Thanks for that, even tho it's pretty off topic lol. The meaning doesn't really change, I am kinda surprised that the Wii U would have lower res textures and lack detail textures. I would have thought that with the extra RAM would have allowed them to go for higher res textures by default. Anyway as I said this is pretty off topic for this thread, I guess I should have just PMed you in hind sight lol.

The Ubisoft rep seemed to suggest that it used the same textures though which leads me to assume they're using a different method of anti-aliasing to the PS3 version. It can make a massive difference to the blurriness of the textures as I found when I forced Super-sampling on Mass Effect 3. They may even use a higher level of AA causing both the blurring and the frame-rate drops.

After Skyrim I would imagine they would be keen to keep Bethesda happy as well. And considering that Frostbyte 2 is going 64-bit required next year for some games (which will mean that they are making a game that requires more than 4GB of RAM+VRAM) DICE will also be pushing for more RAM. Oh and Crytech with their "would really like to see next-gen console platforms with a minimum of 8GB" they will be pushing hard for more RAM. 

I really can't see them not going for 4GB TBH, surprised they would even consider 2GB exept as a ploy to say "we licened to developers, and we increased the RAM". 

Could be they just aren't using texture filtering on the Wii U version yet. The performance drops are to be expected with Alpha software on new hardware. 

ok so with these rumor specs and what we know about the xbox8 or 720 will this make the ps4 stronger from what i hearing at e3 star wars 1313 was supposely running on the xbox720 hardware

Star Wars 1313 was running on high end PC hardware (with Nvidia GPU) the developers said so themselves, Same for Watch Dogs, Medal of Honor, Crysis 3, the UE4 demo, the Square Enix demo, and the Far Cry 3 gameplay trailer (the co-op trailer was on PS3) were all also demoed on high end PCs. 

like others said before, people who think a gpu which costs 400 bucks or even less nowadays would be too expensive for consoles releasing end of 2013 or 2014 should really look back what gpu's of 360 and ps3 did cost when they released. and the $400 gpus nowadays won't cost at ps4/nextbox release what they cost nowadas. if sony would spend the same money for gpu they would still reduce their costs because blu-ray was very expensive in the past and the cell...^^

More RAM please. Like 4 GB RAM.

And there is a possibility of upgraded CPU. Not sure though.

But this one actually looks believable.

ClassicGamingWizzz said: i just want ps4 to play games qith the unreal engine 4 quality , i don´t need more than that. 60 fps ? or is that asking too much?

Sadly asking for 60fps probably is asking for too much -_- 

The fact is the 360/PS3 could easily do 60fps while still having great looking games. Only if you instead do 30fps you can have even more effects etc going on. 

And the majority of your consumers seemingly don't notice the difference between 30 and 60fps. So even with UE4 why would you go for 60fps when a competitor could do 30fps and everyone would exclaim how much better their game looked? 

I think it was an insomniac developer had a really good blog post about this. Will go searching for it later. 

You people should stop creating strawman arguments with completely false pricing "facts". None of these $400/$250/$20 values are even remotely in the right ballpark.