wasnt disagreeing with him, so you can calm down, your comment was unnecessary

I've manually trimmed quote trees in this thread. Please do so yourselves in the future.

As I wrote, exclusives should have no problems, rather devs used to Wii's 90-100MB total RAM should feel like in Heaven (so we should expect wonders from those that already did them with far less RAM). I should add some things: graphics should be OK, GPU is more powerful and feature-rich, so just reserving 0.5GB to graphics should make them noticeably better than current gen. And about system RAM and multiplats, those originally developed on Wii U or systems with even less RAM should be fine too, and even games developed for PCs with 2GB RAM should be fine, as those 2GB take into account that Windows can easily eat 1GB. So the only problems could arise on games with huge levels and large numbers of interactive objects if originally developed on systems with more main RAM. About PC games ports, troubles could start for those with 3GB or more MINIMUM RAM requirements. So we talk about quite a narrow subset of all the possible games, as such PC games would have the PC as their main platform anyway, while for games developed on consoles, Wii U, being released first could be often the original platform of multiplats, while in other cases, devs could probably take into account WiiU limits to maximize their game audience. And for graphics, no problem at all again, as engines are scalable widely enough up and down, graphics RAM size difference between WiiU and competitors will be a lot smaller in percentage than the one between Wii and HD twins, not to mention that 1080p will be the target res of the vast majority of TVs next gen, higher res will be niche for years, so it will be at most optional for games, if considered at all.
So yes, small RAM could surely create some problems, requiring additional work for porting some multiplats, but in a very limited number of cases.

I thought of using the Froblins demo but the Uengine demo demonstrates something that is likely going to be very important for the next generation of systems; the ability to scale the graphics to run on anything from the current HD consoles to a top of the line PC.

The "base" level of the Uengine demo is a little to demanding for the HD consoles, but you could easily imagine creating a game that runs at 720p@30fps on the HD consoles with low detailed textures as being the "base" level of a game. For the Wii U (and similarly powered systems) you used medium level detail and turn on tessellation to low level (which subdivides models that take up the most screen realestate) and render at 720p. If there are substantially more powerful consoles you use high detailed textures and turn tessellation to a medium level (which sudivides the models at a moderately further distance) and render at 1080p. For high end PCs you use the maximum texture detail and turn tessellation to the maximum level.

For the developers you're creating one game that can be played across multiple platforms, for gamers you get games that look (just about) as good as they can on any platform you own.

Here I was thinking I was done contributing to this topic when I see the second sentence of this post... followed by the second half of the second sentence of this post. "Detach personal bias and taste..." followed by, "I simply believe..." personal bias and taste. Nice.

So the Japanese dont count as gammers them ? What are they ? I could use the same argument to say that the only reason 360 even sold as much as it did is because it has a bigger chunk of the American market, but that also wouldnt make any sense cause the American gamers are as much a gamer as any other gamer in the world, just like the Japanese.

360 wil always sell more software per unit cause Americans consume more tham any other ppl, since they have a bigger chunk of this market they sell more softwares, mainly shooters wich is the favored genre of the American conventional gamer, the software market is simply put biger on the USA, therefore its expected that whiechever console holds that market will sell more softwares. Still PS3s software sales overall isnt far behind.

Ppl also tend to forget that the PS3 didnt sell as well as the PS2 because the 360 is a great console, the PS2 didnt have any real competition therefore ruled supreme, its expected that a product wont domain the market if it has good competiton. Its happening with the smartphone market for instance, Apple was completly dominant for awhile, them Sansung started making some great quality smartphones, now the market is getting divided.

The Wii undeniable sold to a diferent market tham the HD twins, wich basicaly shared a market that was exclusive to the PS2 on the previous generation, or do you think Nintendo wants ot apeal to the conventional gamers with WiiU because they were happy with how many copys they sold to this market ? Wii also had a very week 3rd party support because of it casualness and Nintendo want to have that suport this time around, I think they ahve the right idea with WiiU here apealing to both casuals and conventionals, it all depends on how well they put that idea to pratice.

Like I said, basing the type of gamers on install base is flawed. As is using any other argument to make console x look like more of a gamers console than console y. That's why I said "I could say the 360 has more conventional gamers based on the fact it has a much higher number of games sold per console and more games means real gamers. It's all just baseless assumptions really."

You make it look like the PS3 is the only console for 'real' gamers. I disagree. I say 'real' gamers own (or would like to have) multiple platforms.

And your 360 assessment is also just a baseless assumption. Where has it been proven that Americans buy more games than Europeans or Japanese?
I also never said the Japanese are not real gamers. I only said Sony (and Nintendo) has a clear advantage because Microsoft will never be able to establish a significant install base there.

I doubt casuals will be as into the Wii U as the Wii.

Based on the amount of games offered the PS3 is at this moment the gamers console. The Xbox 360 may have the most popular games, but the fewest exclusives and a has the longest exclusive droughts for the past three years. The Wii U is coming out so we can excuse the Wii while it bows out. The casual market was had been used up and moved onto the next gimmick in the Kinect a year earlier and it hurt the Wii. The Wii had a good four years on top, but as all casual things, it never lasts. The 360 is the most popular console via marketing in the American media. Sony hasn't had an exclusives drought since 2007 (basically its first two years). The 360 sells more because the top third parties are available on the console, but as with any gen whoever reaches popularity first sells the most copies. I doubt any console will ever outsell Microsoft in shooters...but everything else is up for grabs and Im sure with next gen it this will be even more apparent.

More exclusives =/= best games library. The Wii has the most exclusives. Why don't you consider that console to be the gamers console?