The last days I have been carefully reading the web to find out more about the tech that's inside the Wii U. Sadly there are no specs to be found yet. But there are various articles on this topic with quotes from actual developers. All seem to point in the same direction. A PS360 level of horsepower. 
 
Fran Mirabella (from IGN) on twitter: "Where's the quote "significantly"? That was during the rumor period, no doubt. Short story think Xbox360+. Concessions made."   This was a reply to my question wether or not IGN still thinks the Wii U is significantly more powerful than the PS3, like they said pre-E3.

Rayman creator Michel Ancel saying that the Wii U is not next-gen: 
http://www.videogamer.com/news/wii_u_is_not_next-gen_says_michel_ancel.html   

Several developers claiming Wii U is about 50% more powerful than the 360 (which isn't a lot, the previous leap from xbox to 360 was more in the 10 times as powerful region):
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wii-u-is-actually-50-more-powerful-than-ps3---report/ 
 
John Carmack saying that Wii U is playing 'barely catch up' (at 10:15 in the video): 
http://www.giantbomb.com/e3-2011-a-word-with-john-carmack/17-4383/ 
 
So Nintendo really is just catching up to this gen. After 7 years (in 2012). At first I was disappointed, but maybe the next round of console is longer away than we might think. Check out the John Carmack interview, he does say that developers still didn't tap everything out of the 360 and PS3. I don't think Nintendo will be able to get the core gamers back with this strategy though. There is zero incentive for a PS3 or 360 owner to invest in a new console, that has the same tech inside of it.

This is sounding more and more like the dreamcast...

There is zero incentive for a PS3 or 360 owner to invest in a new console, that has the same tech inside of it.

Think about it: new Super Mario, new The Legend of Zelda, new Metroid, new Donkey King, new Pikmin, new Super Smash Bros., new Mario Kart, new F-Zero, new Fire Emblem

I caught some stuff from Tested which pretty much confirms this. Here's my post. http://www.giantbomb.com/wii-u/60-139/wii-u-and-testedcom/35-501401/#6

It really doesn't matter to me. I like Nintendo products. I bet this machine won't break like my Xbox 360. I'll take reliability and fun with Nintendo any day.

@Azteck said: 

Think about it: new Super Mario, new The Legend of Zelda, new Metroid, new Donkey King, new Pikmin, new Super Smash Bros., new Mario Kart, new F-Zero, new Fire Emblem

I find it hilarious that most of these titles have been produced by Nintendo since the 80's.

And most of them are still great.
 
@coolwhip83 said: 

@Icemael: I don't really agree with that. People that like Nintendo games already own a Wii. Nintendo doesn't need to release a new console for that. The message Nintendo is sending out now is that they want both the core and the casuals. The core (I hate calling shooter fans core) won't buy the Wii U for those Nintendo games. 

They're going to aim for better third-party support as well, obviously, but what do you think the primary incentive for most non-casual buyers will be? Mario. Metroid. The Legend of Zelda.

As for CoD-dudebros, I think Nintendo are well aware they won't buy the Wii U. They aren't going for those people. They're going for video game enthusiasts. The kind of people that'll happily buy a second and third console if there are enough exclusives that interest them. That's who they're referring to when they say "core gamers", not the dudes who are all set as long as they have a console that can play the latest Call of Duty.

This is sounding more and more like the dreamcast...

I think I'm ok with this.  Considering how much money Microsoft is putting in to the kinect and Sony is putting in to 3D I really don't think those two company's will bring out new machines for a while despite advances in technology.  Why would they?  They still sell hardware like mad.  It doesn't make sense to get rid of your huge user-base if that base is still growing.

I agree and disagree.
 
The fact its of similar horsepower to my 360/ps3 has me thinking well I dont really need one, But I bought both 360 and PS3 and I built a high end pc simply because I really want the option to be able to play as many of the very good games as I can and the only way that is possible is to own all systems, Fangirls may disagree but I believe every system has some excellent games worth playing.
 
I bought a wii and it was a huge disappointment, I enjoyed Mario and Zelda and thats about it, But the geek in me will probably buy a wii u the instance i see those games in hd.
 
It is a little annoying that Nintendo for the 2nd time are making a new console with old tech, This is better than the wii since really the wii's power was pretty much similar to last gen systems only with waggle.

@Yanngc33 said:

This is sounding more and more like the dreamcast...

Yeah, I have a slight feeling the launch isn't going to go as well as the Wii's...

@Yanngc33 said:

This is sounding more and more like the dreamcast...

Yeah, I have a slight feeling the launch isn't going to go as well as the Wii's...

@Icemael said:

@coolwhip83 said:

There is zero incentive for a PS3 or 360 owner to invest in a new console, that has the same tech inside of it.

Plenty of Playstation 3 owners buy Xbox 360 systems and vice versa. Do you know why?

Exclusives. And Nintendo have by far the strongest first-party developers. Think about it: new Super Mario, new The Legend of Zelda, new Metroid, new Donkey King, new Pikmin, new Super Smash Bros., new Mario Kart, new F-Zero, new Fire Emblem... I could go on. And that's just the first-party stuff. Throw a bunch of third-party exclusives and a controller with cool tech in, and the incentive is overwhelming.

I'd argue they actually have the weakest. None of those are appealing and all but one are rehashes of super old franchises.

Depressing. I know it's fruitless but sometimes I just sit here and think "What the hell is wrong with us?" because sometimes it seems like we are going to be stuck in this generation's technology for forfuckingever.

Anybody who says that "developers still didn't tap everything" in the 360 is entirely out of the loop. It seems anytime I see 360 footage, I can't get over the choppiness of the game due to low framerate. The 360's hardware is aging badly.

The upshot is that the WiiU is going to be able to play everything that the 360 and PS3 are currently playing, and they'll be able to do so with a controller with controls that gamers are more or less used to. It also seems that Nintendo isn't going to be pushing the motion stuff quite as hard. These two things give gamers and developers a fair reason to look into the WiiU - it'll be able to satisfy that "hardcore" segment of gamers. Remember that the Wii U is around a year away, but a 360 or PS3 refresh is probably more than 2 years away -- remember that these guys just finished working on Kinect/Move. The Wii U definitely has an advantage by hitting mid-product cycle of both the 360 and PS3 (which are going to split each other's marketshare when they both invariably come out in the same time frame).

One reason why this may be the case is because the tech industry has slowed as a whole (which in turn was caused by the global recession and recent short term problems with fabs).  
 
What was the most powerful CPU in 2008? Core i7 920, a 4C/8T processor that maximally overclocks ~3.8-4Ghz. What's the most powerful CPU in 2011? Core i7 2600K, a 4C/8T processor that maximally overclocks 4.8-5Ghz.
 
On the graphics side, we haven't seen anything new for nearly 2 years. Performance/watt and performance/dollar have barely budged since 2008. The next generation from Nvidia and AMD might not be seen until 2012. Before, the GPU industry used to advance at double to triple the speed.
 
On top of that, a lot of the cost is coming from the tablet controller and the "Nintendo Premium" (Nintendo always profits off their machine in contrast to Sony or MS, as they know that people will buy them for the opportunity to play their exclusive 1st party games like Mario and Zelda, and not strictly for hardware value).  
 
My estimate is that games on the system will probably turn out around 720p@60fps or 1080p@30fps as a standard (in contrast to the current 720p@30fps standard on PS3 and 360), with varying levels of AA depending on the game and final hardware specs of the console. 

@Geno: If it's older, it should cool efficiently. Not much of a failure rate I assume. The games will work according to the port, but it seems Nintendo is looking at porting for profit. A few frames can't hurt either.

You guys think that Wii U will be the new "lowest common denominator" in development for next gen?

You guys think that Wii U will be the new "lowest common denominator" in development for next gen?

@coolwhip83 said:

There is zero incentive for a PS3 or 360 owner to invest in a new console, that has the same tech inside of it.

They don't want your business. They don't need your business. Core gamers are not on XBOX 360 or PS3. Core gamers are on PC. PC gamers are people who have been called pirates and scum in the media and have had all manner of bullshit put in their way like GFWL and Uplay, have had to often deal with delayed poorer quality ports and have to pay a premium to purchase technology to play on their PCs. Yet still, regardless of all of that we PC gamers still play games happily on our PCs and we still spend more money on GPU technology than you do on the consoles you call core gaming systems. That's real core gaming. You PS3 and 360 console gamers are not core at all. You're just pandered to by companies who see you as some long term investment in cash cow farming and many of you have a HUGE sense of entitlement which actually doesn't relate at all to what's going on around you. Nintendo has the single largest majority of the market in the home and handheld iPhone/Android games are quickly eclipsing the PS3/XBOX 360 supposed core gamer market in gross value and net returns.

Core gamers...don't make me laugh.

Unless that extra screen turns out to be amazingly convenient for menu options, there's no way gamers are going to pick this for their multiplatform games.

But I'm sure everyone already knew that.

The main draw of the system will be the tablet controller, but I have a feeling that will flop. Nobody else but Nintendo will program for it. When a developer makes a game, typically it will be 99% the same across all platforms unless they were primarily a PC developer to start out with (4A, Dice etc). We already have the Wiimote as a very recent example; other than some instances where they replaced analogue control of a crosshair with motion control, the Wiimote was pretty much completely unused by third party developers in multiplatform games. The tablet controller will likely follow the same route; great use and heavy emphasis will come from Nintendo, but outside of that it will be akin to a paperweight or serve in only very rudimentary menu functions.  
 
On the other hand, it's still a function that's rather unique. When/if Sony and MS comes up with a similar idea, Nintendo will probably have moved on. I actually think that Nintendo is in a fairly interesting position; it's effectively sandwiched itself between generations, which means less competition and more media attention for them. By the time PS4/Xbox 720 come out around 2014 (reasonable estimate), Nintendo will probably have something new ready for 2015/2016 and the cycle continues. Due to its pedigree and business strategy, Nintendo probably stands to earn (or continue earning) considerable amounts of money for the foreseeable future. 

@Icemael said:

@coolwhip83 said:

There is zero incentive for a PS3 or 360 owner to invest in a new console, that has the same tech inside of it.

Plenty of Playstation 3 owners buy Xbox 360 systems and vice versa. Do you know why?

Exclusives. And Nintendo have by far the strongest first-party developers. Think about it: new Super Mario, new The Legend of Zelda, new Metroid, new Donkey King, new Pikmin, new Super Smash Bros., new Mario Kart, new F-Zero, new Fire Emblem... I could go on. And that's just the first-party stuff. Throw a bunch of third-party exclusives and a controller with cool tech in, and the incentive is overwhelming.

I'd argue they actually have the weakest. None of those are appealing and all but one are rehashes of super old franchises.

  There is zero incentive for a PS3 or 360 owner to invest in a new console, that has the same tech inside of it.

I am just wondering what is the incentive for third party developers to develope exclusive AAA type games for Wii U with what has to be a very small userbase at the beginning.  On the other hand the xbox 360 and PS3 userbase is in the tens of millions and so the potential market is much bigger for those platforms.
 
Porting games to Wii U is a possibility but unless developers are porting every major release simultaneously to all three platforms I really dont see a reason for the core gamers to get a Wii U instead of a xbox 360 or PS3.

@niamahai said:

You guys think that Wii U will be the new "lowest common denominator" in development for next gen?

Is that code for industry leader? Console that women also play? Then yes.

I played Dawn of Discovery on the Wii and loved it. I read that the DS version wasn't bad either. A port of Anno 2070 on the Wii U would be grand.

@ryanwho said:

@niamahai said:

You guys think that Wii U will be the new "lowest common denominator" in development for next gen?

Is that code for industry leader? Console that women also play? Then yes.

erg not exactly. Develop for "lowest common denominator" = Develop for the hardware with the most users

Eg: During game development, they make it for the Wii U first then port it to the rest.

Personally I think that Sony/MS will only let Nintendo get a year head start. Give Nintendo 2 years and Nintendo might become the new go-to console.

Two things that are fucking stupid: thinking that games have to be "new" to be good, and the idea of the core gamer.
 
Anyway, the answer for the incentive to buy the Wii U are exclusives, simple as that. If you don't like their games then you have no reason to buy, but if it launches at an acceptable price point it will be the only next-gen system I adopt relatively early. Considering that Nintendo's exclusives have the least overlap between Sony/MS and the PC it might well be the only system worth owning in its own right, with the rest being more or less interchangeable. It seems ridiculous to be so concerned by a system's power when all of the next-gen consoles will be inferior to a gaming PC anyway.

I don't understand how they think that a new console (now) will be a good idea when everyone already owns their Call of Duty disc readers (360, PS3). I never speak in terms of marketing, so I am specifically speaking to what would compel me to buy this thing. At the moment, I can think of nothing other than exclusives, but I am always open to suggestions.  
 
I did not like the Wii and I don't care how much it sold. If this thing does not offer anything other than new iterations of older franchises and better graphics at this point, I don't think i'd have fun with it. Still, I always give everyone a second chance. Let's see what you got Nintendo! 
 
Also, I am not saying that older franchises should just die, but wouldn't it be nice to see Nintendo create a bunch of new stuff? I can deal with a Mario title, but come on - give me something special. Give me something that makes me want to buy that console. As of now, my favorite Mario titles is still Super Mario World on the SNES. The newer ones have been good, but they still feel too familiar to top SMW. They've done so much with Mario, that maybe he needs a bit of a break. Crazy thought, eh? 

This is sounding more and more like the dreamcast...

Only problem then? 
It looks fucking ridiculous.

@solarisdeschain said:

And your argument would be wrong. Of course I'm only going by reviews and sales and reputation and the idea that calling Metroid Prime or Super Mario Galaxy or Super Smash Bros. Brawl "rehashes" (didn't that word go out of style in, like, 2006?) is completely fucking retarded.

Just saying, for me and pretty much everyone I know, Nintendo's first party titles are not alluring at all. They need new IPs. The same old crappy brawlers and platformers are so tired and overdone that it's nauseating. That's not to say those titles don't sell. Certainly not, it's Mario. But the crowd who buys that dumb crap already bought the Wii and those titles. With upping the hardware they're trying to entice the crowd that does not suck on Mario's tit, but they're doing so without giving any incentive.

To the person who games on X360, PS3, and PC, Nintendo has no appealing exclusives at the moment. They need some, or they need to show third party games that have viable usages for that new controller before the Wii U becomes worthwhile.

They don't want your business. They don't need your business. Core gamers are not on XBOX 360 or PS3. Core gamers are on PC. PC gamers are people who have been called pirates and scum in the media and have had all manner of bullshit put in their way like GFWL and Uplay, have had to often deal with delayed poorer quality ports and have to pay a premium to purchase technology to play on their PCs. Yet still, regardless of all of that we PC gamers still play games happily on our PCs and we still spend more money on GPU technology than you do on the consoles you call core gaming systems. That's real core gaming. You PS3 and 360 console gamers are not core at all. You're just pandered to by companies who see you as some long term investment in cash cow farming and many of you have a HUGE sense of entitlement which actually doesn't relate at all to what's going on around you. Nintendo has the single largest majority of the market in the home and handheld iPhone/Android games are quickly eclipsing the PS3/XBOX 360 supposed core gamer market in gross value and net returns.

Core gamers...don't make me laugh.

Two things that are fucking stupid: thinking that games have to be "new" to be good, and the idea of the core gamer.

@Icemael said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

They don't want your business. They don't need your business. Core gamers are not on XBOX 360 or PS3. Core gamers are on PC. PC gamers are people who have been called pirates and scum in the media and have had all manner of bullshit put in their way like GFWL and Uplay, have had to often deal with delayed poorer quality ports and have to pay a premium to purchase technology to play on their PCs. Yet still, regardless of all of that we PC gamers still play games happily on our PCs and we still spend more money on GPU technology than you do on the consoles you call core gaming systems. That's real core gaming. You PS3 and 360 console gamers are not core at all. You're just pandered to by companies who see you as some long term investment in cash cow farming and many of you have a HUGE sense of entitlement which actually doesn't relate at all to what's going on around you. Nintendo has the single largest majority of the market in the home and handheld iPhone/Android games are quickly eclipsing the PS3/XBOX 360 supposed core gamer market in gross value and net returns.

Core gamers...don't make me laugh.

If core gamers are those who spend the most money, PC gamers are most certainly not "core". If core gamers are measured by video game companies' returns, casual gamers are "core" which is idiotic for obvious reasons. If core gamers are people who will happily put up with any bullshit to own the latest graphics card, they either are morons or only care about graphics (no, not even graphics -- just graphical fidelity, which is a small aspect of a game's graphics), and what exactly is "core" about that?

People who put up with a lot of hell to do anything can be rightly referred to as "core". PC gamers buy up all the GPU technology in droves with each generation, pushing forward each generation. The GPUs which consoles depend on to define generations (note the recent brouhaha over whether the Wii-U is next gen or not) come from that market, as does almost of the other stuff which makes consoles do anything remotely entertaining. That market is the core market which drives innovation, technological or otherwise. Fuck it....just think you're right. I can't be bothered.

People who put up with a lot of hell to do anything can be rightly referred to as "core".

PC gamers buy up all the GPU technology in droves with each generation, pushing forward each generation. The GPUs which consoles depend on to define generations (note the recent brouhaha over whether the Wii-U is next gen or not) come from that market, as does almost of the other stuff which makes consoles do anything remotely entertaining. That market is the core market which drives innovation, technological or otherwise.

Fuck it....just think you're right. I can't be bothered.

I am going to buy this system for the exclusives. I don't care how powerful it is. It's Nintendo in HD. I'm on board.

@PrivateIronTFU said:

I am going to buy this system for the exclusives. I don't care how powerful it is. It's Nintendo in HD. I'm on board.

Word.

@Icemael: The PC market pushes openness. That openness spawned the mod communities, you know those non core dudes who've never produced anything remotely relevant to anything. Like, say, Portal and Left 4 Dead and stuff that's in MW2 MP and Automatic Mario and Minecraft and Terraria and all that other non core gaming stuff which has no impact at all on gaming because it's non core. Arcades leading development tech was a decade ago (and more - I used to frequent #emu, I'm sure you don't even know what that is) and these days the vast majority of arcade hardware is based directly on PC hardware (check System16 if you don't believe me). The Playstation and Saturn based on hardware from the Arcades. The Dreamcast was where that era died, but hey you know so much more right? WRONG. You ignore everything that doesn't suit your argument and then try to talk down to me when you're barely my equal let alone my better. It's why I can't be bothered talking to you.

Yes, That sounds about right.

@Rolyatkcinmai: You're still wrong. I have all those systems and the Wii has the most unique exclusives list and their first-party titles are great. You're saying more about your personal priorities than the quality of Nintendo's games. The most tired crap being released currently is the flood of multiplayer shooters, which are the current flavour of the month, not platformers or brawlers. There is nothing tired about platformers and brawlers if you want to play more platformers and brawlers. 
   

I just seen an article on Kotaku that says it is in fact more powerful. The best thing to do is wait until we get official specs from Nintendo.

@Icemael: The PC market pushes openness. That openness spawned the mod communities, you know those non core dudes who've never produced anything remotely relevant to anything. Like, say, Portal and Left 4 Dead and stuff that's in MW2 MP and Automatic Mario and Minecraft and Terraria and all that other non core gaming stuff which has no impact at all on gaming because it's non core.

Arcades leading development tech was a decade ago (and more - I used to frequent #emu, I'm sure you don't even know what that is) and these days the vast majority of arcade hardware is based directly on PC hardware (check System16 if you don't believe me). The Playstation and Saturn based on hardware from the Arcades. The Dreamcast was where that era died, but hey you know so much more right?

WRONG. You ignore everything that doesn't suit your argument and then try to talk down to me when you're barely my equal let alone my better. It's why I can't be bothered talking to you.

Anybody who says that "developers still didn't tap everything" in the 360 is entirely out of the loop. It seems anytime I see 360 footage, I can't get over the choppiness of the game due to low framerate. The 360's hardware is aging badly.