Next-Gen Wii HD Due by 2011

[aaronspink]

Ok, even in that context it's still easy to see why LRB is not well-suited to this task.
1) it's based on the *ancient* P54 Pentium core - IPC is laughable compared to a modern OoO CPU.

um, both the x360 and PS3 use pretty meager in order cores. And the PPC in the GC, I mean Wii, isn't anything to write home about. Its basically about the same performance as a PPC603e which isn't that hot.

 

[Acert93]

Whatever Nintendo packs into Wii HD or Wii 2 or whatever, I hope it's enough for Nintendo's key franchises (Mario, Zelda Metroid, Pokemon, etc) to not only be in HD resolutions (including 1080p) but for the actual graphics themselves to be much closer looking to offline CGI. Now I don't mean photorealistic at all, I mean like still Nintendo-esque, closer to Pixar level
(notice I didn't say as good as Pixar, I mean closer to it) with much higher model/background complexity, per pixel (or even sub pixel) lighting, much better image/rendering quality w/ more AA, filtering, motion-blur, post processing, etc.

One thing overlooked in Nintendo's strategy is they have put them behind the technological curve in regards to developmental talent, not just hardware. While MS and Sony developers have been plugging away at multi-core processors and complex programmable shaders Ninny's internal developers are still hacking away at DX7/8 level graphics hardware and a very simple monolythic CPU. So Nintendo will have a lot of work on getting their engine up to task to extract performance from advanced hardware they also need to increase their art staff size and go through the growing pains of moving from sub-1000 poly models to 1M+ (source) poly models. That takes time and new skillsets. Some games, like Mario, should translate well because it has a cartoon lookm but Zelda and especially Metroid may find the transition more difficult.

But I don't see why Nintendo would be too aggressive here. All they need is hardware that expresses their game design ideas. 360/PS3 level hardware, with some of the gotchas smoothed over (maybe a couple OOOe CPUs, sufficient eDRAM if they go that route, etc.) would probably suffice. Developers could port over all their current gen engines and assets (even some titles "remade" for the Nintendo experience), it would be HD, and there would be a robust pool of talent familiar with the general limitations. And it could attract publishers concerned about the pricetag of PS4/X3 games as well as given them a chance to take their "end-age" titles in 2011-13 and move them and re-invent them some on the new WiiHD console giving their invest in this current generation more legs.

A "Wii360" with some unique Nintendo innovations and market approach seems like the safest route for Nintendo to continue being a prime player, downplay their weaknesses, tread the path less traveled by utilizing the investments Sony/MS have made this gen, as well as make a lot of money.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

um, both the x360 and PS3 use pretty meager in order cores. And the PPC in the GC, I mean Wii, isn't anything to write home about. Its basically about the same performance as a PPC603e which isn't that hot.

Context.

Pentium core @ 1GHz doing ISA translation/emulation of PPC.

Still think LRB is up to the task of serving as SOC for "Wii HD/2"?

Again: LRB = good GPU (potentially) that just happens to be programmable enough to serve as a general purpose processor (but not a fast one by any means)

 

[Megadrive1988]

One thing overlooked in Nintendo's strategy is they have put them behind the technological curve in regards to developmental talent, not just hardware. While MS and Sony developers have been plugging away at multi-core processors and complex programmable shaders Ninny's internal developers are still hacking away at DX7/8 level graphics hardware and a very simple monolythic CPU. So Nintendo will have a lot of work on getting their engine up to task to extract performance from advanced hardware they also need to increase their art staff size and go through the growing pains of moving from sub-1000 poly models to 1M+ (source) poly models. That takes time and new skillsets. Some games, like Mario, should translate well because it has a cartoon lookm but Zelda and especially Metroid may find the transition more difficult.

True, fair enough. I think Nintendo has been preparing themselves for all of that, from 2007 forward, with all of that additional R&D spending.

But I don't see why Nintendo would be too aggressive here. All they need is hardware that expresses their game design ideas. 360/PS3 level hardware, with some of the gotchas smoothed over (maybe a couple OOOe CPUs, sufficient eDRAM if they go that route, etc.) would probably suffice. Developers could port over all their current gen engines and assets (even some titles "remade" for the Nintendo experience), it would be HD, and there would be a robust pool of talent familiar with the general limitations. And it could attract publishers concerned about the pricetag of PS4/X3 games as well as given them a chance to take their "end-age" titles in 2011-13 and move them and re-invent them some on the new WiiHD console giving their invest in this current generation more legs.

Yeah I could see 360/PS3 level hardware being good enough, with the present bottle necks removed. A significant chuck of eDRAM (more than the 10 MB Xenos has) . PS3/360 graphics @ 60 FPS, 1080p with AA would rock. Nintendo doesn't even need a complex multicore CPU with 3-8 cores like Xenon and CELL, just a simple dual-core CPU would be enough, if the cores were 'beefy' (OOOe).

A "Wii360" with some unique Nintendo innovations and market approach seems like the safest route for Nintendo to continue being a prime player, downplay their weaknesses, tread the path less traveled by utilizing the investments Sony/MS have made this gen, as well as make a lot of money.

Yeah probably that is the most likely approach Nintendo will take with regards to hardware/chipset and API/tools.

Although it would be interesting if Nintendo goes with new technology being developed now that goes beyond what 360/Ps3 can do grapically (still using a simple CPU tho)) while still being conservative on die size, heat, power consumption, etc in 2011-2012. The RV770 has shown AMD/ATI can offer an extremely powerful GPU in a smaller more efficient chip.

If Wii HD could be just somewhat ahead of 360,PS3 by the same amount that Wii is ahead of PS2, that would be enough. However I do realize Nintendo will do no more & no less than whatever is going to make their bank account grow the most. If that means more or less 360 level hardware, then so be it.

 

[Teasy]

Nintendo will have a resigned Wii once sales of start dropping but it is going to disappoint many who are expecting more power. I expect the redesign to be akin to what DS was to DS lite or DSi. Nintendo isn't playing the same game as Sony or Microsoft.

This has been discussed before, but does rendering in 720P give the best experience? What if, the same power was used to render in 480p but spread in other departments like lighting etc?

Don't be silly, Nintendo are not going to wait 4 years to release a slight revision of Wii. Also not 'playing the same game' as MS and Sony doesn't take away the fact that a new Nintendo console will come, not just a new revision of Wii.

As for using more power for higher quality 480p rendering instead of 720p, well that argument was fair enough in 2007, it won't be in 2011. With HDTV's being standard everywhere by then a console will need to render at 720p minimum.

 

[Flux]

1. It doesn't matter all that much how man IPC it can process vs an OoO CPU when you have two 1GHz cores at your disposal vs one 700MHz core. Also you're not restricted to only two cores if you need more processing power.

2. See point 1.



I know he's a programmer that's why he's more credible when it comes to what architectures has promise from a development/performance perspective. Not only that, he's actually worked on difficult to program achitectures like PS3.

His motives and yours are irrelevent to me. I'm not a mind reader so motive doesn't even factor into the equation. Any statement made about one's motives is speculation, conjecture and has little real value in this specific debate.

That said what do YOU propose WiiHD should be since God himself told you LRB would suck if used as a base for WiiHD?

Nahh it will only suck if nintendo used it...heh

Why not add a 45nm Broadway core and a 45nm Hollywood core as a side chip.John Madden: Boom perfect emulation.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Whatever Nintendo packs into Wii HD or Wii 2 or whatever, I hope it's enough for Nintendo's key franchises (Mario, Zelda Metroid, Pokemon, etc) to not only be in HD resolutions (including 1080p) but for the actual graphics themselves to be much closer looking to offline CGI.

Wishful thinking. You need to stop thinking about what might be technologically possible and start thinking about what fits with Nintendo's business strategy. $20m development budgets are not part of their strategy, as they don't see the profit as easy to come by and have indicated that grabbing large markets with such games is getting increasingly difficult.

Part of disruption strategy is re-calibrating your performance curve to the overshot market expecations. That means instead of shooting for the best possible, you shoot for "good enough to satisfy the largest number of people." The people Nintendo was shooting for with Wii didn't need to be dazzled by graphics. Another part of disruption strategy is moving upmarket--once you've made your skajillions of dollars on the customers no one was trying to reach, you move up.

Figure out what kind of people Nintendo's going to grab next, and you've figured out what kind of hardware will be in Wii 2. Hint: It's still not your B3D enthusiast.

DSi should give some clues as well. The new technology Nintendo is most interested is game-changing, user experience-enhancing stuff. Wii tried out some experiments. Some (the remote) worked. Some (Connect24) failed. The next console will introduce some new (for Nintendo/console gaming) technologies to change up the experience. Perhaps a webcam built into the IR bar, microphones built into the remotes, or something else. Other than MotionPlus being built in next time, it's hard for me to guess.

Another edit: Mr Fils-Aime has called this "pure rumor and speculation" and said that the stories of the protype being revealed are not the way Nintendo would reveal the Wii's successor.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I'm sure Nintendo will stay with AMD/ IBM. Maybe something based on Fusion, with PPC cores and a new custom GPU. Off the shelf PC technology is powerful, but not really all that efficient.

Whats wrong with current gen PC GPU's in terms of efficiency?

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

I was as disappointed as anyone was with the wii, being a hardcore tech-phile.

Hopefully, the wii will be the last time nintendo uses low-tech hardware; you can innovate more with more powerful hardware and game design than you can with new controller. Or you can do both, as nintendo has before.

The reason I think nintendo made the wii so profitable was because they needed to. Nintendo has already made enough profit off the wii to sell a future system at no profit, or at least I hope and assume so.

Hopefully nintendo is putting this huge profit they've made from the wii into a better system.

I'll never understand, however, why the gamecube was the 3rd place system from the start, yet the wii is in 1st place by far. I thought the quality of some gamecube games was as good as some of the best super nes games; just not as many AAA titles, but I'll never understand why so many rejected the gamecube, while just as many welcomed the wii with open arms.

I can see why the n64 didn't come in 1st place, but why the gamecube didn't sell much better, i'll never quite understand.

More on topic, though, I really don't think the wii has good graphics in any category; even the best looking games' graphics are wholly inadequate and unacceptable, imo.

In other words, the same gpu just capable of hd res isn't going to do any good. So I hope nintendo doesn't pull some shit on us like an HD Wii

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

Whats wrong with current gen PC GPU's in terms of efficiency?

It's not exactly as efficient as the gamecube or dreamcast were for their times; however, today's pc hardware is a bit too efficient still.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

We should at least be trying to think about Nintendo's strategy. A key part of disruption theory is that you start moving your new users upmarket, tracking with consumer expectations instead of overshooting them. I suspect that Nintendo is looking for significantly upgraded processors that will give a significant boost in graphics while remaining backward compatible. It should be in keeping with their focus on "fun" rather than "cinematic." I'm expecting power more on the order of midrange DX9 hardware from 2004, and possibly an incentive for developers to make cross-compatible titles that would feature (for example) upgraded shaders and textures on the Wii HD, much like Half-Life 2 would run on a huge range of video cards and take advantage of them to varying degrees.

To many people, good tech quality in games is part of the fun; power gives you more innovation and fun than a revolutionary controller does, at least to some people.

 

[obonicus]

Part of disruption strategy is re-calibrating your performance curve to the overshot market expecations. That means instead of shooting for the best possible, you shoot for "good enough to satisfy the largest number of people." The people Nintendo was shooting for with Wii didn't need to be dazzled by graphics. Another part of disruption strategy is moving upmarket--once you've made your skajillions of dollars on the customers no one was trying to reach, you move up.

Does this fit into how Nintendo is behaving? They're not really putting a lot of effort into moving their customers upstream. Actually, if anything, they were putting more of an effort into it last year, with the release of Mario Galaxy by year end. I think this hinges on the assumption that Nintendo is following a 'disruption strategy', while I think Nintendo is just doing their own thing. NoA especially seems to be doing whatever it pleases.

DSi should give some clues as well. The new technology Nintendo is most interested is game-changing, user experience-enhancing stuff. Wii tried out some experiments. Some (the remote) worked. Some (Connect24) failed. The next console will introduce some new (for Nintendo/console gaming) technologies to change up the experience. Perhaps a webcam built into the IR bar, microphones built into the remotes, or something else. Other than MotionPlus being built in next time, it's hard for me to guess.

You're approaching Nintendo with the 'magic-maker' skew. I don't think it's very healthy to just assume that Nintendo will come up with new user-experience features, and focus technologically on them, especially since the DSi doesn't do much of that at all. The new consoles may come with all of those features (or have them in a peripheral pack-in), but I don't doubt that HD is coming.

Another edit: Mr Fils-Aime has called this "pure rumor and speculation" and said that the stories of the protype being revealed are not the way Nintendo would reveal the Wii's successor.

And he wouldn't lie? Not to mention that there is a distinct impression that NoA wasn't totally aware of the DSi's development; they had just signed up a bundle package with Activision, afterall. Activision certainly seemed to have been caught by surprise by the cartridge slot-less DSi.

 

[Megadrive1988]

More on topic, though, I really don't think the wii has good graphics in any category; even the best looking games' graphics are wholly inadequate and unacceptable, imo.

In other words, the same gpu just capable of hd res isn't going to do any good. So I hope nintendo doesn't pull some shit on us like an HD Wii

I understand what you're saying. I agree that a GCN/Wii GPU capable of HD resolution isn't going to be good enough next time around.

Remember that Wii is using the same CPU & GPU architecture as GameCube.

Wii's Broadway CPU = Gekko + 50% higher clock
Wii's Hollywood GPU = Flipper + 50% higher clock.

Gekko / Broadway is updated IBM PowerPC G3.
G3 was designed in the mid-to-late 1990s

Flipper architecture reused in Hollywood was started in 1998, developed mainly from 1999 to 2000.


There's little doubt that Wii 2 / Wii HD will have better graphics, not just Wii graphics in HD. The question that cannot be answered right now, is just how much better.

Could it be sub 360/PS3 level? Yeah but I hope not.

Could it be about equal to 360/PS3 level? Yeah and that would be the bare minimum that could be acceptable.

Could it be slightly or somewhat beyond 360/PS3 level? Yeah, that's what I'm, realistically, hoping for.

Could it be well beyond 360/PS3, even if not on quite par with XB3/PS4? Yeah but that's not as likely.

Could it be as good as XB3/PS4? Yeah, but that's pretty unlikely.

Could Wii HD / Wii 2 even be slightly *beyond* XB3/PS4? Well anything is possible, Nintendo could afford it, but almost for certain it won't be.

 

[fearsomepirate]

To many people, good tech quality in games is part of the fun; power gives you more innovation and fun than a revolutionary controller does, at least to some people.

Waxing philosophical about what we personally prefer is completely meaningless when trying to predict or guess what Nintendo is going to do next. Instead of talking about what you like and expecting that Nintendo will make the product you personally want them to make, try to think like a Nintendo executive. Understand their corporate strategy and their market goals. Quit hoping that Nintendo will release a profit-less machine next time; it's not part of the strategy.

I'll never understand, however, why the gamecube was the 3rd place system from the start, yet the wii is in 1st place by far.

So in other words, you don't understand why the last product was a failure or why the current product is a runaway success, but you think you understand the company well enough to predict what its next machine will be like?

I think this hinges on the assumption that Nintendo is following a 'disruption strategy', while I think Nintendo is just doing their own thing.

NOA's president and their CEO both have said repeatedly, over and over, that they are using disruption strategy. So far, they have followed Christensen's strategy practically by the book. This is not an "assumption" or a "guess." It is simply listening to what Nintendo's senior executives say about their strategy and their goals. I find it rather impressive how Nintendo can say over and over, "We are following a strategy of disruption!" and gamer pundits talk amongst themselves, saying, "We have no idea what Nintendo's strategy is."

I don't think it's very healthy to just assume that Nintendo will come up with new user-experience features, and focus technologically on them, especially since the DSi doesn't do much of that at all.

What? The DSi consists entirely user-experience features added on top of the DS. There is a small upgrade in screen size, but the selling points are clearly camera-based toys, the web browser, and the music playback software gadgets. In other words, it's about adding user experience features, not a big horsepower upgrade. Also, there's no problem for Activision--there are 80 million DS's out there, and the DSi doesn't make them obsolete.

Furthermore, the success of DS and Wii are both almost entirely due to Nintendo focusing on the user experience. To think that Nintendo would abandon its successful strategy to go back to the tit-for-tat competition that failed them with N64 and Gamecube is completely detached from reality.

And he wouldn't lie?

I think it is far more likely that gaming blogs and magazines are publishing unsubstantiated rumors than that Reggie is lying. It's not that Reggie's record is impeccable; it's that the addiction of the gaming press to rumors is the stuff of legend.

There are some key elements to Nintendo's strategy that should serve as a predictor to Wii's successor:

1. The business model must be fundamentally profitable.
2. The focus is on the user experience as whole, especially on elements of fun and surprise.
3. Improvements in power need to follow what the market can absorb, not simply what the tech companies can provide.
4. The product must be sufficiently differentiated to provide its own unique value rather than compete directly with another product.
5. Nintendo is competing for your entertainment hours, not just a share of the video game industry.

Anything you speculate should be consistent with those 5 points. That's why I'm predicting a modest, but not tremendous power bump (1 and 3), new technologies that target the use experience (2, 4), some of which may integrate in entertaining ways with things people already have (5). You know, like the DS, Wii, and now DSi all have done. Watch me be right...assuming I'm still on B3D in 3 or 4 years!

 

[obonicus]

NOA's president and their CEO both have said repeatedly, over and over, that they are using disruption strategy. So far, they have followed Christensen's strategy practically by the book. This is not an "assumption" or a "guess." It is simply listening to what Nintendo's senior executives say about their strategy and their goals. I find it rather impressive how Nintendo can say over and over, "We are following a strategy of disruption!" and gamer pundits talk amongst themselves, saying, "We have no idea what Nintendo's strategy is."

Where's the gradual migration to upscale games, then? I don't think no one knows what Nintendo is doing, I think Nintendo is pulling a repeat of the DS strategy. Was the DS a disruption? They already owned the handheld market. Personally, I don't think there's much merit to the whole 'disruption/blue ocean' theory (I think it's unproven, mostly hinged on observing known successes and forcing a correlation), and I think Nintendo knows this.

What? The DSi consists entirely user-experience features added on top of the DS. There is a small upgrade in screen size, but the selling points are clearly camera-based toys, the web browser, and the music playback software gadgets. In other words, it's about adding user experience features, not a big horsepower upgrade. Also, there's no problem for Activision--there are 80 million DS's out there, and the DSi doesn't make them obsolete.

I'm not disputing that the DSi has changes, I'm disputing whether these changes are meant for wide-ranging gameplay changes. I don't think anything about the DSi says that. I see an introductory media device, a PSP for the crowd that doesn't really need all the PSP offers and still wants to play DS games.

Furthermore, the success of DS and Wii are both almost entirely due to Nintendo focusing on the user experience. To think that Nintendo would abandon its successful strategy to go back to the tit-for-tat competition that failed them with N64 and Gamecube is completely detached from reality.

I never said they would. I even said they wouldn't. But to categorically deny that Nintendo will go for 2005-2006 technology in 2011 is shortsighted. HD adoption is just going up; DSi proves that Nintendo isn't categorically opposed to media devices, when it's important.

I think it is far more likely that gaming blogs and magazines are publishing unsubstantiated rumors than that Reggie is lying. It's not that Reggie's record is impeccable; it's that the addiction of the gaming press to rumors is the stuff of legend.

I'll give you that. I just don't think that anything that comes out of Reggie's mouth is more than noise (but note that I also consider most gaming sites to be nothing but noise anyway). I just think that there's a lot of credibility to the idea that next Wii might come in 2011, and that it'll be a significant graphics upgrade. Note again, this means this-generation technology in 2011. Not that Nintendo is going the Gamecube route again.

What I haven't quoted next, I agree with.

2. The focus is on the user experience as whole, especially on elements of fun and surprise.

As I've argued elsewhere, this is mostly perception. I really don't buy that Nintendo is spending all research money on new user interfaces when a smaller investment in advertising and PR would work just as well. I think this is something Nintendo knows already. I fully believe that Nintendo, like every single other leader in the console market so far, will become complacent -- there's no guarantee that next-generation Nintendo will continue to dominate the market.

3. Improvements in power need to follow what the market can absorb, not simply what the tech companies can provide.

True, and this is what it hinges on. By 2011 HD will be expected; yeah, it'll be bad graphics in HD, but it'll be HD.

4. The product must be sufficiently differentiated to provide its own unique value rather than compete directly with another product.

This is where it'll be tricky. Both Sony and MS will be watching what Nintendo does. I don't think they'll be able to pull it off, honestly, other than leveraging Nintendo's 'fun image', which might actually get them remarkably far.

5. Nintendo is competing for your entertainment hours, not just a share of the video game industry.

Everyone wants this. I don't think gaming's gotten there yet; do people really go 'let's go have a few drinks/watch a movie', 'nah, let's play Wii'? If you mean TV, videogames have always competed with that.

Anything you speculate should be consistent with those 5 points. That's why I'm predicting a modest, but not tremendous power bump (1 and 3), new technologies that target the use experience (2, 4), some of which may integrate in entertaining ways with things people already have (5). You know, like the DS, Wii, and now DSi all have done. Watch me be right...assuming I'm still on B3D in 3 or 4 years!

I think it's earlier to suppose that the DSi is doing anything new. It really doesn't seem to be. And your point 5 is just too nebulous; how does the DS' success (hinged greatly on the Lite redesign and Nintendogs, mind you) fit into 'things people already have'?

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

Waxing philosophical about what we personally prefer is completely meaningless when trying to predict or guess what Nintendo is going to do next. Instead of talking about what you like and expecting that Nintendo will make the product you personally want them to make, try to think like a Nintendo executive. Understand their corporate strategy and their market goals. Quit hoping that Nintendo will release a profit-less machine next time; it's not part of the strategy.

So in other words, you don't understand why the last product was a failure or why the current product is a runaway success, but you think you understand the company well enough to predict what its next machine will be like?
NOA's president and their CEO both have said repeatedly, over and over, that they are using disruption strategy. So far, they have followed Christensen's strategy practically by the book. This is not an "assumption" or a "guess." It is simply listening to what Nintendo's senior executives say about their strategy and their goals. I find it rather impressive how Nintendo can say over and over, "We are following a strategy of disruption!" and gamer pundits talk amongst themselves, saying, "We have no idea what Nintendo's strategy is."

What? The DSi consists entirely user-experience features added on top of the DS. There is a small upgrade in screen size, but the selling points are clearly camera-based toys, the web browser, and the music playback software gadgets. In other words, it's about adding user experience features, not a big horsepower upgrade. Also, there's no problem for Activision--there are 80 million DS's out there, and the DSi doesn't make them obsolete.

Furthermore, the success of DS and Wii are both almost entirely due to Nintendo focusing on the user experience. To think that Nintendo would abandon its successful strategy to go back to the tit-for-tat competition that failed them with N64 and Gamecube is completely detached from reality.

I think it is far more likely that gaming blogs and magazines are publishing unsubstantiated rumors than that Reggie is lying. It's not that Reggie's record is impeccable; it's that the addiction of the gaming press to rumors is the stuff of legend.

There are some key elements to Nintendo's strategy that should serve as a predictor to Wii's successor:

1. The business model must be fundamentally profitable.
2. The focus is on the user experience as whole, especially on elements of fun and surprise.
3. Improvements in power need to follow what the market can absorb, not simply what the tech companies can provide.
4. The product must be sufficiently differentiated to provide its own unique value rather than compete directly with another product.
5. Nintendo is competing for your entertainment hours, not just a share of the video game industry.

Anything you speculate should be consistent with those 5 points. That's why I'm predicting a modest, but not tremendous power bump (1 and 3), new technologies that target the use experience (2, 4), some of which may integrate in entertaining ways with things people already have (5). You know, like the DS, Wii, and now DSi all have done. Watch me be right...assuming I'm still on B3D in 3 or 4 years!

1st, sir, nintendo will not release a profit-less system next time; It's my wishful thinking.

2nd, maybe what i want isn't just what i want, and maybe if they make what i want that could very well profit them; it might not, but it might. I'm not the only person in the world who was dissatisfied with the radical direction nintendo made with the wii.

3rd, the red statement you made was totally out of line and perhaps even retarded. If the gamecube was cheaper than the ps2 and xbox (it's competitor's) and was in their league of tech, then maybe it's not clear why it failed. It had good games just like the other 2 did. The xbox1 failed miserably in japan, at least among gamers. I'd like to see you tell me why the gamecube didn't do as well, since you're capable of thinking like mr. nintendo.

You can't really say that the ps2 nor xbox gave a considerably different gaming experiecnce than the gc. If i were to make an educated guess as to why it didn't do as well, it was likely because of nintendo's astronomically high royalty fees thus limiting 3rd party support, thus limiting the number of games it had by a large margin. Nintendo only learned from the expenses of carts, they didn't learn from the other mistake, which they had always made, which was higher licensing fees.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I'll bet those that thought & felt that GameCube was underpowered and of a low specification in 2001 are wishing that Nintendo would at least go back to packing in technology into Wii HD that is as advanced in 2011 or whenever it comes, as GameCube was in 2001.

Not to say that Nintendo will follow a GameCube like strategy in the next-gen, they won't, why would they, GameCube was a failure compared to Wii. I'm just saying I'll bet graphics whores can look back on GameCube with fond memories compared to how Wii seems to them today.

I own a Wii and I'm fine with it, I knew what it was all about before I bought one. It does a relatively good job at providing a fun new experience, and lets me surf the internet better than any other box designed for TV that I've had (i don't own a PS3 yet)...

Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxy are still keeping me busy and I'm looking forward to the next Zelda that Nintendo has been developing.

And I am looking forward to what Nintendo will do next with regard to the next generation.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Well if Wii HD does go PowerPC again, a newer generation PPC CPU will run older Broadway/Gekko code just as well as the GC and Wii since it's native architecture, kinda with x86 processors? Or am I just dreaming?

I'm fairly sure Wii HD will be using a newfangled GPU next time around, with a PPC CPU, with a Hollywood GPU on the side for backwards compatibility, unless they redevelop the Hollywood with vertex units, fully programmable pipelines, HD resolution capability, etc while retaining full backwards compatibility (which won't happen ). Nintendo should just make things easy and adopt one of ATi's PC type GPUs, something at least on the lines of an HD 3450 or 3650 in terms of power.

 

[Megadrive1988]

IBM has enough of a roadmap (already behind them) to reach into that they could customize one of their PowerPC CPUs that's above the entire G3 family, without going to a brand new expensive architecture. Something in the G4 or even G5 family would probably be enough. I really have no idea what Nintendo & IBM will do except I do expect Nintendo to stick with IBM.

 

[ninzel]

Where's the gradual migration to upscale games, then? ?

Looking within the Wii catalogue(not looking Wii games compared to PS3/360 games) the migration would be from say Wii Sports/Wiplay to games like Zelda/Metroid. Nintendo doesn't want you to migrate from Wii casual to PS3/360 upscale games,but from casual to upscale within their own platform.
Edit: People might not subjectively see Zelda or Metroid as upscale compared to Gears or Resistance,but if you only own a Wii, Wiiplay to Zelda is already a move upscale.