Yeah, from the data we have I believe Wii U is somewhere around 1,5 times more powerful, double the RAM helps too. Sure it could, and should get games slightly better looking and performing, but it is Nintendo's fault that they have designed a console that is just so much more powerful than last gen, that without optimising the game specifically for the hardware they get a port that basically looks the same as PS360. And it is their fault that Wii U is absolutely non future proof, obselete performance wise, right off the bat. When we start getting proper next gen software, not this cross gen crap, I hope we either get two versions of games, a game designed for Wii U and a next gen version or multiplatforms skipping Wii U altogether, cause I don't want next generation platforms pared back, scaled down in potential just so Wii U can run the same game. Graphics being not pushed I could live with, but if the potential that at least 5GB of RAM gives developers would be laid to waste because of Wii Us mere 1GB, I would be majorly pissed.

720p is still a great resolution, very few PS3/360 games were rendered at that resolution. 1080 is so targeted towards casuals, hardcore gamers want 60fps.

The responses to this report from members of this site and others sites have been childish imo.

So because Dice is having issues = PS4 Hardware weak??? Are you serious or just kidding and I missed the joke?

Capcom is having issues getting Dead Rising 3. Looking to use the cloud in order to lock FPS at 30. So that by default means Xbox One hardware is weak? No of course not. That would be just silly.

Don't take the struggles of Dice and Capcom to mean something is wrong hardware wise. It just means these 2 companies are having issues, not that Sony or Microsoft and/or their products are weak.

Killzone, Forza, Watchdogs, Infamous look to be doing just fine. I guess BF4 and DR3 need to get their shit together

Next time, check your facts before you post, mate.

The PlayStation Blog seemed to like it, as well as another person who got to play it. I'm guessing he got so use to seeing the PC version, he forgot that the next gen consoles aren't as strog as a PC. We'll just have to judge it for ourselves.

It's not that battlefield looks ugly, just that it couldn't match PC Visuals.  Just like the games you listed wouldn't if they had PC versions.

I mean, there really shouldn't be any hardware issues with the PS4.  It's a PC with ram that works slightly differently, and still has decent ram even if used in a more conventional way.

So people are making a big deal because consoles can't match high end PC's?

You can not say such things here. They are a protected class!

Pretty much.  Too many people thought that just because it didn't have a heavier IOS the newer systems would surpass all but the highest end cards... when in reality...

well.

Price of PS4 399.99
10 years of online 600.00
Price of a gaming PC that will run BF at max.. Less than 1k...
Not exactly sure why people keep bringing up 400 PCs when the PC offers free online and we know the only reason the PS4 is 400 is because you have to pay for online. Its been known for over 2 years Sony would be putting the cost of the console into some sort of pay scheme so the upfront cost was lower but that doesn't mean the console itself is only 399.99. Heck you even have to buy a camera to get the full functions of the controller to work

If you want to make comparisons at least do them with some knowledge of what you are talking about.

My Pc has 32gigs of RAM for the CPU and 3gigs of GDDR5 for the GPU. That's 35 gigs of RAM compared to only 8gigs for PS4. Of course its not going to match the performance of a PC like mine, much the same way Wii U wont match the performance of PS4.
But lets be honest here. If you wanted performance you'd just buy a PC to begin with. The only reason to chose a console over a PC is either you don't have the money or technical know how to build your own.