360 and PS3 had higher than 50GB at launch, in 20050/06, are you kidding! You'd fit less than 1 game on 50GB, the average consumer does not want to go out and buy an external drive. Thankfully like the guy above me said, attach rates are around the 10 mark which is fine for Xbox One and PS4.

If anything they should both have a 1t drive.

maybe WiiU should release a 500GB SKU too...???

Seems to me like you're just fanning the console war flames with this thread. 

Not really sure what this has to do with my comment, but i would assume they wanted to have enough storage so that the average consumer could store all their games on the hard drive.  Also, it probably wouldnt have been that much more cost to go from 50 to 500.  Maybe 20 bucks?

Sorry, but the 8GB version of the Wii U was a bad mistake, like it or not. You HAVE to have an external memory source to download certain games. It's also been speculated that the lack of native memory with the Wii U has affected publisher decisions about additional downloadable content. That's a much worse situation than what we've seen with the PS4/XO. Nintendo could have done better.

Heck, they probably don't even mass produce them anymore, so a 50GB HDD would probably be more expensive.

As a Wii U day two owner, I completely agree with this. I bought the White 8GB Wii U and the day one update knocked it down to ~3 GB... Completely useless for anything digital. If you compare PS4 to Wii U, I'm impressed Sony manages to provide all that power, PLUS 500 GB storage all for only $100 more.

if I am not mistaken, didn't Sony already clarify this that it is a "Cache" and not a 30gb install? A Cache is different because it just means your console needs that particular amount free to run efficiently. The max a game's cache could be is 50GB so as long as you don't use up 451GB(500GB HDD not including whatever that OS space is) u should be good. Not sure about XbOne's but it will probably be the same.

PS4 is adequately priced for a next-gen console. Hardly anyone rational disputes that. Specs are worth over $400.

Wii U on the other hand has 8 year old hardware which overpriced. No doubt the gamepad has risen the costs, but they should now drop it since its not the system selling USP Nintendo thought. Same goes for HDD.

Are you really comparing 32GB with 500GB HDD? Wii U packs an inadequate HDD, there is no disputing that. Both Xbox one and PS4 has 500 GB HDD which should install over 10 games (remember that digital only titles will be smaller, and ~50GB is probably the limit), which is very good. Kudos should be given to MS and Sony for not skimping on HDD like Nintendo did to gouge the buyers and increase profits.

The situation isnt even comparable.

I don't know if people don't realize this or what, but the Wii U doesn't have a conventional HDD, unlike the Xbone or PS4. Nintendo chose flash memory (SSD technology) for their console for three reasons: 1) very low power consumption 2) Insanely high reliability [HDDs are prone to failure, it happens because of moving parts] and 3) better speed/performance. The problem is that flash memory is very expensive compared to a conventional HDD. So, Nintendo HAD to offer a low amount. If you think about it, downloading a bunch of eShop games is perfect if you're still mostly a traditional gamer, similar to myself.

I'm hesitant to do anything digital, unless it's pretty valuable, convenient, and/or cheap. Usually, I purchase games online from Amazon or trade stuff in to Gamestop, even though they are the devil. Guys, Nintendo was looking out for you when they designed the flash memory. EVERYONE knows the reputation Nintendo has for reliability. They COULD have offered a 500 GB HDD, and it probably wouldn't have affected the price negatively. They didn't, because hey, why make the console so expensive, less reliable, and slower when you might not need all that storage? I know that I personally would never use 500 GB for just digital downloads. That's insane to me. I've had a Wii U Deluxe 32 GB since launch, and the only retail download I own is WindWaker HD. Just under 2 GB, I think? And Super Mario 3D World will be 1.7 GB.

On the point of download sizes, HOLY MOLY. I haven't seen any sizes under 35 GB for PS4/One games! That's insane! The economics of it don't make sense, because data is very expensive in the USA and bandwidth is hard to come by unless you're raking in the dough or living at a high-tech university, like me. It's inconvenient and it sucks that those installs are mandatory. I really don't get it. Are minor loading times really that bad? Are we willing to spend more for internet just to download these games digitally? I'm not. I won't be buying an Xbox One because of the awful executive decisions being made at MS. They treat us like lab rats, and when we get mad, they change things immediately, proving they only care about money. I MAY get a PS4. Sony has been much more open to the people than they were during the PS3 early years. That's a good sign. Anyway, I've said my piece.