> That power didn't translate into sales. Certainly, but I think there are a lot of factors at play for why the GCN didn't do well. For example, Nintendo tends

> That power didn't translate into sales. Certainly, but I think there are a lot of factors at play for why the GCN didn't do well. For example, Nintendo tends to get its customer base wrong and often doesn't engage in the kind of hype that Sony and Microsoft do because Nintendo isn't trying to bleed people dry. > Given the Wii's success it seems clear that they didn't need to compete on the hardware level to be successful Again, several factors involved, even Nintendo was surprised by their success. However, very few fans above 8 y.o. looked at their Wii and said, "Yes, I'm satisfied that this is 480p when literally everything else on the market is 1080p". A lot of people had expectations going in that were not realized because they were just kind of expected as standard, and Nintendo failed to deliver. Resolution, performance, even DVD playback. They really skimped on the latter, even our toasters can play DVDs these days. > It certainly seems like Nintendo's biggest success stories don't center around unparalleled technical specs. So what do you believe can be attributed to their success? And the answer isn't low-cost hardware. That only appealed to a certain casual market, and Nintendo suffered for it with the Wii U because that market had already been burned out on Wii gaming and most saw no reason to upgrade.