Precisely, evanft.
Nintendo is, moreso than most understand, a business. They know their production costs better - and much, much longer before - than Sony or Microsoft, and they've been at it a good long time.
Microsoft is a computer-hardware production company. They're used to making megoliths of technical prowess. They've been at it a while. When they moved to manufacturing the XBox, they realized that at their current price, they could not make a profit on hardware sales. But they didn't do anything. They put out more accessories and added more functionality, but they didn't have their first price drop until well after Sony did, who in turn did so way too long after Nintendo did.
Sony is the same - they're the best at what they do. You see a Sony TV next to a Magnavox TV and you know - instantaneously - which to get. Their products are better. The best. The PS2, sadly, was not. It was - until well into its life (like, perhaps, all of last generation's consoles) - an underutilized piece of unintuitive hardware. Moreso than its competitors, however, it was flimsy and largely unreliable. But the PS2 wasn't what was on Sony's mind most of the time.
Nintendo, on the other hand, knew right up to the end what they were getting into. By their 4th generation, they were totally sure of their production costs and potential incomes. The technology was new to them - they hadn't worked in the digital disc market before - but they soon understood what was necessary to survive. Perhaps even before launch. The technology was more intuitively-designed than the XBOX, as was coyly shown off by the name "Gamecube." This meant to me, "We are 1/5 of the size of our main competitor, look comparitively impressive, and play just as well (or, perhaps, better. This was due to the overall design of the XBOX controller, especially the launch model, which had a giant XBOX symbol taking up more room than the whole of the face button layout). Perhaps, in this sense, the Gamecube was overpriced at launch, but it quickly went down, because Nintendo quickly found cheaper production methods.
The XBOX 360 may be overpriced, but it shows Microsoft's history of computer design. To me, half-seriously, it may be more impressive as a piece of computer hardware than as a videogame system, as it adds very little, in my eye, to the overall feel of its games.
Sony, on the other hand, has shown at this E3 that they have learned absolutely nothing in the way of strategic hardware implementation. They MUST have known that their intended technology wouldn't be able to be marketed towards households when they started the project, but they didn't re-organize. They didn't fix their planning. So now, they have a jaw-dropping, supreme piece of hardware... that, perhaps, no one will buy. It is a very foreseeable scenario, and if they do sell, I wonder how much profit Sony will make per console sold... if any.
Nintendo saw exactly what they had to do, far in advance. They knew that their inexpensive technology would look great when souped-up for very little extra cost. They also knew that most folks may not be content with EVEN MORE REALISTIC GRAPHICS, and that they would like to see something new. They re-invented the wheel with the NES, and brought life back into the industry. They re-invented the wheel with the N64, and introduced free-roaming, ultimate control. It worked brilliantly both times. They're doing it again. And it will work again. Nintendo hasn't been in the business 3 times as long as their oldest competitor because they Won the Fight with Sega. They've been in business 3 times as long as their oldest competitor because they invented and know their business better than all of their competitors.
ing PS3-upset here....." 
