Rob Fahey (a columist at Gamesindustry.biz; the website that wrote the article about some devs not happy with power of Wii U) wrote an interesting comment when asked about it (not the one that wrote the offending article). He basically said the contradictory comments come down to 3 things:

1. Some devs have genuine complaints because of what they want to deliver vs the hardware.

IMO this is either console development done wrong or for multiplatform titles they're trying to port (with difficulty for one reason or another). If it's for an exclusive then they're really screwing up considerring they should be designing everything with the hardware in mind.  

2. Developers are at different stages and still getting to grips with what they can do.

3. Developers have different skill levels (blunt but probably true).

Concidering a PC's range can go from the best graphics card in the world, with the best cpu, to the worst with the worst, to the best GPU with a shit CPU, vice versa, crossfire/sli, raid harddrives - ssd harddrives .. etc etc. There is simply EXTREMELY unlikely that any given game is optimised fully to run on one persons given system. It can have a great scalable engine, but even so, if the developers have a specific set of hardware to develop for, they will be able to get more - the most possible, out of that given set of hardware, which can yield great results such as uncharted :P Just to use a mainstream brand. But that's just the way it is. That's one of the reasons why console games look "so good".. Another reason is that they have a limited number of things running in the background which leaves more resources for the game itself. (though newer consoles have more stuff running, it's still much less than a pc would :P)

I never said they could match the best on the pc market, but a game on the console beats the living hell out of the same game, on pc, on a similar rig due to the facts I stated.

I have a pretty badass pc myself (I run batlefield3 in 1080p on max) But comparatively, if you're able to optmize for specific hardware, you'll always be able to achieve more. That's simply not possible for pc's because of the scalability you have to achieve :P

5 years ago that might have been true, it just isn't anymore.  Open GL does offer some marginal benefits but without the backing of any of the graphics card manufacturers it's dead in the water except for perhaps the mobile and Apple markets.

It's still supported by both Nvidia and ATI though isn't it? I mean major games like RAGE are still being built with it.

have we not yet come to the conclusion that this is made up BS because it's obviously made up BS.....why is this thread still going.

We still support the running of 16 bit applications in Windows 7 through emulation, doesn't mean it's a good thing to start using 16 bit apps.  The Open GL support is still there because hardware manufacturers are always slow to drop support.  I suspect it is also used by 3d modelling software as a tool, it's just not as good as Directx for games developers as Directx has so many better tricks up it's sleeve.

???

I'm confused - first  you say that OpenGL offers benefits over DirectX but that it's weak because it doesn't have hardware support, then you say that DirectX offers benefits over OpenGL and both have hardware support.

Do you actually know what you're talking about?

:P Trying !.. It's taking a while though.

And yes, I told myself I had to get a awesome pc for rendering.. The fact that it was also for gaming is just a minor detail :P cough

@Rath, there were some talk that AMD was dropping open gl.. I'm not sure if they actually did, but it is as competent as direct x. They just have different things they do. It's easier for them to drop it though, because microsoft directly supports and develops direct x. So it would save them a lot in R&D.

Open GL is open source though, so in theory, anyone can work on it :P