I will say that you won't see the top franchises vanish, and there may be some AAA stuff.  However, the growth won't be there.  Zelda doesn't fit into the Uncharted category, as far as how it is done.  Games that are done like AAA Hollywood blockbusters with dev teams of hundreds, voice actors, and movie-like experience and budgets of over $50 million, if not over $100 million are at risk.  These are the AAA I speak off, and I see it hard for there to be support for the large budgets these have, if you aren't able to go over $20 a title.

In an app gaming world, where the heck do you see there being large development budgets?

We don't know how far behind the Wii U will be.  What is known is the WiiU will have at least 4x less memory than what is seen with the rumored specs of the next Playstation and Microsoft consoles.  Other things are also out there as being far short, with very likely the likes of internal storage, where the WiiU will very likely be puny in comparison, meaning the DLC route is less prevalent on it.

The thing is that, if the Wii U does hold its own, and is able to get comparable content as what Sony and Microsoft's consoles do, then Microsoft and Sony will bleed billions and be at risk of dropping out.  It means that you can't get a boost in graphics at a level that people want to pay for.  The game will change here.  The question is how.  If the Wii U is competitive this coming generation, it likely ends up winning, with the cheapest to produce console, and an industry that can't just throw more horsepower at solutions thinking it makes a difference.  And all the demands for "we need a new platform" to drive software sales, also won't be there.

I really dont know what you're playing at. The only other thing at the same level as X is Star wars 1313. Both are next gen titles. That is what next gen looks like. I swear people dont understand what next-gen is going to be and are in for a rude wake up. Then again maybe it just needs to be shown by their favorite company for them to recognise it?

Next gen is going to use graphic cards far below the best ones we find on PC's today. Next gen has been on the PC for a while. I swear i dont understand. Theres not gonna be any jump like HD or 2D to 3D. What you see on X is next-gen. And it is miles ahead what current gen offers in terms of texture detail, fps and ammount of things on screen aswell as particle effects and animation. Thats what next gen is gonna be, dont fool yourself.

I know this is not what you said, but it just made me go on a rant mode.

What exactly is the current geneeration of PC graphics cards getting gamers from a gameplay experience perspective?  

Just graphical upgrades. I'm not sure what you're getting at. My point is that people cant recognise what next-gen graphics are unless they are on their favorite console.

Its got nothing to do with gameplay enhancements. But that is exactly why all major players are trying to come up with something different to diferentiate themselves in the market. Because the graphical difference wont be major between all systems.

Hopefully the emphasis on gameplay experience will return. With new artistic ideas and new ways of playing being created all the time, rather than the shiny polished look of Halo and COD being pumped out year on year, getting less and less innovative with each release.

The original PlayStation did not have the 3D filters the N64 had, but the 3D looked 'good enough' and it had CD instead of cartridge. The CD allowed for awesome looking pre rendered movies (and great audio) for its time that the N64 could not have. Final Fantasy VII, VIII, IX and most other RPGs come to mind. Thus, the graphics battle was indeed not a clear win for the N64 - many games were plagued by blur and fog (which was largely used to hide clipping), and the games on PlayStation still looked crazy good for the time even if most stuff was just pre-rendered backgrounds.

Against the Saturn, PlayStation did better on 3D games (which were the flavor of the time), but suffered in 2D games, specially fighters, due to lower RAM. So it is really debatable as each console did something better that time, however all around, the PlayStation was the best balanced of the three, although not winning in every area. It did 2D fighters well enough to warrant a port, did 3D well enough to stand against N64, and did CGs better than anyone.

Thinking of Sega Genesis x Super NES, the Sega Genesis was inferior but it had a faster CPU, which allowed fast games like Sonic to give it an edge, or games to allow lots of stuff at once in the screen (coop beat em ups like Streets of Rage). The weakness in CPU of Super NES allowed Sega Genesis to do well in USA.

The PS2 won because of massive third party support combined with a long head start. Wii, motion controls / price.

So, even if a console isn't the most powerful, it has to have *something* unique going for it. We need to figure out what the Wii U has going for it that could be what makes it stand against PS4 and 720; maybe the tablet? It has to have something or else things may get tough.

Lets wait for the 20th before we start concluding what 720/ps4 games will look like. I do think star wars 1313 is a good few notches above X

But you're a PC gamer!

Or are you actually just TSUNDERE FOR CONSOLES?

nothing will change beceause

nintendo won this gen

and winning next gen would repeat the same story

(maybe games would look uglier or very much like they look now when nintendo becomes leading plattform and ps460 games are only cheap upscaled wii u ports)