yeah is a wasted of time, haters gonna hate, no matter what.

The best threads were from 2007, those were FUN...this one is just a very small taste from that time.

Then we should have awesome threads next year.

Yes, I have lurked this site since near its inception.  

Ok, I am going to try to frame this in a way that is constructive, and will actually be able to being the point of discussion of what I am saying into clarity, and be able to at least be debatable.  This has to do with specs of the Wii U, and that is what I will talk about.  The two are this:

* Does the Wii U have sufficient horsepower to do what designers want to do now?

* How critical is the second screen for the videogame experience players seek?

These two issues are the crux of the matter regarding the Wii U.  And on this, I would like to raise the following concerns:

* Regarding the horsepower, the ONE and PS4 clearly outclass it.  So, if to accomplish the vision of game designers, the Wii U isn't, then the Wii U does not get third-party support at all.  And the WiiU ends up not getting content and starves.

If the Wii U's horsepower IS sufficient to do gaming that matters, then portable devices are catching up, and will soon even surpass the Wii U, on a spec front.  And their price point is going to be less.  

And you also have the limbo state today, of showing that BOTH the PS3 and 360 don't have sufficient horsepower in order to meet the future demands of gamers, AND also that the PS4 and ONE have too much horsepower and we do NOT need anything beyond what the Wii U does.  So, in shore, you want a freezing on specs that is marginally better than what we have now, and that stuff like 2 GB of RAM is what we need to get us out to like 2020 or so, and graphicwise we don't need a bump at all beyond EXACTLY what the Wii U does.  And EXACTLY, because portable devices are going past what is out there now.

* In regards to the second screen, can you name anything that has been shown on it, that shows that a second screen is a critical feature in a home console?  Go ahead and name SOME game, feature, etc... that is so unique, and must have now, that it will drive people to HAVE TO get a Wii U?  And if it exists now, why doesn't it show up in sales numbers?

These two are the main concerns, and I raised them.  Now, do you want to go "But the software!", fine.  But I will ask you today, what software do most people care about and buy?  Do you care to show that masses of people, that made the Wii popular, also felt a need to keep up with Mario?  Are most people who bought the Wii U eager to know you can turn Mario into a cat?  Are they pumped  to get an HD remake of Wind Waker?  Do you have hoards of people lining up at midnight to buy Pikmin 3?  Exactly WHAT on the software front is the critical apps that will drive people to buy the Wii U in sufficient numbers to be able to beat every other offering out there, from the PS3 and ONE, to portable operating systems?

So, I hope I summed up the issues, and proper call for evidence in discussing this, rather than screaming console partisanship and a blind faith in companies.  Idea here is to show WHY Nintendo has got it with the Wii U (this is the discussion of the thread), when they had done things like Virtual Boy in the past.  Heck, you can't even say that Miyamoto turns everything to gold, as he gave the world Wii Music, which wasn't gold.  And this blind faith, based on past track records, is really pushing it, because Microsoft has been around a long time now also, and is big, and had done wonders.  Blind faith them, and you say they know DRM is the future, and were too forward thinking, because... well, Gates and crew are geniuses... look at the money they have!

Except the evidence suggest it is the software. Evidence would also suggest the hardware on the Wii-U is more powerful than the 360/PS3 by a considerable amount. The majority of developers are just far too incompetant to grasp it. The evidence is all there. The spec sheet and other processing capabilities obviously put it above the PS3/360 in more than just Ram. Also Bill Gates hasn't been with Microsoft for the good part of a decade. I don't get why anyone would suggest he is still involved with Microsoft? The second screen is amazing. Especially when you play local multiplayer. Which I do a lot.  I have a strong distaste for Miyamoto right now actually. He ruined paper mario for me and a few other things as of recent. Now you're just bringing fanboyisms into it and not actual cold hard facts. Nintendo will release apps that bring people to their console. It is the reason I own their console. I can get most of my third party games on the PC. I'm not interested in interactive movies such as the ones Naughty Dog produces. While they're good in their own right it simply isn't the genre that interest me. I'll pick up a PS4 eventually anyways just in case another gem such as RDR is released on just consoles. The fact you're suggesting I'm a fanboy of Nintendo is absurd.  I've owned many consoles in the past.  I've owned the 3DO/Saturn/N64/PS1. I've owned and enjoyed the Gamecube/PS2/Xbox/Dreamcast all around the time period they came out. Actually I still own all those. I own a PS3/Wii/Xbox 360 too. As well as a 3DS/DS/Vita/PSP.  I plan on owning a PS4 as well as keeping my Wii-U. As always I've had a good PC to game on. Whether it belonged to my father when I was younger or when I started buying my own parts and putting PCs together. If you want to call me a fan of anything it would be a strong believer in PC gaming. I no longer own a 3DO or Saturn, but if you question the legitimy of the consoles I claim to currently own I'd be glad to timestamp them for you and post a picture. I've had the pleasure of owning or getting to use for extended periods of time the majority of 90s consoles. Even the less popular ones. I enjoyed all of them to an extent and I held no bias to any of them. I'd gladly get an Xbox One if they removed the kinect requirement too. It isn't the fact microsooft makes it that holds me back, but instead the  kinect requirement.  So instead of attacking me personally I suggest you actually focus on the issue at hand. Oh and considering the Wii had plenty of 10m+ sellers for one console and the majority of them were Nintendo IPS I would say yes Nintendo games help greatly. 

You have an industry problem then, if most developers just can't see the mega-powers of the Wii U and how it is far beyond current generation, because these same developers whose competence you question, and the same developers who can make and break or console. And then, that means who has the problem then?  Reality here is, if that is the case, then what do you say about the ONE and PS4 then?  Do you place the Wii U further away from the current generation than the PS4 and ONE are from the the Wii U?  if so, why?  As I see it, the Wii U, specwise, would be like the Dreamcast to the Playstation.

And then we get to the industry as a whole here.  You have a current model you likely are revolting against, which I can agree with you, of the mega-studios with casts of thousands, putting games out.  The idea is to follow Hollywood, and do increaded production value.  This is likely not sustainable, when trying to be Hollywood, without the revenue streams Hollywood has, is a problem.  The other alternative is the low end Indie route, because the middle studio is dying off.

BUT, the question then becomes: Who is more likely to produce the top games people want, a flood of Indie developers who produce a bunch of stuff, or a few elite and experienced developers in a single company, like Nintendo?  Market is now saying the Indie route is doing it, rather than Nintendo.

And can you go back and reread my last reply and see where I attacked you personally?  I would like to find a single line you said that.  What i did say is merely speaking of past track records and speaking to company competence in the past doesn't work here, because Nintendo themselves has ended up missing the mark a bunch of times.  Not saying this is a competence issue, per se, in that they are less competent.  The reality is that things are just way to hard to forecast, and seeing Microsoft miss the market as badly as they did with the ONE, is evidence of that.  What I see now, personally, is Sony getting lucky with the PS4, and if the luck doesn't work out well, the flood of Indie to end up being the driving force of must have titles, around free to place, and having so much content that something is bound to rise to the top.  Nintendo loses the race to a bunch of small guys rather than otherwise, and that is true IF you want to argue that was needed was merely an incremental boost the Wii U provided..

Also, the tech increase isn't really about the graphics.  It is about a lot more, providing more resources to do entirely new games, that is why more memory matters.

Good read. I don't see the numerical figures happening, but good read. And deinitely strikes the nail on the head in regards to Thirds and Nintendo's relationship.

this video came to my mind while reading this xd

Epic read, epic thread, truly legendary!