@komicturtle92 Actually I think you're very wrong here. The PS4 will utilize Ultra High Definition. UHDTV (4320p )runs at 16 times the resolution of current HDTV's and is the equivalent of what you see at an IMAX presentation. I guarantee you this is what the PS4 will utilize.

These Wii 2 specs show that it's only a triple-core which is the same as the 360, but granted if it's really pushing at 3.6GHz that is still incredible power. The PS3's Cell already contains 8 cores now running at 3.2GHz - one disabled for yields - and the PS4 will likely push up to 12 cores (or more). Wii 2, if this is correct, will be right at, to a tad higher than the PS3 currently is now.

The PS3 is suppose to have 4-5 years more of it's lifespan, but I'd expect to see PS4 in probably 3 years time, and 2 years of transition time for the PS4 because of the high cost of the system at release. When PS4 releases, I expect it to be an even bigger 'shock' factor than the PS3/360 were at release, as if it can bring IMAX quality to homes, that is flat-out amazing stuff, and I expect nothing less because that is what Sony does - push the technological limits.

Regardless, the Wii 2 is looking to be a very powerful machine, but now it's wait and see for that the innovative kick is to keep it apart from the rest!

Nintendo's new console is now called:

NINTENDO BEEM

[quote=15785]Nintendo's new console is now called:

NINTENDO BEEM

</blockquote>

I just looked up the definition of Beem (as opposed to beam). It's a trumpet. Haha no.

"Beem" is apparently one of the rumored names.

@Slapshot

Eh, I'll just wait and see. The software matters most to me really. And PS4 being stronger than Café- yeah.. Cute.

It seems to me you're going to have to be paying a high electric bill if the PS4 is like that. That just seems ridiculous to me. Hopefully, games don't decide to take a turn into "OMG REAL" because if I wanted real... well, shiz.. I'm living it now. Could PS4 be realer than real life in terms of graphics? Maybe. But I don't need a power surge in my home.

_{I may be exaggerating but UHDTV what? Never heard of that till now.}

If you're going to get a PS4 then.. good luck. You have to have the dinero, pesos, yin, yang, yen, pounds, moola for that. And to take advantage of that- whoo, there goes 3000 US DOLLAHS from the sounds of it.

EDIT: One more 'ting- by the time we hit 2016/2017, Nintendo would probably be ready to announce their next console that may utilize such telivisions. But really, I wouldn't want to play my games on a huge (booty) screen- that's just me. And I don't think people will jump in until things become affordable just as HDTVs where it got to more homes in and around 2008-2010.

everything on the spec side is good from what the first comment said. BUT WHY IN THE WORLD DOES IT HAVE TO BE TRIPLE CORE?! wont the nvidia Kal EL quad core chipset be out by then which is suppose to be very reasonably price from what speculation is saying? i mean come on nintendo you made a partnership with NVIDIA why not use it for the better and bring production cost down?

Um...

what are you talking about? You realize that, at the average sitting distance from a living-room television, you'd have to have an immense screen in order for the human eye to even be able to perceive those pixels?

I think you're a little off base here. Believe it or not, the resolution / definition wars have pretty much run their course. There are definite limits to what the human eye can discern; in fact, for medium-sized sets in smaller living rooms, 1080p is already overkill, as you can't physically perceive the different from 720p unless your TV is over a certain size and located within a certain distance.

Going past 1080p is truly absurd unless we start raising our ceilings in order to accommodate 20-foot televisions. That's why the industry turned to this 3D-TV nonsense: they'd be happy to keep incrementally upping the resolution, but the fact is that we're already near the point where it doesn't produce any benefit to increase it.

I don't doubt that the PS4 will one day be some sort of super-powerful hardware, but looking for IMAX resolution is just nonsense, and has no benefit without the IMAX-size screen, which doesn't exactly fit into our homes.

How much more can be upgraded? The Graphics are so close to looking like real life, mechanics/physics are frekkin amazing, so they can't upgrade too much on PS4 and Xbox 720. There still is some stuff to improve but not too much left.
IMO though, I really don't want games to ever reach RL graphics...it would just feel kinda awkward. Maybe they can find a Sweet spot for graphics just under RL graphics?

I'm not selling my Xbox just so I can get the same games on a different system, that's for sure.

4320p also sounds like a ridiculous number. Just saying...

I'm not an expert on the subject but my understanding is the PS3's Cell has one PowerPC core and six of those weird SPEs. The 360 has three PowerPC cores and none of those weird SPEs. The SPEs don't have direct access to main memory. They can only work on 128 KB of data at a time (that's KB, not MB). Yes, the SPEs can do some serious number crunching (that's what they're there for), but they are not general-purpose processors like the PowerPC cores. My only point is you can't compare the number of cores without specifying what they are.

Believe it or not- it exists.

They are expecting these UHDTVs to be in homes domestically in 2016-2020. I really don't think people would be willing to have a giant 88' TV hogging their living room space especially if their ceilings aren't high. If Sony goes down this route with PS4- I wish them luck in trying to make people buy those televisions to apparently take advantage of.. well, UHDTV (which is really unnecessary as it really doesn't add much of anything to the experience and hell- good luck playing on a huge television).

PS4 will indeed be stronger than Nintendo's Café, but I doubt it will blow it and 720 away because like I said, I expect it to be a puddle of a difference and not an ocean like Wii with 360.

@komicturtle92 thanks for doing the digging for me. I'm don't write things here to start arguments, I like to give the opposite sides of opinions. I'm a huge gamer and a fan of ALL the companies.

Even if you upgrade to 4320p on a 40+ in (U)HDTV there would be a significant difference in the visuals. I've got 3 HDTV's in my home, and I also have 2 PS3 systems in it as well. We've actually brought another PS3 to my game room and put the PS3's all on the same game 3 different HDTV's, side by side: 1080p 19" Samsung, 720p 32" Sony Bravia and a 1080p 44" Samsung, and you can most definitely see the difference in 720p and 1080p. What is even more shocking is that the drop in quality in 1080p from a 19" to a 44" is quite drastic, so upgrading to 4320p would be amazing. It's going to be expensive as all get out, and will start off with a slow start just like the PS3, but once the technology becomes mainstream it will take-off just like the PS3 is now.

@Zaphod_Beeblebrox You're correct, and it's just a rough comparison that I gave. The PS3 was very difficult for developers to learn how to work with as it works so different than anything before it, and it's also the reason that we are just now starting to see games like Killzone 3, Uncharted 2/3, etc that push the graphical limits forward, and put so much action on-screen without slowdown. If games are developed correctly for it, the graphics card isn't even utilized, so yeah it's way different from a spec point of view.

This seems like absolute BS. What would the screen do by itself? Why would you need to store anything on the controller? Why would the developers program for the controller if it doesn't work away from the console itself?

The screen idea in itself is expensive but.... what you're talking about here is an ENTIRE portable console as the controller. I've said before that the Cafe idea is kinda like using an "NGP as a controller" but I highly doubt that the controller would work by itself. As I said, it would be expensive AND would become a competitor to the 3DS! Seems ridiculous to me but I guess we'll find out soon enough :S

I hope they don't get rid of pointer controls... That would be a step backward for Nintendo.

@slapshot

You're perceiving subject factors and other matters specific to the games when shown on a smaller set.

This chart is gives the most accurate calculations:

For your eye to even be physically capable of perceiving the benefit of a resolution greater than 1080p, you'd need to be within 5 feet for a screen with a greater size than 40 inches. Most living room setups have the TV further than 5 feet... more like 8 or 10, and at 8 feet you'd about a 70 inch set to see any benefit beyond 1080p.

To even get close to perceiving these ridiculous resolutions you're talking about, you'd need to replace your entire wall with a tv, and then stand right next to it. Not joking, that's how it is. That will never be the tech for home sets. To be honest, anything beyond 1080p will be an extremely hard sell with consumers when they can't see it under most normal conditions.

But it is good for those who only have a Wii console and not an HD system like the 360 or PS3. I do have my laptop but even that can barely play some games (like Arkham Asylum) on low-medium settings.

Not sure how much of this to actually believe

The idea fails for computer monitors where you typically sit 1.5~2' from a ~24" screen but in general you're right. On my 32" screen I can't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p at the typical ~8-10' viewing distance but I can definitely see the blurring of 480p. My brother has a 52" screen in a slightly more confined setting and the Wii looks horrible on it compared to how it looks on my 32" screen.

Having said that, don't underestimate the ability for the electronics industry to convince you that you need a super HD screen. That you need to be able to walk right upto the screen and not be able to see the pixels. They'll do that and we'll all buy it because of how ridiculously cool, but useless, it is. Now multi-angle TVs on the other hand.........

Ultra HD 4320p huh? Sounds mightly ridiculous and absolutely pointless. WarioWoods hit the nail on the head.
Lets get more realistic here. 1080p Displays are what's rocking the majority of the HD world.. I believe PS3 games will be full 1080p HD this time around instead of being 720p, and hopefully that's the same deal with the Wii U. I don't want to play 720p games on a 1080p hdtv. I want a damn frickin' matching resolution for once. if they actually made 1280x720 HDTV's than I'd go for that, but they don't as they're all fixed resolutions which then means 'scaling'

Anyways, Going over 1080p is just overkill and quite pointless regarding the fact that most people don't own screens beyond 50"
And as for the PS4's power which will be sure to smoke the Wii2, i could care less at this point. I don't care how realistic a game looks, i could care less for realism, unless we're talking horror titles. I wan't out of this world imagnitive artistic visuals and the Wii2 and NIntendo by it's side will easily achieve this and blow people away.