Do graphics really drive console sales?

Game Tunnel has taken a look back at how consoles and handhelds sell in comparison to their graphical capabilities. It's pretty interesting and for the most part concludes that one does not drive the other:

Following the continuing trend of 'first to market, fail to make it to the next generation' Sega released the Dreamcast ahead of the pack and though sales were above that of the Saturn, they left console business (noting the lackluster Xbox and GameCube sales, Sega may have pulled the plug on Dreamcast too quickly). Sony followed Sega to market with the PS2, Microsoft entered with the Xbox and Nintendo entered with GameCube, a system that fell a half step behind the Xbox technologically, but a full step above the PS2.

This generation also continued the trend of the strongest system technologically (graphically) not finishing first, though the graphic improvements were not as significant as in the previous generation (when gaming went from 2D to 3D.

-- Good Enough: Why graphics aren't number one

Course, the odd converse truth is that when it comes to software, I'd be willing to bet that graphics do indeed translate into sales. We've got this odd collision between what a company can successfully market in terms of a platform versus just how much eye candy a developer can wring out of it. It's not, I think, that gamers don't care about graphics ... it's just not the only thing they care about. Exclusive titles, deals with second and third party developers, hardware advances - the platform itself is a complicated object even before someone puts a game into the slot.