My issues with this line of thinking is that nothing Nintendo accomplished with Wii would have been changed by less embarrassing hardware. Everybody likes to talk about it in the extremes. It's either lose $500 per console and have 100 million dollar budgets, or overclock the Gamecube and enjoy 6 more years of last-gen. Where's the middle ground? They did NOT have to release this tremendous loss leader that was at (or even near) parity with PS360 to have a better shot at serious third parties and core gamers. They just needed something that was intelligently designed (see Gamecube in 2001), based on a (then) contemporary architecture, and was clearly beyond last-gen. Maybe this means they sold it at $279, maybe they even lost $20 a unit for the first year. Succeed or fail, it wouldn't have really mattered. The risk would have been so minor, and their resources so plentiful, the difference between the Wii we got and this proposed Super Wii would have been like a fart in the wind financially. Fact of the matter is, they pinched pennies and you got a much lesser product because of it. I would hazard a guess you would have enjoyed your "thousands of hours" a lot more if the graphics were more pleasing, or the developers were able to do bigger and better things.