Alright so Nintendo has played its cards. They were the first to announce a next generation system and show off the kind of capabilities it will have. Right out of Miyamoto's mouth 1080p will be the standard resolution and later on Nintendo talked about 60 frames per second speeds. EA said that WiiU could handle BattleField3 and I assume he was refering to the PC version because the PS3 version would be a no brainer. Then developers confirm that the WiiU hardware will be at least 50% more powerful then the PlayStation3 putting it inline with many gaming PC's currently on the market.

So the question is now that we have some idea how powerful WiiU is. How powerful should Sony and Microsoft go with their entries into the console wars?

Theirs many things to consider

#1. Release date, Microsoft has been preparing a next gen console for years. Rumours are now flowing that dev kits may be in the hands of some developers. Though developers are denying this, their is the possibility they are lying. Rumours say Microsoft may launch their console as early as winter 2012 to compete directly with WiiU. If that is the case and Sony joins them. How much more powerful do Sony and MS have to go to compete? Or do they need to blow WiiU out of the water? Maybe release consoles on par with WiiU?

#2. Price, Sony and Microsoft lost alot of money this generation by launching brand new state of the art technology. The results have been that PC's and the HD twins were similiar in power for about 2 years into the console cycle. But with WiiU as powerful as it is, will Microsoft and Sony invest in more expensive next gen tech or will they allow Nintendo to set the bar and come in with competitive but more affordable power. Or will Sony and MS lose money on each console by releasing super powers again?

#3. TV's I recently came into the argument that at 1080p and 60 frames a second that the WiiU will have almost maxed out what is possible on a 1080p screen tv. How much more powerful can Sony and Microsoft go without reaching the maximum capabilities of peoples TV's. Is the technology their for MS and Sony to truly leave Nintendo in the dust?

#4. Consumers, yes you guys. Sony and Microsoft need to appeal to the consumers will consumers pay a radiculous amount of money for a state of the art next gen machine? or would consumers rather buy a cheaper console with current PC technology? Do consumers want raw power or practicality?

So considering these four things, how powerful do you think Nex-Box and PS4 should be? Should Microsoft take the cheaper route coming up with competitive hardware to WiiU, or Should Sony go nuts and release a super powered high priced behemoth? or Vice versa. Or should both competitors go for power or both competitors go for competing graphically around WiiU's level?

Whats your take?

Did you saw the new Unreal/Epic Engine?

The nextbox is going to use it, I am 99% sure of it.

Ms will make a deal again with epic probably for an exclusive game(franchise) that use the power of the Unreal Engine;. What kind of power you need for the Engine no idea.

The Wii U should have the ability to handle the Unreal Engine aswell if it can't it will probably end up with same third party support as this generation...Many of the game devs will use the new Unreal/epic engine attracting core gamers to the nextbox and it will attract Japanese devs aswell.

Sony will also release a machine that can handle the Engine but again what kind of power it needs no idea.

I'm sorry, but I think you fail for putting the highest option as 100% more powerful than PS3. Especially that you say ''heavy price tag'' next to it.

It wouldn't be very expensive to produce a machine several times more powerful than the PS3 and 360 combined. If Wii U is as 'powerful' as you suggest in the OP then I would even say that it wouldn't be very expensive to produce a machine several times more powerful than the PS3, 360 and Wii U combined.

I however think that the Wii U will be quite a bit more powerful than you are suggesting there. Maybe 3-5x as powerful as PS3.

'Powerful' not being a very definable word of course.

Umm considering many still consider the PS3 to be capable of competing with current PC technology. Then I can't see WiiU or any console being more then 100% more powerful then PS3 especially if they are to be released by 2013 as many are suggesting. Though I admit I should have gone higher in the poll.

Current gaming PC's aren't even 100% more powerful then PS3 to my knowledge. Look at the best and most power driven game for PC released to date BattleField3, that is not 100% more powerful then PS3 infact I doubt its even 50% more powerful then PS3. I doubt you could release a 100% more powerful system even in 2014.

Now I'm not a PC expert, but I know that developers are saying WiiU is 50% more powerful then PS3. EA said that WiiU could handle BattleField3 which is state of the art releasing this winter. I can't see how a console could be 50% more powerful then that by 2013? And 100% released anytime soon would be radiculously more expensive then WiiU!

I just feel like pointing out this paragraph and explaining how fundamentally wrong it is, in that it seems to be continually repeated here as a measurement of quality.  People are putting 1080p and 60fps on some kind of pedestal and declaring it the be-all and end-all of graphics.  Perfect Dark XBLA is 1080p and 60fps - it means nothing when the character models and environment assets are all sub-1000 polygons, there is no normal/bump mapping, no GI/radiosity lighting or volumetric lighting, crappy particle effects etc. The bottleneck is definitely not the resolution and frame rate.     

at least 400% anything less and there is no reason to upgrade from the previous generation, even 4x the power would only lead to a "slight" leap in the capabilities of games and may be to small for most customers to see a perceived leap in capabilities that warrants investment in the next generation.

Think about this situation where the PS4 is twice as powerful (100% more powerful) as the PS3 and Uncharted 4 is released on both platforms the only difference is that the PS4 version runs at 60fps and the PS3 version runs at 30fps and you already own a PS3 and the PS4 is a very conservative $299 US, would you buy a PS4 or just buy the game for the PS3? To convince customers to invest in a new platform you must show them experience's that they cannot have on the current generation, there is only one console that has achieved that without a significant leap in power (defined as at least 4 times the previous gen) and that is the Wii. Nintendo did something no one had ever done before used a new controller to provide the new experiences. Now Sony and Microsoft have already set a precedent of adding new controllers to the current system with move and kinect, they also can't use Internet services as both have already shown that they can add them to the current systems with patches. So that leaves only one way for Sony and MS to release next gen consoles without a large leap in power and that is to artificially kill off their current consoles by ending support like MS did to the OG Xbox. But that strategy is likely to leave a bad taste in consumers mouth and could do more harm than good. And the only controller that could warrant a next gen console without more power is some form of mind controller.

The next gen will likely be 8 times more powerful than the last just like Carmack said if MS and Sony can't afford to do it with current technology in 2013 (the likely release year for at least one) they will just hold off another year. Another factor to consider is that if the iPad keeps improving it's capabilities how it has in the last 2 years the 2013 or 2014 iPad will likely be more powerful than the xbox 360...

TL DR: Customers expect new experience's that were not possible on the last generation of consoles and if the next gen doesn't provide that they won't sell. So MS and Sony have no choice but to provide consoles at least 4 times more powerful and they will likely be 6-8 times more powerful.

PS3 was already outdated, espcially when Crysis released you could tell the difference.  Most PC devs just don't use advantage of the PC's nowadays because they also want their game on the consoles (that's why you see a lot on Pc forums  'Consoles are hurting PC games').  When the nextbox arrive we will see a big leap in graphics for PC games aswell.  Anyway what do you consider more powerfull...

I'm going to respectfully disagree with everything you said. I have seen a guy play Crysis 2 on 3 monitors with full settings. I doubt whether the PS3 would be able to render that with more than 2FPS at any given time lol.

PC is obviously more powerful then PS3. But I have a very hard time believing that Sony or Microsoft will release hardware over 100% more powerful then PS3. I don't think PC's have reached that yet and don't expect them to for a few years. EA has said they pushed the PC version of BattleField to the best they could. So if BattleField3 is not 100% more powerful then PS3 then I doubt PC's can be that powerful.

However as I said it is possible and I should have put higher numbers in the polls. I just didn't see them as logical. However PS3 was more powerful then any PC at the time of its release. So I guess its possible if Sony and MS chose to loose money and release 600$ consoles again maybe just maybe the PS4/Nex-Box could be a few times more powerful. But I doubt that will happen, however I should have made the option in the poll. Also THQ said if manufacturers truly went next generation the way they did last gen, then games would cost over 100$ at retail and be extremely expensive to develop. Thus making it unlikely that MS or Sony will go that powerful, dev costs need to still be reasonable as well.

I wish their was a way to edit polls.

i think microsoft and sony should just duc tape bits from thier current systems and increase ram, theres no real need to over engineer, keep costs low and keep games coming