Topic: Wii U really is tiny for its power.

Not sure if serious...Gamecube vs. Xbox is a horrible comparison because of the 3.5" HDD, faster processors, and internal power for one, though in real world terms the Gamecube wasn't far behind. Yes, the Wii U is much weaker than PS4 or even Xbox One, we know this for a fact.

For me personally, I couldn't care less which system is the "strongest" or "weakest". I care about having a great time playing games I want to play. I'm devoted to Nintendo because, for me, they have always made the quality hardware (and software) that I enjoy. Nintendo's hardware is often (if not always) not the most powerful, but it's always been good enough for some amazing games.

The only problem I see with Nintendo's hardware being less powerful than the competition, is that some third party developers will avoid it. This is unfortunate, but a price I gladly pay for Nintendo's exclusives.

The GameCube Board is almost as Cute as the GameCube itself. Awwwww!

I am simply glad that I can now have ninty games look awesome on a 1080 screen.

The Wii was underpowered but The Galaxy games and Zeldas (as examples) had stunning art design and clever programming. Nintendo bringing that magic WITH proper HD will be enough for them to stand up against PS4 and XBONE. They won't have the power to push the realism envelope, but the art and graphics will still compete in their own, charming way. This, and of course, the gameplay

Bring on Mario Kart 8!

@BanjoThreeie
The Xbox and GCN is a totally valid comparison. The GCN didn't have the numbers that the Xbox had, but like you said, the real world performance was pretty close between the 2. That's exactly why I think it's too early to call which one is better technologically in a reasonable fashion(the Wii U was released one year earlier, afterall).

BTW, you didn't answer my question about how the PS4 and Xbox One are "much more powerful" than the Wii U. If you can't explain what the specs do, they don't mean anything during such a claim. So which component in the other consoles makes them "more powerful" than Wii U? Like I said, I know the Wii U isn't as capable, but some of that has to do with being released a year earlier.

EDIT: You need to explain HOW, WHY, or WHAT. You can't say "just because".

I disagree because the Gamecube was quite competitive with the original Xbox whereas the Wii U is far behind the PS4 which isn't even too impressive for a 2013 console launch. The extent that Xbox One is underpowered compared to PS4 (50%) makes that a closer comparison, though I'd say more between Dreamcast and PS2 power.

I'm going to start sounding like a broken record here but if your main goal was "lots of power" in any form factor you wouldn't be going with a console. You'd have thrown in the towel and gone with a PC long ago. Even more now with Nvidia Shield and Valve's Steam Box that in theory could be the size of of a couple of 3DS cases and just stream from as powerful a machine as you want over Cat5e/6.

So it' shouldn't be about getting the most power you can when you buy a console. It should be about the convenience of it, the quality of the experience and the exclusive content. When I feel the need for more graphical power I'll buy a new graphics card. Right now though I'm more hyped about Super Mario 3D World and I couldn't care less about how much detail it has.

Disagree here, powerful PC's cost far more than consoles for various reasons. Sony's basically subsidizing the PS4 by a rumoured $60 to hit that magic $399 price and potential install base compared with what would have been huge markups had it been a 2012 mid-range gaming PC, which would have been nowhere near that in price. Valve cannot afford to sell anything at a loss nor would they probably be interested in it so that's really just for enthusiasts in my opinion. In terms of price consoles traditionally introduce a lot of consumers to unusually powerful hardware at launch and often subsidize themselves with future game sales, peripherals, and now online subs (thankfully Nintendo doesn't do the latter.) In fact, the GPU's in the original Xbox and the Xbox 360 were not even available in a desktop at the time, which means the average (key word) PC gamer could not build as powerful a PC as those consoles at the time. PS3 would have been the same deal but was a year behind with a slightly weaker GPU and a strong but extremely complicated CPU.

^This image has been said to be FALSE on the upper limits, certainly the Titan (an extremely expensive enthusiast card) and PS4, however, it's accurate where it places relative console versus PC power and that unusually on November 22nd, 2005 ATi (now part of AMD) had a slightly higher performance graphics card on the market...only on console though. Nvidia did the original Xbox GPU so they're more than happy to point out how impressive the Xbox was for 2001.

Xbox and the Xbox 360, closed systems, were $299 and $299/$399 respectively at launch, with all but the $299 360 including an HDD at no extra cost.
Both systems were sold at a loss, unlike the Xbox One which is market suicide at $499 with a much more powerful competitor at $399. The enthusiast market is also not interested in Kinect, which is precisely the market the Xbox One is targeting at launch. Yeah, it'll sell out, but I hope Microsoft loses control of North America with their totalitarian policies they backtracked on and outrageous price.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-09-05-xbox-one-wil...

Nintendo is not in a position to do what Sony does (though nowhere near how much of a loss PS3 was) or what Microsoft used to do to that extent. That's why Nintendo should be wise like they were with Gamecube and focus on competitive hardware they can get 3rd parties to hopefully support instead of taking a loss for the sake of a tablet that the casual market isn't interested in.

3rd party licensing fees on console games are a fantastic source of revenue and might be worth taking a hit on the initial hardware for.

I don't even care anymore. If the PS4 is seriously 50% more powerful than the Xbox One, it's not doing a good job of showing it. That's Sony's fault.

I don't see anything that looks better graphically on PS4 vs. Xbox One. So where is the other 50%?

Killzone: Shadow Fall
Every exclusive except The Order: 1866 full native 1080p, all look amazing.
Call Of Duty Ghosts confirmed 1080p, Xbox One version believed 720p, Ryse 900p, etc.

@BanjoThreeie
Activision already confirmed COD Ghosts was running in 4K @ 30FPS. That's on either the Xbox One or the PS4, but it won't be supported when people go out and buy the game, as far as I know. There's no way in hell Xbox One is running COD Ghosts in 720p. Every system can already do that.

50% more power could definitely get more games in a higher resolution, but that's still not the full percent. It doesn't take 50% more capability to get games running at a higher resolution without better graphics.

The only way anyone will ever know how much more capable anything is if it exists. Even Uncharted on the PS Vita is basically on par with Resident Evil Revelations on 3DS, IMO. The textures on Uncharted are all blocky and over exaggerated to look any better than something else that looks more simple. Same thing with Dead or Alive 5 on 3DS and Vita. It's the same exact game with some minor improvements when the Vita should be doing doing at least 2× that, according to the specification sheet.

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-11-call-of-duty-gho...

If you think that's funny, then more power to you, I guess.

They never said it rendered at 4K. They said they used a 4K TV. Even Sony confirmed that while the PS4 can play movies designed for native 4K, games will be limited to 1080p, and I highly doubt the weaker XB1 is going to 1-up the PS4 in that department.

@DiscoStew
"The console versions are still in severe development, but it looks good so far. We actually have a 4K TV at work and got the game running on that. It looks phenomenal. The 4K TVs have a max hertz of 30, so we're maxing it out."

Why did he say "we're maxing it out", then? That implies that they had it running in that format, because you don't "max out" by plugging in your devices and letting the machines do the work. I'm still pretty confident they will have some games running in 4K. The only thing keeping content from running in 4K @ 60FPS on a 4K display is HDMI.

COD Ghosts is a launch release for Xbox One and PS4. That means the graphics aren't as good as they can be since it's their first game of 8th gen, and it would be easier to get a game from early in a console's life to run at 4K than one further along in the generation. That's why I don't doubt 4K being a possibility.

If the graphics are easier to render, resolution can be higher. Whether it makes a difference is what matters. Rayman Origins for example, can run on ANY newer system, in SD or HD.

EDIT: Implicatons aside, I at least proved Xbox One is running Ghosts in 1080p @ 60FPS to ol' BanjoThreeie here. I don't even know how someone could think otherwise, honestly.

I'm not trying to come across as a jerk, but this is similar to how all Xbox 360 games in the past five+ years say 1080p on the back of the box when almost none of them are and some are sub-720p.

At best the One can upscale to 4k...the game does not render that much...

@BanjoThreeie
Ya, but that's Xbox 360, not One. It's not that hard to believe that Xbox One will have 1080p with 60FPS with most titles, and possibly 4K for less graphically demanding games.

4K TVs already have 90% accurate upscaling, so perhaps these systems could use that to their advantage and pick up the other 10% to take full advantage of 4K. The graphics won't be any better only considering the resolution, but the graphics that are there will have 3 more pixels per pixel to be displayed on. The 4K TVs are doing most of the work to get things running in 4K, because they know most of content will be in 1080p until 4K becomes more widespread.
They did that, because what's the point of selling an Ultra HD screen if it doesn't improve anything straight out of the box? They made sure regular HD will still be improved on a better screen.

Yes it really is at a theoretical 1.3 TFLOPS and with that only coming when the eSRAM is properly used.

Upscalling is never as good as native resolution but Microsoft's going to ride their upscaler all gen.

If I remember I'll come back with the digital foundry article comparing COD: Ghosts and maybe some other launch titles. 1080p 60 fps for most titles is unlikely enough for PS4.

@SCAR392 I don't think the PS4 or XboxOne will have games at native 4K they'll just upscale, not as long as Sony and Microsoft can fool people like they did last gen by just upscalling to 720p.

A majority of PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U titles natively render at 720p. Yeah there are a lot below that though...every COD for example. Just about none do 1080p though...I mean Rayman Legends because it's no powerhouse. Most HD ports as far as I know are even 720p, Wind Waker HD, which is 1080p 30 fps being a huge exception.

I still think higher resolutions will happen. It's not that necessary, considering 4K is still a while off, but it's something to think about.

They can't sell 4K if it doesn't matter. That's pretty much what I'm going off of to justify why they're available. I'm completely fine with my display, honestly.