Is Wii U part of this current generation which will last until 2015, or is it the fist of the next generation lasting from 2012 until 2022? This question is not about if it is "good enough" or 'changed' enough, as much as I question timing. I think you can argue both sides. I'd welcome "reasons" for why it is or isn't next generation. (Games, store/GUI/desktop, back-end tools, and other factors could be used to argue the point.)

Yet, a week before it launches,what do people "feel" about Wii U's place in the cycles? Is it 'truthy' to call it Next Gen?

I see the system as the last Nintendo Wii model of the current generation fitting in with PS3 Super Slim w/ Move or XB 360 Slim w/ Kinect. The PS3, and XB360 will be lasting and see support for a few more years from what pundits are saying; therefore, with the specs of Wii U are in line with those system I see Wii U as part of the current gen. I do not see Wii U not kicking off a new generation as a bad thing or a slight, I see it as what would be its logical niche because of the game it will run.

It is part of the next generation of consoles. Just because it currently exists alongside the PS3 and 360 and is comparable in power to them does not mean it should be lumped in with them. Eight years from now companies will be putting out plenty of Wii U games and probably about zero PS3 and 360 games.

You wouldn't argue the PSP and 3DS are in the same generation and the Vita is in a class of it's own just because it's a little more powerful, would you?

You need to have an agreed upon definition of what "next-gen" means before you can answer the question. Like Fawkes said, I think it makes most sense if you look at it from the aspect of cultural relevance. The Wii U is entering at the tail end of the current generation of consoles, and will be moving along into the next. I really think it's carving out it's own sort of timeline asymmetrical with the other companies.

At the end of the day, I don't think it really matter's where you place it, what difference does it make? It is usually used as argumentative fodder over what a console should bring to the table do define the next generation, most touting a technological leap as being the key aspect. I think that's sort of a narrow perspective on it though.

It's Nintendos new thing. It will either persist alongside the next Playstation and Xbox or die in a year, and end Nintendo in the hardware market. I will reserve classification until then.

I'll consider it next-gen, because I usually refer to generations of consoles as "consoles that come out and compete with each other for a lengthy period of time". It will come out when the 360 and PS3 are still relevant but because it will likely run for the majority of the life of the upcoming consoles, you can consider the Wii U as the first next-gen console to come out.

@MonkeyKing1969: I think it's part of the next generation. But it's in an odd spot that does leave people wondering whether it's the latest in the last generation.

It still reads very Dreamcast to me, a console which also struggled with being between the last gen and next gen. But we didn't really realize that chasm until the PS2 came out and started to get some amazing games. So, I think the Wii U will at least be considered a next gen console for a while, but only time will tell whether it is truly part of the next gen cycle.

@TruthTellah said:

@MonkeyKing1969: I think it's part of the next generation. But it's in an odd spot that does leave people wondering whether it's the latest in the last generation.

It still reads very Dreamcast to me, a console which also struggled with being between the last gen and next gen. But we didn't really realize that chasm until the PS2 came out and started to get some amazing games. So, I think the Wii U will at least be considered a next gen console for a while, but only time will tell whether it is truly part of the next gen cycle.

Pretty much this. And we can bet that whatever the case, Nintendo probably already has an R&D division somewhere in a secret Kyoto facility plotting out whatever console comes after the Wii U, and guys in suits are already discussing how long to wait before launching the console that comes after.

And despite what Dreamcast-like comparisons might arise, Nintendo will have another console after this. Their financial situation is pretty much the polar opposite of Sega's in the Dreamcast era.

Who cares. "Next Generation" is the new "Bits".

Meh there's always one console that busts onto the scene prior to the rest of the companies releasing their own new consoles. Last generation, if you'll recall, the Xbox 360 beat the others to the store by a full year. It may not have the same power as the PS3, but no one can argue the fact that it was a good move on their part to release their system before the others. I'd actually argue that the 360 was the dominant console for this generation with core gamers. Prior to that, the PS2 was released far before the Xbox. It's just a trend that one system generally beats the others to market in order to capitalize on the early adopters... this time, with such a long console generation, they may very well garner large sales in that first month just for the sheer novelty of starting the new generation

The Wii U heralds the coming of the next generation of video games, for weal or woe. I know I'm pretty disappointed that Nintendo is once again putting out a system overly reliant on a gimmick, instead of throwing the gauntlet at Sony and Microsoft's feet.

Its a bit different this time around though. We really haven't hit the generational gap this time around that we have in every generation. You just knew in 2004 when doom 3 and far cry came out on the pc, that current consoles reached their limit. Even the original splinter cell and max payne. The xbox versions were fine, but the other 2 consoles struggled with splinter cell. Max Payne was damn near unplayable on the ps2. This generation, gamers are just becoming used to playing games less than even 30fps. But then there are games like darksiders 2, that could be made on the original xbox with the proper coding.

I see that the next call of duty games can easily be on both wii u and the next gen competitors. Perhaps with the wii u having its settings turned down alittle, or 30fps and 720p. Could be a common trend. Games will still look nice enough to consider its version. Unlike the original wii, where games from the ps2/xbox generation looked like crap alot of times. Most of the current gen games look nice, no matter quality of the game itself.

One major thing to keep in mind. The wii u is techincally more powerful than the 360. Some say twice as powerful even. Unlike the wii, whereas the original xbox was more powerful, the wii u will actually be the most powerful console out there. Google is your friend if you need specs. Only thing that slightly scares me, are the recent reviews on ninja gaiden 3- saying it looks worse on wii u. Granted, this is a game that had an average of 4.0s across the board. I want to see the reviews of the other 3rd party games. A proper wii exclusive review for darksiders 2 and assassins creed 3, see how much has actually been improved. A 30fps assassins creed 3 would be nice. considering the other 2 versions dipped down majorly in spots.

In short? Its got enough going for it to be considered next generation. Whereas I don't think the original wii can really be considered this gen. It wasn't really a leap forward.

@Hailinel said:

@TruthTellah said:

@MonkeyKing1969: I think it's part of the next generation. But it's in an odd spot that does leave people wondering whether it's the latest in the last generation.

It still reads very Dreamcast to me, a console which also struggled with being between the last gen and next gen. But we didn't really realize that chasm until the PS2 came out and started to get some amazing games. So, I think the Wii U will at least be considered a next gen console for a while, but only time will tell whether it is truly part of the next gen cycle.

Pretty much this. And we can bet that whatever the case, Nintendo probably already has an R&D division somewhere in a secret Kyoto facility plotting out whatever console comes after the Wii U, and guys in suits are already discussing how long to wait before launching the console that comes after.

And despite what Dreamcast-like comparisons might arise, Nintendo will have another console after this. Their financial situation is pretty much the polar opposite of Sega's in the Dreamcast era.

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say a new console after this is a given. They definitely have improved iterations of the Wii U in the R&D phase, but that doesn't mean a full new console release. Nintendo still being a company that makes games in the future is a given. Nintendo continuing to invest into consoles may not be in the cards depending on the next outing. They have many people invested in the company, and if they start thinking that doubling down on games will work better than making dedicated hardware, they may just go that direction. They're certainly in a position to stay afloat no matter how it goes, but that doesn't mean they won't realize that a different course of action will be more profitable in the long run.

@TruthTellah said:

@Hailinel said:

@TruthTellah said:

@MonkeyKing1969: I think it's part of the next generation. But it's in an odd spot that does leave people wondering whether it's the latest in the last generation.

It still reads very Dreamcast to me, a console which also struggled with being between the last gen and next gen. But we didn't really realize that chasm until the PS2 came out and started to get some amazing games. So, I think the Wii U will at least be considered a next gen console for a while, but only time will tell whether it is truly part of the next gen cycle.

Pretty much this. And we can bet that whatever the case, Nintendo probably already has an R&D division somewhere in a secret Kyoto facility plotting out whatever console comes after the Wii U, and guys in suits are already discussing how long to wait before launching the console that comes after.

And despite what Dreamcast-like comparisons might arise, Nintendo will have another console after this. Their financial situation is pretty much the polar opposite of Sega's in the Dreamcast era.

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say a new console after this is a given. They definitely have improved iterations of the Wii U in the R&D phase, but that doesn't mean a full new console release. Nintendo still being a company that makes games in the future is a given. Nintendo continuing to invest into consoles may not be in the cards depending on the next outing. They have many people invested in the company, and if they start thinking that doubling down on games will work better than making dedicated hardware, they may just go that direction. They're certainly in a position to stay afloat no matter how it goes, but that doesn't mean they won't realize that a different course of action will be more profitable in the long run.

In a lot of ways, I'd think this would actually be better for them. Great Wii Games are few and far between, but think about the sales they'd acquire if they started dishing out the Mario Franchise to the 360 and PS3. People love those games no matter what, and I'd really argue that those are the only reasons their consoles even do mediocre. They have no 3rd party support, and most of their games come straight from Nintendo itself. If you take out the Console and force them to sell on a seperate system, they'd do rather well. I'll guess that the Wii U runs the same route as the Gamecube. There just won't be enough there to really garner any attention

@chrissedoff said:

The Wii U heralds the coming of the next generation of video games, for weal or woe. I know I'm pretty disappointed that Nintendo is once again putting out a system overly reliant on a gimmick, instead of throwing the gauntlet at Sony and Microsoft's feet.

Considering how much effort Microsoft and Sony put into fighting an underpowered console that completely embarrassed them both sales-wise for years, I'd say that Nintendo did indeed throw the gauntlet down, and they've thrown it again.

Nintendo getting into a pure hardware power war with the other two manufacturers is less worthwhile than looking for new ways to actually play games on a console. Make a $300 console that does something new instead of a $600 powerhouse console that does what the previous console did, but prettier.

@Euphorio: Nintendo's hardware sales are a big reason why they're in the financial position they're in. They could definitely use better third party support; maybe it'll be better this time around, maybe it won't. But there's no reason, as of right now, for them to abandon hardware development and sales.

oh yeah, no I totally agree with you there. The Wii sold far better than anyone expected, but that was partly because of the novelty of the system and the cool little peripherals that went along with it. Also, it had a relatively low price point. The Wii U, on the other hand, isn't bringing too much to the table other than the fact that you get a quasi-portable game player in the shape of the one controllers. But I would attribute that to innovation rather than solid games and a large core-gamer fanbase. For example, the Gamecube carried no novelty along with it. And it was definitely the worst console of that generation. In the same vein, Microsoft and Sony both saw what happened with the Wii, and will both now integrate movement commands and active participation into their next consoles. I can practically guarantee that. If you take away Nintendo's hardware innovation, you are left with a console that doesn't carry enough good games to be worth purchasing.

On the other hand, I do appreciate Nintendo's innovation. They seem to change the face of gaming first, but then the other companies create their own iterations that completely stomp Nintendo's.

They are to consoles what 98 Degrees was to Boy Bands

It's in the console cycle of Nintendo consoles, have they ever directly competed with the other two? They've always been either one step ahead or one step away from SEGA, Sony, Microsoft or any other straggler along the way.

It's certainly the next generation in Gimmick Gaming

@thechronodarkness: We're seeing that now, to a different kind of degree. Even with games like Borderlands 2, if you've seen the PC version running on max settings, the difference between that and the console version is almost night and day. We haven't seen the same kind of jump with PC games yet, because there's been no need for it with new consoles being so far off and when they do come, the changes will likely be similar to what we've been seeing PC games doing lately. Smoother frame rates, more graphical effects, larger areas, less loading and more players/things on the screen at one time.

There's not a chance the Wii U is "twice as powerful as the 360" though, it's definitely current-gen in that regard and the best article to read up on that would probably be: here. Whether that works to Nintendo's advantage or not will depend on what Microsoft and Sony do with their new systems and how popular their new gimmick turns out to be.

It's next gen: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)

@Oscar__Explosion said:

It's next gen: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)

Ha ha that's a good answer! However, If there ever and instance where a console could be demoted to 'current' from 'next' it could be Wii U.

Reggie Fils-Aime said "they were not there to rock the boat" at e3 2011 when they first showed of Wii U. Therefore, I have to wonder if Nintendo even desires to be considered "next gen" when the current generation will be lasting until 2015. Very little of what Nintendo has said, uses words like 'next' or 'the future' or 'beyond'. They are not pushing a view of the system as being a step forward form what I can see. Thus I wonder if they even welcome being called "next gen".

People asked the same question when the Wii came out, but look at Super Mario Galaxy.

@Pinworm45 said:

It's certainly the next generation in Gimmick Gaming

Heyo!!

Console generation has never been about hardware capabilities, at least as far as the history books are concerned. It has to do with which actual console generation(in succession) it is. IE: First gen is basically pong and intellivision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(first_generation)

WiiU is an 8th generation console. Therefore it is the first wave of next gen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)

It's Nintendo's next gen contender, since unlike the 360 and PS3, it's new, but hardware wise, it's last gen. Therefore, 3rd party developers won't commit to it much, and will drop it completely in a year.

They're all entertainment devices. If anything, Nintendo has created their own generation of hardware (for better or worse) in choosing not to match the processing power of Microsoft/Sony's consoles.

@Mcfart: That will depend on the specs of the other new systems. Like I said in my last post, it's more likely we'll see the biggest changes coming in terms of smoother frame rates and faster loading, the jump in tech isn't going to be as noticeable as it has been in the past and it should be easier for devs to scale back their games for the Wii U.

And that's assuming Microsoft and Sony don't completely copy Nintendo and focus more on gimmicks and social connectivity rather than improvements in actual tech, which wouldn't surprise me either.

It should be interesting what we will see from Sony and Microsoft in Nov 2013. There have been leaks and proposals seen, but it will be interesting to see how they read the market. Without knowing what Sony and MS have planned it is hard to know where Wii U stands.

Is that an advantage or disadvantage to Nintendo in the short term? I'd say both, there are way to skew teh unknown to an advantege, but there is a downside depending on how you skew it.