I'd agree it would be a problem, but lets be honest -- just about every Western developer does this today anyway with PC game releases.

What's more work for a developer -- having to hire a completely new dev team to make an inferior version of Call of Duty (for example) from scratch for Wii versus the PS3/360/PC versions ... or being able to use the higher end assets that you've already designed and have sitting there and then just having a couple of guys work in addition to the main team to downscale *existing* assets for the "base console"?

It's better than the alternative of not getting games like BioShock and Mass Effect and GTAIV and FFXIII and RE5 (whatever their future 720/PS4 equivalents are anyway) at all, or getting them but only getting the "butchered" versions.

I think developers would appreciate this approach actually.

Well, the second one is more work, because they're having to make two versions of the game for just one console.  

Debatable.

To make Wii versions of games like Madden NFL, Call of Duty, Dead Rising, etc. developers had to hire entire new dev teams to build the Wii versions basically from scratch. And in the end, the consumers aren't really happy with those games anyway because they know they're getting the inferior versions, so basically you're spending more resources to give the consumer a crappy version of the game, lol. It's why most devs eventually just bailed on the Wii altogether.

To make a Wii U version with a add-on, I think it would be more like taking the lowest PC settings and transferring that version to the disc, and then taking the highest PC settings and tranferring that version to the disc. But you wouldn't hire an entire new dev team to do that.

You're making the assumption that developers would need to make two versions of the same game ...

Take most PC games today and examine the hardware that is needed to run the game at its second highest level of detail at a resolution of 720p@30fps and compare it to the hardware needed to run the game at its highest level of detail at a resolution of 1080p@60fps. While the average user could hardly tell the difference between the two from the look of the game, the price difference and energy requirements associated with the two systems are substantial. With Crysis 2 the difference is a Radeon HD 5770 (a 2 year old budget gaming graphics card) for the low performance and a Radeon HD 7870 (a new high end graphics card) for the high end performance.

I'm actually banking on that exact concept (scalability) for many games.

But I'm assuming by about 2014/2015 you're going to start to see games that make Crysis 2 even on high PC settings look like dog poop. Because really Crysis 2 is a game designed for the PS3/360 spec, it doesn't take full advantage of the PC cards its running on, and most PC devs are not going to do that until the PS4/720 are out.

Simply put -- it just costs too much money to justify making a PC-only game with say Samaritan level visuals right now ... but when the 720/PS4 enter the fray, that likely changes. Now you have three revenue streams for every version of every game. Most PC games right now are basically souped up PS3/360 engines, when Sony/MS move on to the next gen, you are going to see a pretty sizable jump eventually I think.

I think you are forgetting about capacity of the medium.

Some PS3 games already approach the entire 50 GB capacity of a dual layer Blu-ray disc.    You are suggesting they find a way to put those assets and the higher quality assets all one disc?   Going the 2 disc route just upped the cost.  Releasing 2 seperate SKu's is even more expensive.

You do realize PC games have different levels of assets stored on one disc that run on 5, 6, 7, 8 different hardware configs (let alone just 2) right? That doesn't make a game double the size.

None of this is anything particularily new. Devs deal with this stuff every day, lol.

The alternative -- not getting games like Mass Effect, BioShock, RE5, etc. etc. etc. isn't any better. At least this is a way for Wii U users to get the same games as everyone else and for Nintendo to still be able to turn a nice profit off their hardware and not have to sell the base console for a price that's outrageous (which would alienate the casual/soccer mom/kids group, which I'm guessing is a complete non-starter for Nintendo).

I think it's fair for Nintendo to say "well if you're a hardcore player and you really want these obscene specs so you can play these higher end games that start to come out as this generation wears on, we still want your business, but you're going to have to subsidize the cost of this extra hardware piece which we can sell you for cost". That sounds like a fair deal and reasonable compromise to me.

You can't just take a setting on the PC version that looks like your consoles and 'transfer' them to the disc, it's a bit more involved than that. If that was true, the Wii only versions that youre talking about requiring a whole new team for could just take the low/lowest setting on the PC version and, as you say, 'transfer' them to the Wii disc.

I really don't think splitting the market is a good solution, either for the customers, developers or the games themselves. 

Good point Happy!

It would make absolutely no sense to use parts older than when their last console released. Really think about that...

I could understand if R&D began right when the Wii released, but it is ridiculous if Nintendo stuck with the same exact strategy they went forward with in 2006 and did not change it at all after watching trends in the industry towards graphics after a few years. Especially after the mass support exodus in 2010, you think Nintendo wouldn't attempt a mad dash at securing support-- with power?

Out of all the info we know about Wii U, this issue has been the most sensationalized. This Power7 CPU its using is already confirmed to be stronger than the 360. PS3/360 Porting has been confirmed to be a seamless process...obviously the console is strong enough.

How far can devs jump forward in power for 2013-2018?? anyway and still afford it? As far as I know, power has a nearly reached a plateau in terms of what companies can financially handle. Games like God of War 3 ($44m) cannot be the norm for long...ask THQ.