To Clear up confusion on what makes Next-Generation

[Hynad]

Mazty said:

timmah said:

Mazty said:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/reggie-nintendo-not-good-at-core-games

Giving you quotes from Reggie hardly counts as "nonsense". However claiming things like the industry isn't split over the Wii U does count as nonsense:

http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/5044/20130202/electronic-arts-ceo-hints-wii-u-next-generation-has-seen-xbox-720-playstation-4-does-know-a-lot-about-valve-steambox.htm

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/01/team_ninja_wii_u_is_definitely_next_generation

The ford mondeo outsells Ferrari. Does Ferrari consider the Mondeo to be a challenger? xD

You have no idea how market terms are defined, so you just make up your own definition to suit your bias. Are they in the same model year (Gen)? The WiiU/PS4/Nextbox will all be on the same graph on the front of VGChartz, and will be compared side by side in sales by all gaming media when they're all on the market. They all have the same basic feature set (DX11 type), only the horsepower is different. By your comparison, is a 2013 Ford Focus not in the same model year as a 2013 Ford Mustang? (model year in cars would be the market equivalent of console gens)

Also, WiiU is much closer to its competition power-wise this gen than Wii was last gen (same DX11 type feature set, much smaller power differential). That would make the WiiU more part of this gen than the Wii was part of the 360/PS3 gen by your incorrect argument.

EDIT: Another point, graphics card manufacturers release new graphics card 'series' or 'gens' based on feature sets and architecture, but there are different power specs on cards within the same series/'gen'. Just because the lower end card of the new generation of cards is not much better (power-wise) than a mid-range card in the last gen does not mean it's in the same gen as the older card. There are multiple factors, including architecture and feature set as well as release date to take into account.

Actually I'm pretty sure I know how the MARKET term is defined. Look at jet fighters which work with generations:

"Fifth-generation aircraft are designed to incorporate numerous technological advances over the fourth generation jet fighter"

Same can be said about games. Games are only called next-gen when they show tech advances over the games from the previous generation. All cars have a sterring wheel, axel and wheels. Should we then compare all of them on the same graph? 

We can't actually say the Wii U is close to the next-box or PS4 until we have confirmed specs. As it stands, what we have seen so far is a console that is on-par with the 360/PS3. 

Actually your point about GPU's proves me right. Low end GPUs are compared to the low end gpus of the generation before it. No one compared the GTX480 against the GT240 - they compared like to like. Using the Wii as an example, other than release date, how was it like the PS3 or 360? It was considerably weaker and didn't even run the same games. The same cannot be said about the 360 when compared to the PS3. 

Your argument is flawed. The Wii U does bring something new tech-wise compared to the 7th Gen. The GamePad as a main gaming device as well as asymetrical gaming was not part of the 7th gen.

You're basing all this on raw horsepower and graphics only. As if graphics were the be all end all of what defines a gen.