With the success of the Wii during the last generation of consoles, more than a few people speculated that the successor console was going to be something along the lines of a "Wii-HD"*. In short, the tech of the Wii, slightly improved but with an emphasis on graphic power as a way to bring back the core gaming demographic whilst leaving intact the broad appeal of the console. This was eventually debunked by Satoru Iwata who, presumably after the success with the Wii (summarised by Miyamoto as being intentionally low powered in comparison to it's rivals** with a focus on offering a different experience), decided to take a different direction.
What we got was the Wii-U. I honestly love the Wii-U, but it is fair to say that of the "big 3" it has performed the least well of this generation of consoles**.
My question is this: If instead of the Wii-U we had gotten a Wii-HD; a more hardware intensive improvement upon the original Wii, do you think it would have performed better in this generation?
*http://uk.ign.com/articles/2008/10/01/wii-hd-in-2011
**http://cloud-computing.tmcnet.com/news/2006/11/16/2084887.htm
***http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/
What we got was the Wii-U. I honestly love the Wii-U, but it is fair to say that of the "big 3" it has performed the least well of this generation of consoles**.
My question is this: If instead of the Wii-U we had gotten a Wii-HD; a more hardware intensive improvement upon the original Wii, do you think it would have performed better in this generation?
*http://uk.ign.com/articles/2008/10/01/wii-hd-in-2011
**http://cloud-computing.tmcnet.com/news/2006/11/16/2084887.htm
***http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/