Support NeoGAF

[kiphalfton]

People who say Wii U must hate the Switch.

I never tried it but I have to assume the Wii U.

You would be wrong then.

 

[Generic]

Anyone choosing the Wii over the Gamecube or WiiU is crazy. The Wii had more good games than these two consoles combined.

 

[xanaum]

Switch 2

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

There's no way Nintendo - a videogame only company - could lose $200-300 for every console sold. Sony lost a billion of dolars with the PS3.

People keep repeating this idea that Nintendo "couldn't afford" to make an HD console, as if it was some kind of financial impossibility. That's just not true. The fact that Sony lost a ton of money on the PS3 doesn't mean any HD system would automatically bleed cash. Sony chose an extremely expensive, overengineered design packed with proprietary tech. That wasn't the baseline cost of going HD.

A straightforward, modernized successor to the GameCube — more RAM, a stronger GPU, updated architecture — would have been nowhere near the PS3's price tag. It was completely feasible. And let's not pretend Nintendo was struggling back then. The DS was selling at historic levels and generating huge profits. They absolutely had the financial cushion to support a more powerful console if that's the direction they wanted to take.

The reality is that Nintendo didn't make the Wii because they "had no choice." They made it because they wanted a different strategy focused on expanding the audience. That was a deliberate business decision, not a technical or financial limitation. Rewriting history to make it sound like Nintendo's hands were tied just doesn't line up with the facts.

 

[Games Bookstore]

Wii - The successor to the Gamecube which was my favourite console of that generation, spare a few titles was disappointing to say the least. The amount of shovelware was rediculous

 

[BlackTron]

This is a tough question for me because although the Wii disappointed in some very severe ways, it's also one of the most distinctive and memorable gaming experiences of all time.

To this day the IR aiming is perfect and you need a VR system to find something that works as well.

Big games like Smash were a let down, while random dumb games like Rayman Raving Rabbids got family in front of the TV for co op "light gun" sessions.

I think it still loses enough accumulated points to be worst, and something's gotta be worst. The game droughts, low power and meh flagship games.

You'd think it would be Wii U, but it had excellent games, better than Wii. It only becomes bad later on after they've all been ported to Switch, leaving nothing but the wonky hardware.

 

[Generic]

People keep repeating this idea that Nintendo "couldn't afford" to make an HD console, as if it was some kind of financial impossibility. That's just not true. The fact that Sony lost a ton of money on the PS3 doesn't mean any HD system would automatically bleed cash. Sony chose an extremely expensive, overengineered design packed with proprietary tech. That wasn't the baseline cost of going HD.

A straightforward, modernized successor to the GameCube — more RAM, a stronger GPU, updated architecture — would have been nowhere near the PS3's price tag. It was completely feasible. And let's not pretend Nintendo was struggling back then. The DS was selling at historic levels and generating huge profits. They absolutely had the financial cushion to support a more powerful console if that's the direction they wanted to take.

The reality is that Nintendo didn't make the Wii because they "had no choice." They made it because they wanted a different strategy focused on expanding the audience. That was a deliberate business decision, not a technical or financial limitation. Rewriting history to make it sound like Nintendo's hands were tied just doesn't line up with the facts.

The Wii had a production cost of $160 per unit, while being sold for $250 (bundled with Wii Sports) or $200 (Japan, no bundle).

The Xbox 360 had a production cost of $470 while being sold for $400.

How could Nintendo compete with the Xbox 360 without losing an insane amount of money? Maybe a slighty better GPU with a $50 price increase but the Wii would still be a gen behind the HD consoles.

 

[VeganElduderino]

the Wii with all its fucking attachments and motion shit, fuck the Wii , but it did spawn some great games tho Mario Galaxy, Galaxy 2 , Donkey kong , Kirby epic yarn

 

[Dr Bass]

Uhhh the Virtual Boy?

 

[Vaquilla]

Gamecube.

As an SNES/N64 kid, the direction that a lot of their IPs took on the Gamecube really disappointed me, I hated the likes of Wind Waker, Starfox Adventures, Double Dash, DK Jungle Beat, Sunshine, etc.

 

[Midway-AGNC-]

The Wii had a production cost of $160 per unit, while being sold for $250 (bundled with Wii Sports) or $200 (Japan, no bundle).

The Xbox 360 had a production cost of $470 while being sold for $400.

How could Nintendo compete with the Xbox 360 without losing an insane amount of money? Maybe a slighty better GPU with a $50 price increase but the Wii would still be a gen behind the HD consoles.

That's pure assumption dressed up as fact.

Those "production cost" figures get thrown around all the time, but they're rough estimates based on teardown guesses, not actual internal numbers. Acting like Nintendo had to build a $160 machine because anything more would magically jump to $470 is just console-war mythology. Nintendo had multiple ways to compete in the HD space without bleeding money like Microsoft did:

• They didn't need cutting-edge parts. A modest HD-capable machine using off-the-shelf components (which got drastically cheaper by 2005–2006) wouldn't suddenly put them in PS3/360 territory. "Wii with HD output and slightly stronger hardware" was absolutely within reach.
• Nintendo wasn't in Microsoft's situation of throwing money at the brand to brute-force market share. They could have aimed for a balanced design — not a powerhouse, but not SD hardware in an era when HDTVs were exploding either.
• And let's not pretend they were financially constrained. The DS was printing money. Nintendo had the safest financial cushion of the three companies at the time. Acting like they had no room to invest is revisionist.

This whole "Nintendo couldn't afford to make a competitive HD console" angle sounds less like analysis and more like retroactive apologism for a business decision that aged poorly. The Wii sold a lot, yes, but the long-term consequences for Nintendo's third-party ecosystem and brand positioning were real — and could have been avoided with a more future-proof system.

 

[DeepEnigma]

N64

That 18-20fps "Silicon Graphics / Cray Computer Hollywood Powerhouse" scam they lied about building up the hype bittered me when the final product was significantly neutered.

 

[Soltype]

Poll is too easy with the WiiU there.

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

I know it's sacrilege, but GameCube easily.

I had Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, GameCube, plus a PC and Gameboy Advance. GameCube was by far the least used out of all of them.

 

[Pasta la Vista]

Wii U is the worst, its especially worthless now considering the vast majority of its games got ported to Switch.
Plus the tablet was shit, terrible quality, they're all doomed to fail with that battery.

 

[Gambit2483]

WiiU easily.

Had a tiny ass library, some weak entries in multiple series, and most of its games got ported to Switch anyway.

Most of the good second screen gaming happened on DS & 3DS.

This. Also the UI startup and loading speed was shit before they patched it.

 

[poodaddy]

This is the thread where a bunch of people who never tried the Wii U choose the Wii U despite it being one of the best console libraries Nintendo has ever had huh?

The answer is N64 if you take off the rose tinted nostalgia glasses. I liked the N64 at the time, but it's atrocious to play now.

 

[Mobilemofo]

Went for the switch. Horribly underpowered..barely more powerful than the Atari lynX 2..I couldn't get over paying a fair bit of wedge for old hardware.