You forgot to add the last part of the article:

"When asked if he gave a fuck, THE 1 just flipped us off and arrogantly started playing his Nintendo 64, as if we weren't there."

It seems like this is a non-issue to some people, at least.

"next gen" just means that it's the next generation of hardware. If you 'believe' that it means something else, you really should re-examine how you interpret the term. Processors are not the only pieces of hardware that make up a console.

LOL *joins The 1 playing N64*

1. It may be the definition that *you* used, but if you look back carefully, you'll see that each generation, except when it comes to the PS3/360, introduced new things that weren't just power increases. The least innovative of the generations was the Gamecube/Xbox/PS2 generation, but even it introduced a few tasty morsels of innovation and increased capability (rather than increased just power). So no, Next gen has not always meant anything - your definition was nothing more than your personal opinion, based on an incomplete (and rather wrong) view of history.

2. Technically, the Wii U is surpassing the Wii by more than enough to qualify for your description of "doubled itself in power" (ignoring that it's more accurate to say something along the lines of 4-16x the power). Even the Wii was a significant boost relative to the Gamecube - many antifanboys liked to say "two gamecubes duct-taped together", but the results put the lie to that claim - the system was noticeably more powerful, a good estimate would be roughly 3-4x the power of the GC. What it wasn't was a massive overstep in power - the PS3 and 360 increased relative to the PS2 and Xbox by factors of the order of 10-20x, and that's just insane... and it's why they were so expensive earlier on, and why the Wii shot out of the gate when the other two systems struggled.

3. Next gen has always meant exactly what it means now - the NEXT GENERATION. By the very definition of that term, the Wii U is next gen. If they released a new system that was as powerful as the GameCube, but with a massive array of control schemes and added capability that had nothing to do with brute power, then it would still be "next generation".

4. Brute power doesn't necessarily give you better graphics/physics/AI. Indeed, the thing most holding back graphics, AI and physics on the 360 and PS3 were bottlenecks caused by, among other things, insufficient RAM. A console is only as powerful as its worst bottleneck.

5. The Wii U has a significantly boosted GPU. Most rumours suggest that the Wii U's GPU is well beyond those of the PS3 and 360, capable of functionality that those GPUs didn't have (a good example is tessellation), and trailers for games made specifically for the Wii U (such as ZombiU and Project P-100) support those rumours very strongly. And by having the GPU capable of all of these extra things, load is taken off the CPU, thereby reducing a major bottleneck. And then having far more RAM (rumours seem to put the CPU's RAM somewhere around 4x the total RAM of the 360 and 8x the total RAM of the PS3 - that's before factoring in any extra RAM attached to the GPU) reduces another major bottleneck.

Actually, you are redefining what it is to be next gen. Ever heard of the NEO GEO? It was more poweful than the PSX and came out at the time of the SNES and Megadrive/Genesis. It was generation behind the PSX though.

The N64 and Saturn were over 2 times as powerful as the PSX but they were all of the the same gen. The only things that define the next gen are the release date of the system and the technological advancement.

Ever heard of the 32X? The Turbographix16? Gamegear? The Jaguar? The 3DO? The Wonderswan? The Dreamcast?

Generations have never been decided by power. Not since the 16 bit era

Well, so far we know that Batman and AC3 WiiU look worst than the PS360 versions of the game, so it is most likely true.

Exactly.

"My father is taller than me, but still I'm 'next-gen' to him."

That's what I always say in reaction to these sort of things.

The WiiU may have better specs, but in order to render the game twice (TV and gamepad) it can not look as good as if all the power goes only to 1 screen.

Funny that the WiiU "strength" is also it's weakness.

There are alraedy 2 games rendering to both screens at the same time that are producing better graphics than what can be done no the 360/PS3.  ZombiU and P-100.

The Wii U has a far superior GPU. This is the processor we are discussing. Graphics are not a factor here.

RE LOL!!! ZombiU trailer (which is a target render, of how the final game may look like) looks no better than RE6, and P-100 is a cartoony looking game, any PSN or XBLA game could have even better graphics.