Why are U guys talking only about 720 p...? it also does 480p And 1080p..

And the nextbox (and if it comes ps4) will not be much better than wii U.. becurse nintendo are going back to having a power beast.. just like N64 and GC.. and the differents. will be like 360 vs ps3 (one year betwen)

My theory is that Nintendo have held back any game announcement that would necessitate the discussion of their online play system. Black Ops II fits this description, as do Ghost Recon Online and Dragon Quest X. A lot of multiplatform titles that are set for release in the back half of 2012 are FPS titles with online play a significant component of the game - showing any of these titles would naturally lead to a lot of questions about their online modes.

Meanwhile, the only games actually shown, that have online modes, have those modes as minor additions to their main game (Mass Effect 3 being the main example - and note that we were also shown nothing in terms of gameplay for that game). So I think Nintendo plan on holding their own event, of some sort (even if it's purely a Nintendo Direct series of videos, or something), during which they'll show off their online system, and unveil a heap of other games that are more focused on online.

As for the question of next-gen, the Wii U is able to produce effects comparable to 360 and PS3 prior to launch, and was even able to come damn close with only a few weeks of development (as seen in the case of Aliens: Colonial Marines, which Gearbox had only a few weeks before E3 2011 to port to Wii U, and yet they got it up and running, and looking very similar to 360/PS3, with tablet support). If we assume that this is because porting directly from 360 is simple (as is rumoured), then there's a baseline point... beyond which, there will be room to make improvements, by learning the nuances of the system.

The 360 and PS3 are nearing their upper limits, and the Wii U is already keeping up. I expect it to outpace with the second batch of games, when the extra RAM plus the various other tweaks (Nintendo is big on minimising bottlenecks in their systems, which is why the Wii was able to do so (relatively) well with so little).

But then, power isn't what defines "next gen", anymore. When Nintendo launched the Wii, their power wasn't that far beyond the Xbox... yet they were as next-gen as the PS3 and 360, even if the typical internet hardcore gamer (and associated media) refused to admit it (as demonstrated by the fact that they continued to use the term "next gen" to describe the PS3 and 360, even in 2010!). The Wii was next-gen because it did things that consoles of the previous generation couldn't do. The Wii U promises to do this again. And so, asking about "real next gen" is just a stupid way of asking about power, to begin with. If you want to ask about graphical capabilities, ask about it, rather than pretending that it's what defines "next generation".

So sad that some people without hardware knowledge allways are talking about resolutions without mentioning the framerate per second. It is not hard to do HD-resolutions but the framerate is another story. Real gamers/devs prefer higher framerates than better graphics. For 1080p/60fps you will need a high-end pc. Even the next-gen from Sony/MS will have a hard time reach that goal.

Based on rumoured specs, the Wii U is not a "power beast". If you look at Moore's Law (number of transistors able to be cheaply put on a chip doubles every 2 years), and its generalisation (says that overall speed, which includes both clock speed and transistor count, doubles every 1.5 years), and then look at Nintendo consoles starting with the NES, an interesting thing becomes apparent - the NES, Wii, and Wii U all lie on the line described by that generalisation, but the SNES lies a bit above it, the N64 further above, and the GC even further above again.

What Nintendo did with the Wii was revert back to the sustainable power level, and the Wii U has sustained it.

The reason why the next generation of Xbox and PS will not be significantly powerful compared with Wii U is that releasing such a powerful system is not financially sensible, and neither MS nor Sony are in a position to waste money on raw power, especially given what Nintendo showed with the Wii. In order for Sony and MS to retain a comparable lead vs Nintendo in terms of power, they would again have to risk faulty systems (like RROD), sell their systems at a loss (and still be overpriced), and they would have to up the cost of development to massive proportions.

Simply put, if third parties have to spend $100 million+ on a game in order to have it even perform OK against the competition, they're not going to take any risks, and they're not going to release many titles. It doesn't make for a thriving development ecosystem, and so neither company will risk trying to retain "power beast" status. They will instead follow Nintendo's lead and focus more on user interface issues like the controller (they're already doing this, with Kinect (and now, Smartglass) and Move). Indeed, this is precisely why we haven't yet heard of their "next-gen" systems - because they can do a fair bit to alter the interface without changing the system itself. They will only release a new system when they experience dramatic decline in sales, because of a lack of motivation otherwise.

Whether the Wii U will cause such a decline in the 360 or PS3 sales patterns is yet to be seen. It will probably take a reasonable chunk out of them, though.

You'll be surprised when the difference in graphical power is nowhere near as big as the graphical power difference this gen, if even noticeable at all.

The key thing to point out is that the console launches in around 6 months; and that none of the games shown there are in their final build. Expect the quality of graphics and the slickness of the controls to improve greatly in that time; and remember that these are indeed early titles.

Judging from rumoured specs, the Wii will be about 2-3x as powerful as this gen, depending on how its optimised and how the devs actually extract said power. In addition, the rumoured PS4/720 specs apper to be 2-4x more powerful than this gen, so the difference in power overall is slight.

Bottom line is; the gens are defined by controls, not power, nowadays. That's the fact of the matter. It's the games that count, not the graphics. The most important thing is that Nintendo are close enough this gen to have some quality 3rd party support, as porting down will not occur, and the CCP shown is an easy change from the other consoles. And if you expect 1080p 60FPS games next gen; then good luck forking out $550/£450 to do so.

Oh, and the HDD issue? "Grow up". It makes the system smaller. 8GB will be enough for 90-95% of the people who buy the system; only people who download tons of games will need anymore, in which case plug in that HDD you'll have lying around no doubt, or get a 16GB SD card for less than £10.  No way is the HDD 'next-gen'.

lol i love it when pc gamers jump in and want some attention in console discussions.

Nintendo could have released a new NES and it would still be a next gen console. graphically though we can't say just yet as development takes time and devs need to get used to the console just like they had to get used to PS360 before they got games that look really good on them.

it seems that whenever Nintendo does something people forget how things where before :P

Edit: dahuman nicked my point. The games we will see on the Wii U at the end of life will blow away PS360 games, much as x360 games eventually outclassed PS2 games, even though some 360 launch games looked worse than the best games available on the PS2 by the end of it's life.

NO, just NO and stop makeing a fool out of yourself. Nobody in their right minds would say that SMG looks even close from tech point then lets say Gears or Uncharted. It had an amazing artstyle, and it was a marvle on the Wii, but it was nowhere even close to first gen HD games. I played SMG, and its one of the best looking Wii games, but even then its not even close to lets say the first Lost Planet.

Yes, the Wii-us tech that is based on 5 year old PC tech will be a power beast Just wait and see your power beast raped, when the PS4/X3 comes out. The truth is that Nintendo dropped the ball. If the console could have run games like TLoU in full 1080p at 60 fps, then, maybe then it would have had something under its hood. Thus far its on par with 360/PS3, and no matter what Nintendo fans dreamt of, this is the reality they will face for the next 5-6 years

One thing you have to remember is that when 360 launched no one had the experince to develop for HD consoles, and therefore the launch games didn't look fantastic. No I'd hoped that developers have the neccesary experience to make great looking games - and still the WiiU is only on par with current gen technology... That has me worried. To summeries what I'm trying to say: it's not a fair point refering to the 360's launch titles because there weren't much experience with HD games, but there is nowadays, why WiiU's games should look better than they do.