's home console presence was nearly non existent because the Gamecube was doing less then 100k worldwide every month, it's not hard to see why they took a much cheaper route.

That's the SOLE reason?  Seriously?  The sole, and thus, one and only reason Nintendo did that?

Nintendo must have had no idea what a "risk" is.  Launching a console with virtually nothing to distinguish it other than a new controller is not a safe move at all.  If Wii Sports bombed, and thus motion control bombed, the Wii was TOAST.  Who the hell would buy a glorifed refurbed Gamecube otherwise?  Going for a hardware jump was conventional and conventional is the safe move.  The Wii was incredibly risky - new controller, new audience, and an approach to the hardware specs that had NEVER been done before.

The wanted the price low, they still wanted a big markup on the hardware, they were focusing on attracting non-gamers and they really don't think highly of the intelligence of that audience (a normal controller is just TOO DAMN CONFUSING OMG!!)  Let's release a minor update of the Gamecube at a low price with a high markup, give it a gimmick and focus on rubes that are impressed by gimmicks and they'll be too ignorant to realize we're selling them a last gen system.

Besides, back when the Wii was first becoming popular I expressed my dislike in Nintendo intentionally borking the hardware and the Wii defenders all told me that it was essential for the price to be as low as it was or would not have attracted the mainstream audience.  Any suggestion I made that Nintendo should have gone for better specs with a lower profit margin and/or a higher price was immediately squashed.  But now that's something they totally could have done or even WOULD have done?

Anyway, the point is that developers treat the barebones model as the "standard" and any extra accessory can more or less be considered unsupported.  So the standard needs to be capable (which the Wii was not) so I don't like the idea of having a lesser version aimed at casuals and a more advanced version aimed at core gamers.  In that case the casual SKU will be the standard and devs will have that one in mind when making a game because they want the entire userbase to be able to play it.

And videogame systems should be generic in design anyway.  They're merely a tool to play videogames with and therefore should be as accomodating to all types of videogames as possible.  Even if you don't think the Wii was specifically aimed at casuals it's motion control focused design was not accomodating.  The Wii is highly specialized.  Don't think audience, don't think gimmicks, don't think videogame genres or trends.  A good console is a blank canvas for developers to create game content on.  The second you say "well this SKU is for this audience" you've already compromised things.

[Chozo Ghost]

The Wii wasn't a very big leap, but the leaked specs show it to be at least 50% more powerful than a Gamecube, and that's something. The PS4/720 will probably only be 50% more powerful than their predecessors also. So the Wii really isn't that bad, but it just looks bad because this generation has been very unusual in that Sony and Microsoft made a huge leap forward instead of the usual step forward we've seen in every other generation. They made the Wii look obsolete, but doing so came at the cost of pricing their consoles at $600 and/or selling them at a loss. I don't think we will see that happen this time around.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Anyway, the point is that developers treat the barebones model as the "standard" and any extra accessory can more or less be considered unsupported.  So the standard needs to be capable (which the Wii was not) so I don't like the idea of having a lesser version aimed at casuals and a more advanced version aimed at core gamers.  In that case the casual SKU will be the standard and devs will have that one in mind when making a game because they want the entire userbase to be able to play it.

Once again, it's as if the 360 never existed and wasn't successful in attracting a much larger audience comprised of casuals and going it with option upgrades with tons of support from 1st and 3rd parties utilizing them.
I'm not gonna go search sales numbers on original tard packs vs Pro/Elite versions, but I'mk sure they all sold equally well. I'm also not gonna search sales numbers on current 4GB systems vs the 250GB systems nor the ones sold w/ or w/o Kinect.
But 3rd parties will support the expanded memory and add on peripherals if it worth supporting.

M+ hasn't exactly gotten the love it deserved, but honestly, it should have been part of the original wiimote and Nintendo didn't really push it hard regardless of the added benefits it would add to any motion game. Going forward though, SS will set the new standard to be followed into the next gen and M+ is the new default secondary control for Wii U.

And videogame systems should be generic in design anyway.  They're merely a tool to play videogames with and therefore should be as accomodating to all types of videogames as possible.  Even if you don't think the Wii was specifically aimed at casuals it's motion control focused design was not accomodating.  The Wii is highly specialized.  Don't think audience, don't think gimmicks, don't think videogame genres or trends.  A good console is a blank canvas for developers to create game content on.  The second you say "well this SKU is for this audience" you've already compromised things.

The console is the canvas, and to be honest, there is nothing that any competent developer couldn't see realized on current consoles if they set their minds to it. It might now be the most photorealistic interpretation of it, but it could be done. There is also not a single game that has been made for the PS360 w/ or w/o a HDD that couldn't have been done on the Wii. It just wouldn't have looked as pretty, but it would have more or less played the same.

So yes the console is a blank canvas, but the regular controller is a box of crayons, the wiimote is a full paint set.

All Nintendo set out for was a console that would appeal to everyone. And that means everyone. Not just the Dude Bros and Fanboys.

Nintendo purposely targeted a lower specced machine for dev cost, price and the focus on the wiimote. This was to help devs create content without ballooning cost, help people feel comfortable with impulse buying the Wii wither for themselves or friends/family and so that people would feel comfortable working a simple controller that was more naturally intuitive using motion and a few buttons instead of 8 buttons used in many combinations, 2 controls sticks a d-pad and whatever else was gonna be added to continue making the standard controller more complex and less inviting to those who are typically already intimidated by gaming.

Besides, you are acting like they are gimping the actual machine when making SKUs
It's not like they say "Hey this is the casual box & this is the Core box"
Casual Box:
Dual ARM 1Ghz 1 GB Ram, only plays DVD based Xbox games and downloadable titles 4GB storage

Core Box:
6Core IBM CPU, Dual AMD GPU plays custom 25GB disc and movies 2TB storage

They are still making the same exact console, just one package has a few extra option items that may be very useful depending on what games you are playing and how you use your console.


sorry this is longer than expected. Post was made between several trips to the kitchen, so thoughts may also be a little scattered.

[Luigi Dude]

Nintendo must have had no idea what a "risk" is.  Launching a console with virtually nothing to distinguish it other than a new controller is not a safe move at all.  If Wii Sports bombed, and thus motion control bombed, the Wii was TOAST.  Who the hell would buy a glorifed refurbed Gamecube otherwise?  Going for a hardware jump was conventional and conventional is the safe move.  The Wii was incredibly risky - new controller, new audience, and an approach to the hardware specs that had NEVER been done before.

What part of the Gamecube being dead in 2005 when they were making the Wii don't you understand.  The Gamecube was a conventional console that was more powerful then one of its rivals and right behind the other plus got a good number of ports but that didn't do sh!t for the system in the end.  Releasing a more powerful console like the Gamecube to compete was the much riskier choice since there was no guarantee the system would do any better then the Gamecube did since being powerful didn't help the Gamecubes sales one bit.

The Wii on the other hand could afford to be a failure because it was just modified Gamecube hardware that made it much much cheaper to produce since they didn't need to spend billions to create new hardware from scratch, which a system close to the 360/PS3 in power would have cost.  Plus it allowed Nintendo studios to continue using there current Gamecube engines which saved them hundreds of millions since a more powerful machine would have required brand new engines for all studios to be made.

The Wii was the safer choice because it gave a much bigger safety net for the company vs a Gamecube 2 which easily could have wiped out half of what Nintendo was worth back in 2005 if it failed.

[SixthAngel]

The Wii was the safer choice because it gave a much bigger safety net for the company vs a Gamecube 2 which easily could have wiped out half of what Nintendo was worth back in 2005 if it failed.

I agree with Ian.  The Wii was a riskier move by far.
You act like they would have been fine if the Wii bombed but they wouldn't have.  The generational leap had been going on for so long that a lot of people thought it would sell almost nothing at all.  Ian is right that if Motion didn't take off it would have made the NeoGeo look like a big seller.  It wouldn't matter how cheap it was to produce when it had the potential to bomb like that.  Not to mention that their games would sell little to nothing then as well causing them to bleed more money.
An extremely low selling generation would have also destroyed their reputation when they tried to make the next console.
The other consoles used a tried and true business strategy while Nintendo did something completely new, of course it was risky.


When you all talk about cheaper units I notice you are only talking about the hard drive.  I think that HD's are cheap enough no that there is no reason to gimp something.  The gimped version will still probably have double digit HD space making it perfectly fine for anything but full game installs.
When they talk about a set-top 360 they are talking about all the hardware being gimped.  Expect new xbox arcade games and media abilities and that's it.  It sounds pretty worthless to me.  The only way it would get any real support is if arcade developers decide to limit their games to this systems hardware so it fits on both.

An optical drive as an extra for the higher end SKU?  So what, does the **** one only play downloadable titles?  Did MS not observe how much of a disaster the PSP Go was?  The only way you can not have a way to play physical media is if EVERY game is available for download purchase.  The download option is MORE hardcore and tech savvy.

Ian is making some good points today.  Making your casual system download only is stupid.  Buying the physical copy at the store is the casual way.  The less technologically inclined have trouble setting up their consoles and connecting them to the internet.  I can think of so many people who never would have bought a Wii if Wii Sports or Wii Fit was download only.