I disagree, Playstation Move is an excellent implementation of a motion controller.  The problem is it has very little software support.  I am also very much looking forward to Project Morpheus.

That is not to say the WiiU Gamepad is bad, but I have to agree that for most games it doesn't add anything.  Even on Lego City Undercover, while I found it amusing how it was used to listen in to conversations, sometimes I just didn't want to have to hold the controller in the air just to play the game.  There were literally times when I thought "my arms are tired, I wish I didn't have to do this".  Mind you, that might partly be down to the fact I feel the GamePad is an extremely uncomfortable shape, its the least ergonomic controller Nintendo have made in a long time.

There have been some bad uses of the GamePad too such as taking the mini map off the screen to put on the GamePad instead.  This actually makes the game more awkward to play, it breaks the flow having to look down where normally the mini map is in your peripheral vision.  At the end of the day if you have enough RAM to pull the full game map up INSTANTLY, there isn't really any benefit to looking down to see it on the GamePad.  In most games you really need to be paused when on the map anyway to avoid something bad happening.

Inventory control is a huge improvement on the GamePad however, although I think they could have done that on a much smaller screen.

Its telling that even Nintendo have failed to really show something innovative about using the GamePad, apart from Nintendo Land.

I loved the idea of the GamePad but the more I use it, the less I care about it.  Although at least it WORKS, tried to use Smartglass on Fable Anniversary and my Windows tablet refuses to find the Xbox 360 even though my Android phone can.  Oh the irony.

Its just another meaningless marketing term like "quality".

Because, High Bandwidth compared to what?  It could mean pretty much anything.

Its also unhelpful because if the system is not balanced you could have WAY more bandwidth than the GPU can actually use, just like you can have too much GPU power that bottlenecks due to lack of bandwidth.

What matters is that the overall system is balanced so you never have too much/little of anything.

I resent the implication - I have ALWAYS been a resolution snob thank you very much!

It comes from having gamed on PC since the very first 3D cards came out.  Before advanced graphical effects showed up, the biggest gain WAS an increase in resolution.

I agree its not necessarily the same today, but still if you can have the same game at 720p or at 1080p there is no denying the higher resolution is better.

For me its more the fact if I JUST wanted 1080p I can use PC, but I bought a new console to get 1080p ON A CONSOLE.  That console was PS4 though, I only ever expected 720p on Wii U and with games like Super Mario 3D World you really don't care about resolution so much.  I mean sure it WOULD look better at 1080p, but its not a game really about the small details anyway.

Its more racing games or shooters where being able to see someone in the distance can have a tangible advantage on the game play.  Or (and I know I will get bashed for this) in Knack where as he gets bigger they zoom out the camera so everything else gets smaller.  That was clearly done to show off how can you still clearly see everything in 1080p.  So yes, 1080p can actually be part of the art style but its not always "essential".

My head hurts!

The reason the Xbox cant reach the resolutions of the ps4 games, at the same fidelity of the ps4 games, is because the xbox gpu is missing 1/3rd of the Graphics Core Next alu's compared to the ps4, which is why it just cant keep up.

Exactly, and the reason why its not hitting 1080p isn't because it CAN'T do it - but it can't do it while outputting the same graphical effects as PS4.  People would notice lower quality assets/processing much easier than a lower resolution, so maintaining parity on effects it more important than resolution.

I'm also not sure where this theory that the Wii U has a ton of 1080p games has come from.  Can someone enlighten me as I am yet to see a single one bar Wind Waker.

How about the fact that it actually HAS a tablet. One that works very well in game interactions such as Batmans batarang, Sniping, off TV play, video chat, even blowing into the mic to affect game play, browsing the internet, universal remote, etc. 

 

The only issue has been that it hasn't been utilized enough.

 

Then there is the fact that it has had its own social network since launch.

OH GOD NO!  I find games that utilise blowing into the mic to be the most annoying gimmick EVER.  Its even more annoying than waving your arms around with Kinect.

I liked the concept of the Gamepad, but by making it so multi-purpose (being able to put it in a stand for video chat, lay on the floor for golf, dock it as a gun sight) they messed up the ergonomics so its actually uncomfortable for its main purpose - being a standard dual-analog stick controller with a touchscreen in the middle.  The fact they then omitted the analog triggers, that the Gamecube had, was the icing on the cake.  I really don't know what they were thinking.

I would get a pro controller but quite frankly I do not use the Wii U enough to justify the cost.

So again the Wii U innovative?  Not so much.  Even the few unique things it does such as the game where you swipe things at the screen, the gamepad actually feels too cumbersome in one hand for that to work very well.  They forgot what made the Wiimote so popular, that it was small, light and easy to use.

I can put my Wii games in my WiiU. I can put PSone games in my PS2/PS3. I can use my Genesis controller on my SEGA Master System.

Those with a Gen1 Genny with a converter could play SMS games on Genny. I can play DS games in my 3DS. I can gplay GBA games in my DS Lite. I can play some Xbox games on my 360. Shenmue II being one of them. Gamecube games on my Wii. Even for Atari 5200 people were not happy it was not BC. So they fixed that the next system.

 

For people who collect consoles BC isn't as big a issue but for those who do not. It is. Would not cost them that much more to put PS3 on a chip and put it in the PS4. When Sony did it for PS3 it cost 27$ to produce. It got cheaper quickly before they abandoned it. BC doesn't cost much. Nintendo does it and they are scrutinized and accused of being cheap with consoles. WiiU has Wii on a chip. All MS and Sony had to do but they are the ones getting a free pass. So yes they want you to buy some other service or on their store the game you already bought.

It's a load of BS.

Actually, putting a PS3 in the PS4 would be VERY expensive, as none of the hardware is remotely similar.  Its not just a chip, you would have to replicate everything and then tie it into the PS4 OS somehow.

While I would LOVE to have BC on the PS4 so I only have one console, I would even have been willing to pay £100 more for that facility, most people would not.  So they would have needed two SKUs and with having enough trouble manufacturing the standard PS4, and getting the OS barely functional for launch, it would have delayed things and given Microsoft the upper hand.

Whats innovative about the Wii U?

Sticking a touchscreen in the controller is no more/less innovative than a touchpad on the controller.  Heck, the Wii U is lacking one of the most useful things on modern consoles - the analog triggers.  I also find it the least ergonomic controller in a long while ESPECIALLY from Nintendo.  Both the N64 and Gamecube controllers felt comfortable in your hands, the Wii U Gamepad does not.

Its more about evolution.  The PS4 is an improvement on PS3 (hugely on the controller, its actually comfortable which no dualshock has ever been for me), the Xbox One is (or will be, once they put the functionality back in the OS) an evolution of the Xbox 360 + Kinect, they are just refinements over what went before.

If anything, the PS4 is the biggest improvement because I hated its old controller so much and it inherited the speaker in the controller that really enhanced surround sound.

For the record, I do find the touchscreen on Wii U useful especially for inventory management.  But when playing games like LEGO City Undercover, I never once felt that "this game plays better BECAUSE of the touchscreen".  It would have been just as much fun without the gimmicky bits.  Same when playing LEGO Marvel on PS4, the only time the touchscreen would have been useful is the map and the ONLY reason that was an issue is because the game was poorly optimised so took a few seconds to display the map screen.  Had it been better optimised so the map appeared instantly, it would have been no better as if you have to take your eyes off the TV you might as well just display it on the TV in the first place.

Can't say I'm impressed with this.  While I never played anything online on Wii, this comes across as a desperate attempt to force the people who did into buying Wii U. 

It also mocks the Wii U backwards compatibility.  What good is 100% compatibility if they slowly shut down functionality?  Even Microsoft gave it 4 years before they shut down original Xbox Live, although granted those people WERE paying for it.

Still, Nintendo should be trying to come across as BETTER than the competition, not worse.

After all the work they did with Super Mario 3D World, I feel they should make a Super Mario 64 style game with the engine they have now. Oh man, that would just be the best thing for me

Same here.  I am really enjoying 3D World which is quite a surprise as I HATE having a time limit. (I hated all the original Mario World games and suspect I might even fall out with this on later levels)

I much prefer having time to really investigate the world and appreciate its beauty, and solve puzzles.  I don't have anyone to play multiplayer with either so that functionality is of no use to me.

I honestly don't know why every modern console game doesn't do that (including the Wii U Menu, which sadly only runs at native 720p).

I'm guessing its down to a 1080p frame buffer still being a tradeoff (especially on Wii U/Xbox One with limited dedicated RAM) compared to a 720p frame buffer.  It may be better to just save some of that RAM for effects.

You also have to bear in mind that the TV in use will make a BIG difference.

When I upgraded to a TV with horrific input lag it was particularly obvious on the Wii.

Check out the bayo trailer on my site.
It's 700 MB I think 3,400 MB/s and 720p 60 fps.
Looks incredible. Your eyes will water, then melt.
 

General
Complete name                  : Http://Nollog.Net/MyBin/Bayonetta2.mov
Format                         : MPEG-4
Format profile                 : QuickTime
Codec ID                       : qt  
File size                      : 607 MiB
Duration                       : 2mn 42s
Overall bit rate               : 31.4 Mbps
Encoded date                   : UTC 2014-02-11 20:36:33
Tagged date                    : UTC 2014-02-11 20:47:59
Writing library                : Apple QuickTime
Media/UUID                     : 5CCCD7A7-3107-4606-A46B-74066B2DAEE8
©TIM                           : 00:00:00:00
©TSC                           : 60
©TSZ                           : 1

Yup, that's more like it.  Although most games wouldn't be quite as brain-meltingly active so would cope with a lower bitrate than that.

Most Bluray movies have a lower average bitrate than that, but then while they are higher resolution they also have a much much lower frame rate.

Not to be an apologist or anything, but they started and stopped the game play at precisely the same time. 

 

I am not seeing the big deal. 

 

Plus it was one level. With tweaks to the interface...

 

Apparently this is too far over my head to be relevant. 

EXACTLY!

The first game may have loaded quicker but it didn't let you actually start playing the game until more or less the same time.

Also, the comments on YouTube seem to imply its only this first level that takes this long to load.  Presumably its loading in all the assets but can reuse many of them for later levels.

Thirdly, why is anyone surprised?  Its not like Sony and Microsoft want to throw money away, they wouldn't FORCE you to install games to the HDD on One/PS4 if there wasn't a damn good reason for it.  If Nintendo had included a HDD in the Wii U then load times would be MUCH improved.  Heck, even the original Xbox used a HDD cache to speed up game loading.

Because at bitrates high enough to prevent visible quality loss the file sizes are pretty big and the bandwidth costs of hosting it increase dramatically.

Eurogamer have said they do not often make those high quality comparison videos available for that very reason, and that is even considering they DO provide torrents so some of their bandwidth is offset.

I wish they would release high-bitrate torrents of things like this, like the few Eurogamer do for comparisons.

Video quality can hide imperfections in poor quality graphics as well as make high quality graphics look comparable to lower quality.

This was all too apparent with the many AC4 videos that made the current-gen and next-gen versions look comparable, when in reality even the difference between 720p and 1080p at the SAME graphical quality is pretty obvious.

I guess its too much to hope that YouTube will keep the same bitrates when using WebM V9 so that we actually see a drastic improvement in picture quality.

The Wii U is not profitable (at the moment).

I was referring to the fact that they said from the start they only have to sell one game to break even on the Wii U console.

That doesn't mean they necessarily paid off all the cost of designing the console, but getting rid of any potential for selling more Wii U games wouldn't exactly put them in a better position.

The point is, they have already manufactured the consoles and are making games for it.  The only thing that CAN happen if they dropped it is making an even deeper loss, as all that manufacturing and development is suddenly worthless.  Plus as other people have said, no way people will buy the NEXT console if they drop the Wii U this soon and definitely not if they supported other consoles.

Te biggest reason the Wii U is not making them money right now is because they spent a lot more time/money making the games in the first place.  Its going to take a while to make up for that.

"one platform across multiple devices" sounds more like having Wii U games run on a 3DS-like device.  In fact that would be one good reason for keeping Nintendo home consoles somewhat low powered, so that they can make a comparable portable and you buy the game on one device and automatically get it on the other.

Basically its the same principle as what Sony have already done with a few indie games, you buy it on PS3 and get the Vita version bundled in.  It DOES however depends on you buying all your games as downloads.  Then again, Nintendo prices would actually be REASONABLE if you got both versions, they are only pricey when you consider its for a single platform and retail sells cheaper.

This is actually something I have been waiting for since Xbox 360 launched as Microsoft were talking about it but it never really got anywhere.  Sony beat them to it in actually implementing it but sadly its still not happening for retail games, its too profitable to charge us twice.

Considering the terrible track record SEGA have with Sonic I would definitely not praise them for this game until actually playing it.

Sonic Lost World sounded like a decent game, on paper, but it played dreadful IMO.  It was a Sonic game trying to be Mario, not what a Sonic fan wants at all.  As a whole I don't like Mario - Mario 64, Galaxy and the new 3D World are the only ones I actually enjoyed.

Give me Sonic Adventure 3 already, SA1 & 2 had their flaws but they were much more fun games than anything they have done since - except perhaps Generations which wasn't too bad.

Wouldn't make much sense for them to cancel a profitable product, even if they aren't selling huge numbers.