Head tracking is a cool effect, and cheap, but I don't really see it happening in a game console.  Its awesome for making virtual windows though.  But then its only good for 1 player.

This

THIS times a 100. I would say its more than GC vs. Wii. It might even be Xbox vs. PS2, but that still doesnt constitute a generational leap.

It's ok for one player yes but it will not ruin it for other people watching. If the screen adjust to your head position its no different to looking around using the controller. Also there no reason that the tech could be used for multiplayer split screens. Most people play on there own anyway and connect to friends via online.

But the point is thats just one example from me and they have way more clever people working at sony.

".......says Sonic developer"

That is all I need to know in order to dismiss whatever he says.

Always look at games built from the ground up to judge a systems power, they're not going to creat new assets to exploit the power of amore  powerfull system but they will have smother textures, frame-rate, better ant-aliasing. The Wii U can be judged on games like zombie U, Pikim 3, and Project P.

All of the 360 ground up launch titles PGR3, Perfect dark Zero all Kameo looked a good step above  Xbox 1 titles. From my experiences I've found that if you can't see a difference at launch, then you won't see to much of a difference during the rest of the life. Also consoles which make smaller leaps also see far smaller improvements over there life, because developers are already used to working within similar technological bondaries, so what everyone has learned through optimising games on 360/ps3 will allow them max out the potential of the Wii U quicker then a systems which presents new standards of art assets and particle simulation etc.

Not to go off on a tangent, but will we ever get away from using the childishly fanboy practice of proclaiming "winners" and "losers" by total units sold, or even more goofy, compairing units sold directly even when consoles launched with a year or more between them?  It makes very little real world sense.

In the business world, there is successful and unsuccessful.  You can be successful even when your competitors are more successful, and I think it's awesome that this generation had no unsuccessful consoles.  You judge the success of your product from when IT was introduced, not from when someone else introduced THIER product.  Listening to people saying, virtually, "my console won and your console lost, nyaah," is so bloody immature and meaningless that it makes my head hurt.

Also, if history has taught us anything about console releases, it's that you cannot predict the next gen based on the current gen.  The majority of consumers will not place product loyalty over the best experience.  Both Sony and Nintendo have learned this in the gaming industry, and Microsoft should know it very well from other fields.  This leads me to my next point, which is that no console should be judged a "winner" or "loser" based on its previous version.  Circumstances change.  The success of the PS2 was situational, as was the viral success of the Wii.  That the PS3 did not reach the same heights does not mean it was a failure, and the same will be true of the Wii U if it does not equal the Wii.

Now, all that being said, this article told us very little, except that the Wii U will look just as good as the other HD consoles.  Trying to squeeze anything else from it, negative or positive, seems like a waste of effort.  It's best to just wait for the real specs.

This, most other consoles, NInty or otherwise, when they launch they have games that are noticable better than the last gen before it. Resistance, Motorstorm, Luigi's Mansion, SMW, ETC.

I wonder if they'll port Sonic Generations, more people need to play that game

@pezus there's no need to worry because it's undoubtfully more powerful and no dev said 99% lol. That was an article with no dev to quote said 99%. Of course you believed it though. The games were not as obvious as you claim and yes it looked better because it was running at a better frame rate.

@Oniyide of course you would agree with him, where is your proof that it's slightly more powerful than the current Gen. Which is what you quoted as being correct. If the ports are proof than the 360 must be aliitle more powerful than the PS2 going by you guys logic. It did receive ports from the PS2.

On topic: They specs wouldn't be surprising if the console wasn't stronger than he thought. He wouldn't say easily matching PS3 if it wasn't a good bit more powerful.

@Pokoko None of the beginning of your post made since lol. You go on a tangent of how a console's success is not judged on by the units it sold and say later it is either successful or unsuccessful business wise. Then you say they all were which isn't true for the PS3 business wise at all. It lost millions so how was it successful?