Patcher basically said that the Wii U is a little late to the party, and that though it may not fail, it won't be as big as the Wii was.  

Nintendo defenders are starting to bring up the fact that the Wii U is 50% stronger than the PS3 and Xbox 360 but there is a problem with that point: 50% is not enough!  The ps3 is litterally 10 times more powerful than the PS2 and the PS2 was 10 times more powerful than the PS1.  

The dreamcast on the otherhand was only about 2-4 times better than the previous generation and look what happened:  it sold a mediocre amount of consoles until the real heavy hitters launched and it was destroyed.  

The Wii U will not sell well because it isn't that much stronger than the current gen and it will be weaker than the next gen competition.

To those that bring up the controller as an example of how it may succeed, keep this in mind:  Nintendo has basically alienated third parties, and what do third parties make?  Oh that's right, most of the HD games.

P.S.  LOL at Ghost Recon Online.  A port of an already free PC shooter doesn't count!

Note:  I do not 100% think what I have said above will happen, but it is likely IMO.  Please support arguments well and keep in mind though I am saying the Dreamcast is a good example, the Wii U isn't the exact same thing.

Demonstrated graphics on par or better than anything released for the HD consoles while rendering at 1080p @60fps while rendering similar quality graphics to a controller at 854x480@60fps ... Essentially rendering 5.4 times as many pixels at equal to or better quality.

I think it is a touch more than 50% more powerful

Edit: Personally, I suspect the per-pixel processing power of the Wii U is probably 50% greater than the PS3 which would imply the system was (around) 8 times as powerful as the PS3 is.

I have my doubts that it'll take off like the Wii as well. The Wii really was a revolution and it's too bad it fizzled out the way it did.

But with that said, Pachter isn't at all vindicated with this announcement in anyway. Anyone with half a brain knew that a new Nintendo HD hardware was coming out because a1). Nintendo themselves say they are working on new hardware as soon as the new one releases and 2). the Wii's successor was going to be HD by default as a natural progression after shunning it the previous gen.

If it is indeed true that the WiiU is 50% more powerful than the PS3, that's fine. There's not so much more we can do in my opinion and still keep development costs at a reasonable level. I don't think the PS4 or NextBox will be exponentially more powerful than current gen HD systems like you probably expect. We have 1080p and 3D... what else can we do? I guess we could go 2160p and ask more gamers to fork out for another generation of HDTVs. At this point, I think we'll only make incremental increases in horsepower. And more sophisticated A.I. and ingenious game design will be the new bells and whistles games will have to rely on as opposed to a graphics crutch.

I don't think graphics will be a decided factor going into a next generation. IF there is a true next generation. MS and Sony may instead opt to try to find ways to renew interest on their current hardware with new input devices or software patches instead. Certainly Wii U does not necessitate them going to newer hardware. It's only now competing tit for tat with their current gen offerings.

I think MS and Sony will be more concerned with cloud gaming and any possible entry from Apple than what Nintendo is doing with Wii U.

If someone introduces a game streaming service akin to Netflix, the current model will be in serious trouble for all players, although probably less so for Nintendo who can live off their own brands and have a unique interface device. If third parties flock to cloud (or Apple), and it's less expensive for consumers (imagine unlimited new games for $60 a month, or less) then Sony and MS will be in massive trouble.

As for Wii U's success. I hate to admit it, but I have to agree. It's simply not compelling at the moment. Some ingenious software may change that but not anything we've seen so far. The fact that it plays the same 3rd party games the current HD twins do is practically irrelevant when pretty much anyone and everyone who wants to play 'core' HD games will already own an HD console or two by the time it comes out. Nor is it currently compelling enough to pull casuals into investing in yet more hardware. Frankly, I'd be fine with my Wii. I'm really tempted to say as long as games kept coming out, but really I'm so backlogged it'll probably take me three years to finish the games I have now anyway, and I'll be buying a few more this year (Zelda, Kirby, Xenoblade, TLS?, CoDMW3, etc)

I agree in part, but I think for the next gen 50% better (than PS3) may prove to be "good enough" since we're already at 1080p and 1080p isn't going to be obsolete anytime soon (like 480p is now).

I think if Sony was smart they would only make the PS4 3-5x more powerful than the PS3 instead of the usual 10x more power. This way they can still boast that the PS4 is more powerful than Nintendo, but it won't have costed as much to produce as it would to make it 10x more powerful.


My prediction at this point is that the Wii U will be a failure (compared to Wii) but overall a decent success. I think the huge tablet controller is a bad idea, and the console itself won't be enough of an improvement compared to this gen.

I came hoping for a well-written OP. I leave disappointed.

People draw absolutely the wrong conclusions about why Dreamcast died. Why things happened historically don't just randomly change to suit the flavor of the moment (which seems to be WU->DC comparisons). Power was only a part of the package, other issues were a lack of trust for Sega after they botched the latter end of the Genesis era and had the Saturn, as well as Sega's simple lack of willingness to go forward

well, I'll give you credit because your user_name is eddie_raja =)

I think we need to get out of this mentality that graphical power decides the measure of growth from generation to generation. It's software and the market's reception to that software that decides the direction gaming goes. We have to remember that the Wii isn't even 5 years old but we act like it never existed and never had the amazing market reception it did. If anything, this should silence anyone who claims a piece of hardware won't sell because its graphical prowess.

We also have to realize that hardcore gamers, especially the ranting forum goer, are in the consumer minority. Even if every third party publisher on the planet makes games for the hardcore gamer and puts them solely on 'Playstation 4' and 'Xbox 720' it won't be anywhere near what the expanded market(new consumers), old school core(Atari and NES) and new school core(established consumers of current 'casual' software) can spur any console that supports them can sell at a healthy, growing rate.

That said, I don't think Wii U won't sell because its graphics. I don't think it will sell because of its design philosophy.

Pachter predicted "Wii HD" for two years ago, he was wrong, but has the audacity to say that Nintendo merely released their system two years after they should have? Pachter was wrong, he is always wrong.

One VERY stupid comparison that I see people make is that the Wii U is going to be like the Dreamcast because it is underpowered. Why not compare it to a Nintendo console that was underpowered? Like the Wii?

The argument that "The Wii U is too underpowered like the Dreamcast" is stupid. Why not argue "The Wii U is underpowered like the Wii". It would make more sense, considering the Wii is a Nintendo console and the Dreamcast isn't.

The truth is, none of you have any idea what you are talking about. Pachter most certainly has never had any idea what he is talking about; he is always wrong.