Topic: current gen or next gen

This is true but it doesn't make the statement any less ridiculous. Even if the only difference between a Wii U game and a PS4 game visually is marginally cooler effects, better AA and better frame rates then it'll still be better. There is definitely room beyond what the Wii U is capable of. Whether that difference matters to the consumer is something we'll have to find out along the way but there is a clear difference.

Worse still is the suggestion that it's all to do with RAM and mass storage. No doubt that the Wii U can compete on those grounds but it really doesn't matter as much as it used to. RAM is cheap, it can be a bottleneck but it won't be the bottleneck on any console this generation.

The BS and denial is astounding. We'll sum it up here with an oldie but goody Mass Effect 3 ending meme...

Speculations for everyone!

Saying that graphics are superficial is avoiding the argument.
Make sure you understand the entirety of SCAR's position otherwise this could happen:

"Oh hey SCAR! Yea yea... and if the Earth should end you can have all my belongings."
(And then he actually comes to collect them, being convinced that he is the last survivor.)

I never said they were all superficial. I said they became superficial after a certain extent.

Lemme use Apple's demonstration a few years back. They claimed that you can see the specs of dirt on their new phone/pad (sorry, memory's fuzzy). Yay? At that point, why does it matter to the consumer that they can see individual specs or wrinkles on an old man's face (cough David Cage cough)

I think game technology is an evolution at both the software and hardware level. It might bring a helpful dimension to the argument to consider that with visionary advances in the software behind computer graphics, we could see visual fidelity go from what we accept currently to something entirely different.

As we've seen in the industry as a whole, there is a reluctance to make any leaps beyond the current generation. It's too expensive to invest in technologies that push boundaries when the consumer is happy to pay full price for current generation products. When the triumvirate of consoles has been introduced (by next year), new software technologies could redefine what it means to exist in the current generation. This would directly affect the Wii U.

That demonstration showed the new possibilities to show emotion on people's faces, which for some could be very important. Having more people in a city with little touches such as sneezing and things can increase immersion by putting you a in a living breathing world. Some games might make use of increased view distance in their games. Some games might employ particle effects in ways related to gameplay that we may not necessarily notice to do things that they couldn't before because of limited tech. There area many possible ways for better graphics to prove games. Some of them just might not scream out to you, or even really notice that it couldn't be done before, but still enjoy the game more because of them.

It's worth remembering that not every improvement in tech is adopted by the public. 3D TVs were supposed to be the next big thing after 1080p but it turned out that nobody really cared that much. At the very least the vast majority of people were not interested in spending extra money on a set that was 3D capable. When people were cynical about the iPad it was because it was the most recent attempt in a long line of failed attempts at tablet computing. It remains to be seen how important performance will be to the consumers of this generation of consoles.

Ya, but once 4K comes out, 3D 1080p TVs(possibly even glasses free at that point), will be cheap as heck in comparison to any 4K set. I believe that the only way Wii U will start to age into the coming years, is when 4K is supported by the other new consoles, and they support the higher resolution. 4K TVs in general have upscalers for 1080p content anyway which will help, and most have 3D to stay relevant for a long time.
As far as tablets go, iPad is junk compared to Surface. Surface is an i5, which is pretty good for a tablet, doubles as a tablet and runs Windows 8. The only thing it lacks is a bigger HDD, but an ext. HDD works no problem.
iPad WILL continue to be junk until it runs Mountain Lion, or whatever Apple MAC OS is suitable.

umm... no.. I don't really agree. I'm by no means an Apple fan but I would happily get an iPad over a Surface. It sounded like a good idea but in practice and with it's price it's not as good as it seemed. It's a bit like the market for premium netbooks a few years ago. Seemed good at the time, looks mad in hindsight.

As for 4K you've made half of my point for me. 3D TVs already are really cheap precisely because people weren't willing to pay more for it. Same will (and is) happening with 4K. People didn't really want 3D and the only reason they're getting it now is because it's on everything. That doesn't mean they're getting 3D content for it however. We could well see the same for 4K, little enthusiasm and only adopted when it's about the same price as 1080p. Minimal interest in content. Hard to tell this early in the game, just because something's new and better doesn't mean people will buy into it.

That said if there was a large and fantastic quality 4k monitor on the market I'd seriously consider paying $1000AU for it....

@skywake
Well, I think iPad and all those i devices are junk. I'd way rather have a Surface, or even a Kindle over an iPad. They just seem technically more capable outside of Apple's realm.
It is mad, because it's a grand right on the spot, but Windows 8 carries all of the Windows programs along with it w/ BC. The iPad may very well be better than Surface, but the iOS is BS compared to any PC, because it doesn't let you run just any software.
Still though, iPad and Surface are pretty identical in price, so I'd rather save an extra $100 and get Surface. There's just WAY more you can do with it. It has USB and Wacom touch control(which is better).
Until iPad runs a Mac OS, I don't really give a crap about it, and even still it wouldn't have as big as a software library readily available as a PC does.

Well this is getting off topic fast but I think it's worth correcting something. The Surface Pro (i.e the one worth being interested in) has two models, the 64GB and 128GB model. That's the one that lets you run all of your windows apps natively on it. The RRP for them is $1000AU and $1100AU respectively. Their cheapest one is a non-Pro windows RT with 32GB at $559AU. Compare that to a 16GB iPad 2 at $400AU or a 128GB iPad 4 at $870AU.

In my opinion, and it is an opinion, once you've spent more than $500AU on a tablet and then another $100AU on a keyboard case you probably should have looked at a laptop instead. Once you've spent $1000 you would have been able to get a pretty fantastic laptop. My view is that tablets are coffee table devices and if you're spending that much money on them for extra performance, input and various IO you're kinda missing the point.

@skywake
Ya, I was thinking that, too. Just another reason why tablet PC devices aren't really worth it yet. They're still experimenting with them. I could get a way better laptop that still has Wacom, a better processor, bigger HDD, etc. like you say. I realize that.
If you think I'm missing the point about a good overall device that won't require you to just get a laptop, just think how I feel about iPad in general, and people IMO have been buying i products as gullible fools for the past 3 years.
iPad 2 sucks. I actually sold it a few months after I had one and spent some of the money on a used 3DS. I had the same argument with my friends around the time, because they thought I was stupid for basically switching out an iPad for a 3DS. I only used the iPad for internet and games, and the awe of the device wore out fast for, specifically because the app interface and available hardware lacked big time, and still does for every i device they release.
You have to buy a freaking cord or accessory for everything, and you'll be spending just as mucg buying all those cord for iPad that you would get right out of the box with a Surface, besides the keyboard.

Everyone here making fun of SCAR doesn't actually seem to understand much on the technical side of things when it comes to gaming. SCAR is correct: RAM actually has VERY VERY little to do with graphics processing when it comes to video gaming. RAM simply keeps your system from having to divert to the hard drive to store and read short term data packets. Even with more taxing games on PC (as recent as Far Cry 3 and Bioshock Infinite) low amounts of RAM are "doable" as more gaming tasks are handled by the GPU and, to an increasingly lesser extent, the CPU.

I suppose if ignorance is bliss, your life must be extremely blissful, yes?

Lacking Next Gen technology = Lacking Next Gen technology (I'm not going to bother arguing about next gen technology because, as I've already stated, I simply do not know enough to argue)
Next in the line of consoles = NEXT GEN
Lacking Next Gen Technology + Next in the line of consoles = NEXT GEN (by standard definition and logic)
Lacking the technology has absolutely nothing to do with what is considered current and next gen. Nothing. At all. Whatsoever.

This has already been established over and over and over. Argue that it doesn't have "next gen technology" all that you want. I'm not going to participate in that argument. However, when you continually misuse words even after being informed of your misuse, I cannot help but shake my head in frustration. I feel like you're simply trolling now. Your opinion doesn't matter when compared to the definition of a word. I really don't want to look up the definition a third time. I rarely see this level of illogical stubbornness. When I do, it simply shocks me.

Relent. You lost.

@SCAR392
90% of computing tasks these days involve simply browsing the internet. Tablets are great for that. I don't want a jack of all trades I want the best tool for the job. So again, all sorts of no to your points

@rallydefault
You missed the bit with me disagreeing with SCAR and saying the same. The PS4/720 will both be more powerful than the Wii U but RAM will have nothing to do with it. As you said, RAM isn't the bottleneck in gaming it once was. This is why people were getting annoyed by SCAR comparing the various "next-gen" consoles by talking about RAM. The only talk about RAM before SCAR was comparing the Wii U to the 360/PS3 where it actually does make an obvious difference to performance. So no, he wasn't right.

Like I said, if I ever wanted a tablet, iPad would be my last choice. I'm pretty sure we can agree to disagree when it comes to tablets. I do know Surface is better overall, but hey, I won't argue with preferences.
As for Wii U vs. any console, last or current(PS4/Xbox∞). It won't have any problems doing what people want to do, which is play games. I personally bought it just for the games, but when I see people making assumptions that it is weak(even more surprising is the 'weaker than Xbox 360' claim), I can't help but explain how wrong they are.
Looking at the differences between the new consoles, I would say the only feature Wii U won't be able to support is 4K, and maybe some graphic affects that match that resolution, but only when the said resolution is in action.
The difference between Wii U and other consoles will most likely be like playing Xbox 360 in SD vs. Wii U in HD, and Wii U in HD vs. Xbox∞ in 4K. The resolutions will most likely be the only difference people will notice, paired with which ever console.
These consoles are a year apart. Come on people, what the difference between an iPhone 4 and 4S?(I know the difference, but it doesn't really matter)

Again, you're wrong. It's not just the ability to do 4K and I'm fairly sure they won't be able to run games at 4K that well at all. They will perform better and personally I don't care that much to be in a panic about that. I got the Wii U to play Nintendo exclusives, if someone else makes something better I'm interested in I'll find a way to play games on that also.

What's the big deal? Why is it so hard to agree that they'll have significantly better performance?

Why do you doubt 4K on consoles? Playing an Xbox∞ on an HDTV will be like playing an Xbox 360 on an SDTV all over again.

They won't have the power to push 4K at decent framerates without scaling back in other areas. There will be 4K video content on the PS4 but I wouldn't hold my breath for much more. That said I don't think the Wii U is the pinnacle of 1080p gaming, those consoles WILL push it further. It's crazy to suggest otherwise.

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Sony say PS4 wouldn't support 4K? If the new Xbox does at all, it won't be widely used until the end of it's life cycle.