The problem with the development cost is the way the industry works, not exactly the way games are made. Note that the use of middleware has exploded in this generation and in the next generations it will mature, creating a better middle ware market where not all games are made with UE. The movie industry for example, handles bigger budgets but the way their industry works allows them to.

Video games are also an inmature media and as it matures, the industry will become more efficient. Something similar happen to web develoment in the begining and now thanks to web framworks web development is not as has expensive, complex and error filled as it used to be (of course gaming will take more time since is much more complex).

The main problem with the graphics for wii u wont be the hardware capabilities. When the ps3 come out GT interviewed a group of developers and one from naugthy dog said something very interesting, they were talking about how the PS3 would win over the 360 because it will have better graphics, but the guy at naughty dog sayd - WHY? , why would developers spend more money making the ps3 version superior, if sony if not compensating them for that and it is already more expensive to make a ps3 game look as good as the 360 version? - something similar could happen to the wii u, even if it is more powerfull why would third parties invest more to make the nintendo version better looking when nintendo will not compensate then, note that at the time the naughty dog developer sayd that MS had a 10 million advantage over the ps3, well ps360 will have a 50+ plus advange over the wii u so there is no way developers will get the compensation from the biggers sale on the wii u, so all points to the fact that even is the wii u is indeed more powerfull , only nintendo IPs will take advantage of that, just like sony does now, everything else will be ports that look just as good as long as is not too expensive. 

THIS. *leaves thread*

Saying the PC is "already stronger than the PS4 will most likely be" based on no logic, information, or intelligent thought is a foolhardy comment at best, deliberate ignorance from someone who knows they're wrong and too stubborn to admit it at worst.

The PC, as it currently is, is barely a step up beyond the abilities of the PS3 and Xbox360, and to be truly advanced over either of those consoles means spending vastly more money on hardware to upgrade the PC to that level than it costs to simply own a PS3 or Xbox360.  At most, the PC offers ever-so-slightly higher res textures if developers even want to bother with that, and smoother framerates--and again, that's only when PC gamers shell out the cash for the hardware that can readily handle the CryEngine or whathaveyou.

The next generation may indeed be a just an extension, or "general advancement" of this generation.  I developed this "console theory" some time ago, prior to the launch of this generation.  The theory goes like this:  Every other console generation is an experimental, advancing generation, each following generation is the "perfecting" of the advancement, largely starting with the 3rd (NES/Master System) generation.

The NES was the bold new experiment.  New controller, new gameplay styles, new games, new genres, new focus, etc.  It was no longer about coin-eating arcade games and the best possible translations, it was about the first games built as great, in-depth home experiences.  The SNES/Genesis (16-bit or 4th Generation) was the perfecting of the evolutions from the NES era.

The 32/64-bit Generation, in which the Playstation, N64, and Saturn made bold new advances, and reinvented gaming again (disk-based gaming the norm, analog control, 3-D polygonal gaming, cutscenes, etc).  The following, 5th Generation, with the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, and GameCube was the optimization of that generation.

Prior to this generation's launch, I felt that it was "advancement/evolution" time again.  I was disappointed, initially, to see that Microsoft and Sony didn't really advance or evolve aside from simply ramping up the hardware specs of their machines.  The Wii and DS led the advancement, and the Xbox360 and PS3 followed suit, but all of this stuff is imperfect.

This next generation will be the "optimization" generation again.  The kinks will be worked out or understood for Kinect, Move, and the Wiimote.  It doesn't need to truly advance, just optimize and perfect.  Frankly, I feel that this is the purpose of the next generation.  This generation featured all manner of stumbling blocks as it gradually hobbled into some proto-evolutionary form, but the next generation will really show us how it's done (if my theory continues to work).

My theory is largely based on the following criteria:

• New/different control input.  (NES controller, Zapper--N64 controller, Dual Shock--Wiimote, Kinect, Move)
• Different way to perceive games and gaming.  (Side scrolling adventures, platformers, saving game progress--3D polygonal worlds, cutscenes, immersion--online play, motion play, downloadable games, Western RPG's)
• Technological leap.  (NES to SNES, relatively small.  SNES to N64, relatively big.)

Maybe not graphically, but it will have an advantage due to the controller. Developers will want to start thinking about the extra screen uses for when Microsoft and Sony jump into it too. 

I consider myself quit well versed in hardware technology and build computers as a side project for fun.  If you like, I can build a PC for under $400 that will most certainly take down the PS3/X360 in game performance.   As for competing against current top end PC hardware, not a chance.

The PS3/X360 may render a game at sub-HD levels or even 720p if you're lucky but rarely with much AA applied and then you'll get 30fps...60 if, again, you're lucky.   A top end PC will take the same game with better textures, more polygons, better shaders and give you 1920 x 1080 or higher, with lots of AA, lots of AF and more than 60 fps quite easily.

I don't think you grasp just how much more powerful PC's are than the HD consoles.  Irstupid is actually correct.  The PS4/Next X will not exceed the gaming capabilities of top end hardware right now.

But at first the technology wont be fully used, there will be experiments from third parties (like the kinect masseffect 3 lame stuff) and copies from whatever nintendo does first, if nintendo succeeds in certaing implementation you will see 10 clones from third parties, untill market share is big enough to justify an investment bigger then the one spend just porting whe exact same game from ps360.

For ports that will make the WiiU the third (or fourth) platform for the game, the differences graphically could be minimal. It's what happens with multiplatform games right now, the WiiU version of a game will just run smoother with higher frames, but graphically it would look the similar. Maybe if it's as easy to program as they say it is, graphical improvements could be added for very little cost. But even if it's the same graphically, it still has the controller screen which can improve gameplay, and I believe it's something developers will want to try.  At least that's the impression I got from E3.

The only way i see the controller getting much attention (beyong experiments and copies) is if sony can emulate it with ps3+vita making it the interaction justificable becuase of the size of the market.

But that market will be seen even smaller than the WiiU one, bundled device versus optional, if anything the Wii U could help the PS3+Vita. The Wii had a similar promise of intercomunications between the console and handheld and only a few titles used it. What was the problem? They've said not everyone owned a Wii and a DS (eh?), and that the Wii U will change this since everyone will have one.