Josephus

Also, we know that the rumor is that it's 20% less powerful, but the only thing they said to prove that was the GPU, and when we compared it ourselves, we found the Wii U to be superior.

I am not completely sure what you want to say with this sentence (with no intention of being offensive, I actually don't see the crucial point in your whole post at all), but for clarification: With "some people" I was specifically referring to "nl0...". And of course, this is just a rumour , one I personally regard as made up out of thin air.

@ Your point of a rushed our demo: Are you implying that, with more optimization, they could have run the very same demo (720p, 30fps) at - let's say - 60 fps?
Even then, you would have a stuttering framerate at 1080p and a bit AA. The framerate would be even lower (since entirely unplayable) for a real game with the shown quality. That is why I meant

the graphics of the "HD-Experience" are the absolute maximum of what can be achieved in a WiiU game.

It seems the "HD Experience" (=Zelda-Demo) was rendered in 720p without AA and at 30 fps. Source.
Since I personally hope (and regard it likely) for a native 1080p-output in the 8th console generation, you can conclude the graphics of the "HD-Experience" are the absolute maximum of what can be achieved in a WiiU game. Even if they change the hardware for the better (which nobody knows for sure); a real game is more difficult to compute than a demo.

By the way, some people seemed confused with the rumour about the WiiU's strength compared to the Xbox Trinity. It was said the Xbox would be 20% stronger than the WiiU.

Exactly. Graphics can get better, but we are quickly approaching a standstill. How much more realistic can games like Call of Duty get without using actual people?

Call of Duty is a poor example, since it´s graphically quite midrangend (for consoles). But I know what you meant.
Well, the very truth is: Games are restricted to the quality of animated films. And animated films are restricted to the quality of reality.
Animations in films can nowadays be very, very close to reality. But think how it was 20 years ago.
The overwhelming part of videogames is nowadays far away from reality, the remaining part is just not close. If you disagree, think again.

As I see it, there will be one noticable jump in graphics (like ps1 to ps2) with the eighth console generation, and then everything will slow down a lot(The PS5 for instance could be released 2030ish).

I think I'm just going to drop this here...http://thewiiu.com/t...12-known-facts/ and know for a fact that you pulled the 'identity' of that processor out of your butt...they never said what model of GPU they're using, just that it's Radeon-based. They never said any part number.

Ups, that was apparently a mistake of mine. I referred to Wikipedia, where it says the GPU would be based on the R700-family. But the reliability of the source is questionable.
I still find it plausible though.
However, using newer architectures for the WiiU-GPU would be a convenient surprise, and a technical outplay wouldn´t be so easy.

No, it will not be easy to outplay Nintendo this time around. The Sony of America president already stated that, right now, that graphics can't get much better than they are now in consoles (unless you want the cost to be completely through the roof, as high-end graphic cards for PCs cost an insane amount, like in the thousands...)

Since I consider Sony of America´s president an intelligent man, he lies. There is a lot room for improvement graphic-wise (and for AI etc.). You should not forget most consolegames (PS360) are rendered in about 720p - not uncommonly even below - and often have little to no Antialiasing; otherwise most games won´t even run at them fluently. The memory already is a bottleneck. PC-games like Crysis, Witcher 2, and probably Battlefield 3 give you a rough idea of what could be normative in the next console generation.
Anyway, I don´t want to get too deep into this. The eight console-generation will show a considerable jump in graphics (and AI etc.) in my opinion, in addition to new control systems.

And for the cost: Firstly, "in the thousands" is exaggerated. Secondly: What´s expensive today, is cheap tomorrow.

Even if Microsoft unveils a console that dwarfs the Wii U in tech, the pricing, quality of titles, and sales are the real factors to its performance. Keep in mind, Microsoft (as well as Sony) tends to over-market their products, and their fanboys will always it up, rub it in everyone's faces, and declare it to be the equivalent of the cure for AIDS. History has shown that powerful consoles don't always win out. Take a look at the PSP and the PS3. When these platforms were unveiled, everybody hyped them to the second coming of Christ! However, when they launched, it was a whole other story. So even if Microsoft makes a huge splash at E3 2012, it will only be short-term. Once all the next-gen consoles are on the shelf, E3 2012, like the past E3 events, will be nothing more than a distant memory. We will all look at E3 2012 compared to how the Xbox 720 actually does with such amusement and derision in how we bought into the over-hype.

Seriously, tech seems to be the only concern instead of the quality of the games. Might I suggest upgrading your PC? It's always light-years ahead of consoles.

I agree. Quality of games is the most important aspect for me. But not everyone thinks this way - numerous gamers will go for the strongest system in terms of graphics - this is why the Xbox Neo, if announced 2012, could very well be a threat to the WiiU, assuming both would have comparable pricetags.

Seems like I am the only one to agree with TRON to an extend.
Of course we don´t know the specifications of the WiiU yet, that´s what we have to keep in mind. Nevertheless they assumingly won´t be "top-notch", it´s more likely they are even far away from it.

A comparison: The Xbox 360 was launched at the end of 2005, with a GPU (Xenos) based on the Radeon R520 architecture. The R520 was at that time a few weeks to months old.
The WiiU will (as far as we know) launch in 2012, with a GPU based on the Radeon R700 architecture. The R700 will then be about four years old.

Of course, the GPU is just based on the architecture, so it could - under certain circumstances - have a lot more power. But I don´t really think so.


And yes, I do actually believe the "Xbox Neo" (Whatever. Just don´t call it "Xbox 720". That´s gross) will be announced in 2012. Maybe not at the E3, nonetheless in 2012, with a release in the following year.
Some people said Microsoft won´t release that early, because it has to milk with Kinect every drop out of the casuals first. Which I agree with. But Kinect was released at the very end of 2010. They have already sold more than 10 million units, and I guess they make the money with Kinect itself, not with the games for it (similiar to the Wii).
The point is, Microsoft has more than enough time to sell casual carp (pardon my language), announce Xbox Neo in 2012 (which the casuals won´t even notice), sell more casual carp by the way, and release 2013.

And looking at the R700 architecture in the WiiU, it will be easy for Microsoft to outplay Nintendo technically. Lots of folks here seems to think this would be an expensive thing to do, but it wouldn´t. Microsoft could use technology from now - from 2011 - being cost-effective to produce in 2013 an later on, and still having an advantage of three years to the WiiU (at least regarding the GPU).

P.S.: Before hating begins: That´s all just from the technical side of view and has nothing to do with the quality of games.