*You used Wii as an example why devs wouldn't make ports for Wii U.

*I reply by showing how the situation of the Wii and Wii U are totally different.

*You say my reply has zero do with anything...right.

Anyways, I don't know where you get this idea that because Wii U won't be on the same level of power as PS4/720, that means devs won't put effort into porting to it. What's the logic on this?

PC is more powerful than PS360 yet devs put effort into ports for them. Xbox and GC were more powerful than PS2, yet devs put effort into PS2 multiplats .Not sure why you  keep pointing to the situation of the Wii, a console that didn't really have multi-plat support, as an example to support your logic when there are better examples that fits the situation Wii U will be in next gen.

If the Wii U has a sizable userbase for 3rd party games by the time the others launch, then logic tells you devs will want to make good ports so that that userbase will wantsto buy their games.

The difference being that Wii U comes out first. So long as the console isn't a total bomb, it should build momentum sufficient to make sure that developers keep thinking about it even when the other consoles come about. Wii's problem initially (which later became self-fulfilling) was that developers had already placed their bets, whereas Wii U has a chance to alter the landscape.

Yes,  I was really dissapointed with Battlefield 3 on the consoles not only with how it looks but also in how much inferior the maps/gameplay are compared to playing the PC version.

I take issue with a couple lines of thought in this thread. The first issue I have a real bone to pick with is this notion that stronger hardware equals out to higher development costs which force developers out of business. This is just plain bullshit. Stronger hardware just means more options, and it doesn't require anyone to utilize it to its maximum potential. Most developers in the current generation don't make best possible use. So what exactly is going to force such a huge about face. That all said this entire notion of development costs spiraling out of control is just a case of bad math at play.

Game development costs do not average out, and it is foolish to even try to draw conclusions based upon that. The reality is games have grown up as a medium. You are going to have a few block busters, but overall most of the games in development will probably not exceed a million dollar budget. The disparity is only going to make it more important for developers to innovate rather then use brute force. Ironically it is often the small guy that in fact makes the biggest profit. Sure Electronic Arts can make three or four times a big games budget in sales, but you know what sometimes small games make a hundred times their budget.

In the long run studios that sink actually sink due to their own incompetence. It isn't that someone or something forced them into bankruptcy. They just made some bad calls like dumping another shooter in a saturated market, or being too happy to clone a great game. Instead of coming up with a truly inspired concept. Sometimes they even manage to just play to their weaknesses instead of their strengths.

My second gripe is this notion that Microsoft doesn't want to loss lead their next console. It is rather on the face of it a counter intuitive notion. Microsoft generates most of its profit from the secondary market, and if making the hardware obviously superior means that they will increase their market share. Then why wouldn't they take a loss lead position. Even if Microsoft loses a hundred dollars or more up front it makes that back plus some within a couple years, and then it is all gravy from there. I am just not seeing why Microsoft should do that if Sony isn't going to be in a position to match them. Why not have better hardware, and price match Sony. Especially when it should be noted that early adopters are supreme tech heads. More power matters to them.

Im not sure why so many people get hung up on the graphics (especially the pc gamers). I like better graphics but they arent that important to me, and Im sure to most other gamers. Epic seem to be suggesting that graphics are the key to successful games and we know that arent necessarily - you only have to look at a game like minecraft to see this.

I interpreted this title as "Epic Games wants to be more powerful in the next console generation".

nope, you are still dead wrong, maybe crack a dictionary and learn what words mean before argueing 

I could say the same about many PS360 games and any other past consoles.

All consoles have a few games that are graphically above the rest of its' library and the same applies to Wii. It has a number of first party and 3rd party games that look better than all the other games in its' library.

Endless Ocean

MHTri

Spyborgs

Cabela's Big Game Hunter

Endless OCean 2

Grey's Anatomy

And there are more pretty Wii games but I don't have time to add all.

The problem with Epic is that it seems they don't actually care about the quality of games, just fostering a development environment which necessitates the licensing of their engine. The closer to the bleeding edge it is, the more necessary their engine becomes as developers are less likely to have the skills and expertise to directly make the most of the new hardware.

Epic wants MS and Sony to create a demand for their engine in the next gen which means either extremely expensive or highly subsidised hardware. This is a recipe for more expensive games and game developers even less willing to take risks with games. Good for Epic, not necessarily good for gamers.

Yet he neglets to mention the games that actually do look good, like the Galaxy games, DKCR, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Rayman Origins, Conduit 2, Xenoblade, The Last Story...and probably others I can't currently think of.