Nintendo consoles have been underutilized since SNES
Even GC suffered from cheap shitty ports that werent suited to its architecture.I can name you a few. Thats why Nintendo doesnt care. They gave us the best they could with the GC and got bitchslapped.

Wow, there is so much hate for the Wii U and Nintendo in this thread. If what is said about the power of the eDRAM is correct then that's great. It may take developers, those who really care, time to program for the Wii U. However, once they figure it out completely, much like the time it took for the Cell in the PS3, then the ports and any exclusives for the Wii U will look great. Of course, not as good as the PS4 or Xbox One, but that's okay, because Nintendo is doing their own thing and I'm not going to hate on any of the big three. I wish I could afford all of them but sadly I can't !

Also, I really don't care about the opinions people may have about the Wii U and how "weak" they say it is. I'm waiting for Mario Kart 8 to come out so I can finally purchase a Wii U. It's the lack of funds really that is stopping me right now. I may wait until after E3 to buy one in hopes of a price cut to $249.99 or a new buddle with a better deal than the current one. I really can't wait though until Mario Kart 8 comes out and I really do hope it becomes a big system seller !

Shadowfest3...

There will not be a price cut this year and it would not increase sales... Software sells hardware otherwise everybody on earth would have ouya...

Anyway... Wii Us good enough to run Resident Evil 5 at 1920x1080 with frame rate of 30 on Very High preset settings yet Capcom is incompetent to achieve that on Wii U with Resident Evil:Revelations that uses same game engine as Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate that runs on Wii U at 1920x1080 at 60 frames with some drops to 40 frames. Its mindbogglingly how obvious is that Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 dragging down Wii U and that Capcom would have sold more if it was a Wii U exclusive and it would have been profitable rather than unprofitable which it is since cost to port it to multiple platforms is not recovered because of poor sales. If it was a exclusive console version then it would have sold 150-200K plus they could have improved visuals considerably with Open GL 4.3 effects and higher resolution textures. It could have run 1920x1080 60 FPS on Wii U if its hardware was really utilized... But no... 3rd party always must shot them self in the foot. -_-"

This was just wishful thinking on my part.  I have limited funds and a $50 price cut would help out a ton.

Yeah, given that they're not yet making a per-unit profit on hardware yet, chances of a price cut any time soon are slim.

Wait a minute... do you really think, the port of a 3DS game would have been more profitable if it only had been ported to the WiiU? 700k retail units were sold on the HD twins (PS3 + 360) plus (probably a lot of) digital sales on PSN, XBL and Steam.

It wouldn't have been a WiiU-exclusive anyways, most Nintendo fans already had played it on the 3DS.

Resi5 is amazing, but it’s a DX10 game. A damn good looking one regardless. Keep in mind this is the GDDR5 version of the card

However, you can see how taxing pure DX11 games are. Again DDR3 vs GDDR5

you cant compare single units performance to a closed environment like a console

a console will always perform better than a standard benchmark cause of the optimizations

@Conina
I did not knew that it sold that well on PlayStation 3 and enough on Xbox 360 while we do not know how well it sold on Steam... I doubt it sold much digitally on HD twins...

You must be naive if you think it would not sell much on Wii U if it was an exclusive... ZombiU is a survival horror game and it sold nearly 650K so there is interest in that genre, Monster Hunter Tri was played by many Nintendo fans on Wii and 3DS, did it stop Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate from selling well on 3DS? No and 3DS version did not stop Wii U version from selling close to 500K without digital sales included.

If it was Wii U exclusive console version then it would sold at least as much as Xbox 360 version and in could match or even exceed PlayStation 3 version in sales. Porting from 3DS to Wii U is probably much cheaper than to Xbox 360/PlayStation 3.

Not true. Tomb Raider on PS4 == 50fps. Tomb Raider on 7870 (1920 x 1200) at Ultra == 52fps. 

XBox360 has an equivalent to a Radeon X1950. PS3 to a Nvidia 7800GTX. These cards handle console games at the same resolution and framerate with minor differences

Case in point Bioshock1 on a X1950 Pro. 1024x768. High. No AA == ~40ps. Reasonable to expect the 30fps at 720p no? Probably with muddier textures because of limited RAM.

That "myth" isnt true, see below

And post from someone much smarter than me on GAF

======================================================

A big problem with all the talk of console optimization is that it usually lacks a proper understanding of what, exactly, "optimization" is. Consoles do tend to have thinner API layers than PCs, but that doesn't amount to much at all. Any of the absurd claims people put forward of 2x performance improvements are just deeply insulting at that point to the software engineers that develop DirectX, OpenGL, and GPU drivers. There isn't a chance in hell that these professional, mature APIs waste anything close to half of a GPU's cycles. Seriously consider how ridiculous it is to think so; such a solution would be wholly inept and quickly replaced by something superior given there are companies and divisions of companies whose revenue and livelihood largely depend on processing performance. The fact of the matter is that the PC platform is single-handedly driving the advancement of high-performance graphical processors these days, it's kind of important that APIs exist which do not cripple performance to such a vast degree.

The issue of optimization is not an underlying software issue (except perhaps for draw calls). However, if developers do know a given platform has fixed and understood specifications, they could very much benefit from tweaking rendering options to suit the strength of that hardware (i.e. tone down settings that kill performance, design clever streaming and occlusion culling solutions, etc.). This is not completely impossible on PCs either. Optimization via streaming/occlusion culling type stuff is design-level and benefits PCs as well by not wasting precious resources on unseen/unnecessary assets. The problem arises from rendering settings. These, too, are tweakable on PCs. The difference is that it's on the end-user to determine what balance they want to go for and, as with late-generation multiplatform games sometimes, the baseline of PC hardware is so far ahead feature and power wise that PC versions have more advanced settings enabled by default. Then people confuse the pared-back and optimized console setting balances with increased performance over time. It is not this, that is impossible. The pure computational capacity of a processor is fixed, period. Optimization is simply a matter of making the most of perceptible graphical differences (because some effects and rendering methods produce an arguably small difference to a lot of people, yet incur a huge penalty to performance; see: SSAA/FSAA, AO, soft shadows, fully dynamic lighting, tesselation, etc.) and given that PC games do not ever have an explicit "console-level settings" option, people tend to assume false equivalencies. If a GPU stronger than a console's is struggling with a game the console does not, it typically means one of two things; the PC GPU is rendering greater settings or the game was poorly-ported to the PC.