Not now since the price and constant flow of great games but earlier on they were pretty poor with even the PSP topping it. And my point was that Monster Hunter Tri came to the Wii because PS3 development costs were too high not because the Wii had higher sales. Monster Hunter fans will come to any console if it has Monster Hunter so even on a console with terrible sales Monster Hunter would still sell immensely well. That's Monster Hunter is so important companies like Nintendo and Sony because it gives consoles a massive boost in Japan.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself completely. HD console development costs being a factor in why Wii got a Monster Hunter isn't something I have argued against. There simply so much more to why Capcom didn't create a Monster Hunter for the PS3 at the time than simply the high developer costs of HD development. It has to do with the market within Japan where Monster Hunter contains majority of its audience. The investment wasn't worth it compared to the market that existed for HD consoles within Japan at that time or now for that matter. Wii had a larger market, it wasn't too difficult to share resources from the PSP, and it represented a lower investment. The Japanese market is far too small today for extensive development on a franchise unless it has some significance in the West.

Not really the 3DS is getting to Monster Hunters despite poor sales. Wii got Monster Hunter solely for cheaper development costs not because of sales. I'm pretty sure it will, Monster Hunter's on PS2, PSP, Wii, 3DS, PS3 and even the Xbox 360 so I think are chances are pretty good. Heck Capcom said they were going to put it on the Nintendo DS but it wasn't powerful enough so they went for PSP.

The 3DS sales haven't been poor. Currently the handheld looks to out pace the first year sales of DS. The thing is regularly the top selling hardware in Japan since the price drop. Nintendo simply didn't push hard enough with the 3DS to maintain momentum at its previous price, but the DS suffered similar handling. Monster Hunter is a Japanese focused franchise. This is why I stated that the only way Wii U would get a Monster Hunter release is if the Wii U sells well in Japan. So much of the Japanese market is handhelds thus why this franchise with most of its focus in Japan has for the most part stuck with handhelds this gen. Monster Hunter for the 3DS is a natural fit for the Japanese Market. Monster Hunter for Wii U not so much. We'll have to see if the new controller helps the console create a market significant enough to warrant Capcom making a Monster Hunter game for the console.

Monster Hunter originally went to the Wii because of the franchise's Japanese market focus. There simply wasn't enough of an audience for the franchise to warrant HD developing costs because primarily the Japanese console market is too small to warrant that sort of investment. Wii U is going to have to over come that issue if Monster Hunter is ever going to grace its library. The touchscreen controller may very well help the console in that regard.

I was just going by the official press release.

Those sort of things are often full of PR. I'm merely speculating on the reasons that Wii got a Monster Hunter and how that compares to the possibility that Wii U will get a Monster Hunter release based both on official statements and common sense. The Wii U has to create a larger audience within Japan for Japanese console games or the Monster Hunter games for the 3DS have to create a reasonable audience within the west if they are going to be localized. Otherwise a Monster Hunter for the Wii U isn't really guaranteed. Outside this Nintendo would have to money hat to Capcom for a console version.

My other point was that Monster Hunter isn't the kind of game that needs the hardware to have good sales for it to sell well because Japanese gamers will buy the hardware for it. Also Nintendo said they're willing to invest in third party exclusives for the 3DS and Wii U so I'm sure they'd give a moneyhat to Capcom for Monster Hunter on Wii U. In fact I reckon they paid for Monster Hunter 4 to be exclusive to the 3DS as well.

Still why would Capcom create a Monster Hunter game for Wii U when they could simply make sequels for the Monster Hunter franchise and spin-off titles for 3DS and Vita. Handhelds are increasingly the preferred gaming devices for the Japanese market, where in their console market selling over 200,000 copies is extraordinary. Major Western franchises would crash at current dev costs within a similar sized market. The audience for Monster Hunter is completely complacent with a handheld experience. In other words there is no driving force for Capcom to develop a Monster Hunter game outside handhelds within its current market. The Wii U has to place itself as a major force in Japan like no console has done in recent memory or Nintendo has to foot the bill. Otherwise Monster Hunter for Wii U doesn't make financial sense for Capcom.

My point was that Monster Hunter sells great no matter what. Also Nintendo has said they're willing to invest in third-party exclusives for the 3DS and Wii U some I'm sure they'd give a moneyhat for Monster Hunter on Wii U. In fact I bet that's how they got Monster Hunter 4.

I don't rule out Nintendo potentially footing the bill for a Monster Hunter for the Wii U. My point is merely that Capcom doesn't have an incentive to create an entry within the franchise on the Wii U otherwise really unless Wii U proves to drastically increase the size of the console market in Japan. For what it would cost to develop a single Wii U title they could likely create several entries and spin offs for the handheld market, which ultimately would prove more profitable. Then footing the bill for a proper Monster Hunter for the Wii U would be considerably more expensive than footing the bill for the 3DS. Financially Nintendo may not see the point for footing the bill for such an expensive purchase especially when majority of the console market is the west where majority of their troubles are likely to occur.

Monster Hunter going to the Wii U depends greatly with how good the Wii U sells in Japan. So much of the Monster Hunter's market is Japanese, which is why when the Japanese market moving toward handhelds instead of consoles the series moved to being a handheld focused franchise. Wii got a version of Monster Hunter partly because of its sells compared to PS3 and it represented far less of an investment for Capcom. The Wii U's presence in the Japanese Market is going to have to be significant for this franchise to ever see a console launch.

The Wii U likely runs four to five times as hot as the Wii without being any more than 42% larger in volume. The design of the Wii U simply has to accommodate design choices that keep this thing from melting or breaking while in use.

Actually, I'm thinking along the lines of... Well... What do you usually do when you go to a gaming Cafe? That's right, play online games. (At least, that's what I heard.)

That means that it will have awesome online features...

Plus...

If that box photo is real...



People, we're looking at an MMO console.

Its fake don't ever trust so called leaked photos. They are always fake.

You can't say for sure. Even if no leaked real photo's have ever come up for past console releases, there's nothing saying that this one can't be real either. This is the first time a Nintendo console has been leaked to this extent, is it not?


Everything involving pre-release leaks and rumors can be compared to Schrödinger's cat. Just as the cat is both alive and dead, these rumors are both true and false. Until the box is opened, figuratively and literally, we can't tell.

Besides, current rumors and previous examples show that at least the first two rumors are likely... The similar build to the 360 and Spotpass, respectively.

A poster at Neogaf examined those photos and determined it was fake from the way Nintendo is printed in the image. Plus according to IGN you has broke a considerable amount of info on the device its the size of the original Xbox and looks like a updated Super Nintendo.

Individuals shouldn't worry too much about how Wii U will compare to Xbox 720 or PS4. If these consoles launch a year after Wii U technical issues would keep them from jumping anymore than fifty percent more powerful than Wii U if indeed the console is about equivalent to a Radeon HD 4850. Even if these consoles launch nearly two years after Wii U it would still be impossible to place Wii U in the same situation as the Wii.

Extremely unlikely.

Looking at the currently rumored specs of the Wii U this is nothing short of impossible without the PS4/720 costing well over 900$ USD to produce (That sounds outrageous, but keep in mind that manufacture cost of a launch 60GB PS3 was $950 USD!). Sony is too smart to make the mistake they did this last generation of releasing a vastly over expensive console that is difficult to develope for, and Microsoft would lose market going this route as well.

Prehaps if either console was release say some 4 years after the Wii U, such of a gap would be expected, but I doubt Microsoft/Sony are being serious about the "10 year lifecycle".

Its impossible for the next Sony and Microsoft consoles to be so above the Wii U in tech to repeat this generation, but its rather easy even regarding the higher spec rumors for PS4 or Xbox 720 to be more powerful machines. It all depends on how these devices are designed and their intended market and price point. If PS4 follows Vita its going to be more powerful, but perhaps not as much as some would like to think as Vita is mostly a device created to budget with little R&D based on current advancements in mobile tech. The next Xbox is harder to speculate about we've heard rumors that Kinect is going to be a heavy focus next gen for the Xbox brand. That eats into revenue to produce the device since that would seem to point to a mainstream product something that could easily be within the ball park of Wii U. So its sane to say that these systems will end up more powerful than Wii U, but by how much we can't say.

Hey, Jikayaki, what did you think of the Zelda tech demo?

It was impressive in its own right. The highlights of HD Experience Zelda Tech demo was the lighting, shadow, particle effects, and resolution of the animations. It looked impressive from the beginning so I really haven't given it much of a second look, but compared to the Japanese Garden Tech demo there wasn't as much going on. I'd safely say that like the Japanese Garden Tech demo the effects done in the Zelda demo was beyond anything you can do with current consoles short of the PC right now. I'm interested in seeing how Zelda Wii U ends up looking like as historically Zelda tech demos are always worse than the final product.

Well, Microsoft plans on using this rendering technique in their upcoming exclusives. In fact, this tech demo was derived from Peter Molyneux's Kinect project, Milo and Kate.

Then its likely that you won't see a whole lot done with this at least not on Xbox 360. They may be able to utilize this technique to a certain degree in real world situations, but something else has to take a hit to utilize it to any real effect. At this point developers don't have much left over processing power to throw into this rendering technique regarding Xbox 360 hardware.

Speaking of tessellation, I just heard that the Xbox 360 will employ a rendering technique called "mega meshes" that will supposedly take advantage of the tessellation unit that I never knew the console had.

Here's a tech demo.

I'm not sure if this is anything to really be excited about. AMD's in hardware tessellation unit in the Radeon HD 4XXX series of GPU's wasn't very efficient. To do anything meaningful with the tessellation unit in the 4XXX series you practically needed the raw computing power of Radeon HD 4850x2 or 4870x2 both of which are practically a full generational leap from Xbox 360's Xeon. I don't see how a tessellation unit on the Xbox 360's Xeon would be any different. Notice how lifeless majority of that tech demo was for instance. This may be too taxing on the hardware for the Xbox 360 to utilize this in any meaningful way in games.

Something to look into the version of this demo used during the conference isn't the full version of the demo and the demo itself is far more impressive if you can find a good quality video. Something missing in this version for instance is the hawk or falcon part of the demo, which shows in real time the seasons changing and the falcon interacting with the environment( pulling a leaf from a tree, rain dripping of the falcon, and the falcon playing in the snow). This demo is actually very impressive once you stop to think about it even in comparison with some of the latest PC games like Witcher 2. You can't play this using current home consoles, and according to Reggie this demo was based off an earlier developer kit, thus doesn't represent the full capabilities of the console. I have higher hopes for Wii U graphically than I did originally. The CPU is likely based on info from IBM based on Power 7 architecture. This means in layman's terms there is a chance that the CPU at least is a full generational leap a head of Xbox 360, so it wouldn't make sense for the GPU to lag behind. It still won't be capable of graphics to the level of that recent EPIC demo, but neither will any next gen consoles.

My impression is that its graphics capabilities are not far beyond the current competition. That is probably plenty enough power anyway, but at the same time they don't want to reveal specs because people would judge the system on the fact that the specs are similar to five year old products, despite that you shouldn't.

We're rapidly approaching a threshold where graphics across the board are going to be impressive and they simply won't matter anymore. There will still be improvements, but they won't be defining systems like they were a decade ago, when everybody was debating what system had the best capabilities.

The industry in the modern era is about marketing, software, and services. Hardware matters more in form than raw tech specs.

What's most important about Wii U on the technical side is its architecture. Work on the system to an extent carries over from the current generation. Don't expect visuals of Wii games to get much better than you see in their first year. Developers already know how to achieve results with the hardware because they've worked on the Xbox 360 for years. Of course they aren't identical, but they're going to find all the ins/out/tricks a lot faster this time.

Your impression is quite off then. Both demos to some degree showcased effects simply impossible to replicate with current generation consoles. That's without mentioning that both demos where running at 1080p native resolution in real time while pulling off Global Illumination, high quality textures, and ext. Literally only a few PC games on their highest settings can do some of the things being done in both demos. The more impressive demo the Japanese Garden Demo is specifically stated as being based on an older version of the hardware and Zelda tech demos always are worse than the final product. Their choice regarding the demos perhaps wasn't the best. It would of helped get the capabilities of the console around to specific crowds of individuals if one demo had been a realistic urban setting (a FPS ext). We've more or less already meet the threshold where most individuals have a hard time telling several of the current improvements in graphics compared to the capabilities of the current consoles. That has a lot to do with the fact majority of it is very subtle and that no developer has really embraced tessellation. What improvements can be seen for next generation consoles also really need to be seen in person or the original video files as recordings lose quite a bit of detail.

As much as I enjoy this news, it`s sad because the wii was perfect for pikimin

You'll still have the capability to use the Wii remote motion controls including Wii motion plus. I'm not surprised Pikimin jumped a generation. You simply have to look at how Nintendo approaches development and how their developers think, especially in the case of Iwata and Miyamoto. During development Miyamoto will completely throw out a game if it doesn't meet his expectations or he wants to add new ideas and those ideas conflict with the current version of the game. This can be seen as the result of the new art direction found in Skyward Sword motivated in part after adding Wii motion plus functionality. With Pikimin it may simply be that the Wii's hardware wasn't capable enough to do what Nintendo wanted thus why this game was continually stuck in development. Now as a plus Pikimin serves as a strong launch title that won't over shadow 3D party titles. Even if those 3d party titles are practically no more than slightly enhanced ports simply because the art direction of Pikimin won't compete directly with the same audience.

It was developed mostly on Wii so even if they did upscale graphics how would they make larger worlds or many different Pikmin then previously intended? If they add a new Pikmin then originally planned then they have to reimagine everything to put those pikmin to use in puzzles & combat. The maps won't that huge or they once again have to start from scratch. If they did a complete HD makeover with all the extra stuff then it would take a few more years. So don't expect a Pikmin game that would blow you away. At least the graphics will look nice

This is Nintendo we're talking about. Many of Nintendo's developers especially Shigeru Miyamoto will throw out a game and start over if ideas and concepts added don't mesh with work already done. It wouldn't surprise me if development changed greatly after the decision to move the title from the Wii to the Wii U was decided. Pikmin 3 itself likely switched consoles during development when ideas and concepts the devs wanted to try couldn't be done on the Wii. Its not entirely impossible that because of the switch to Wii U that not only will there be more Pikmin on screen than was possible with Wii, but improved graphics and new concepts than were originally done for the title before switching platforms.

from what i know it wont be outdated it will be very powerful and graphics are at there max until 2016 when ultra high definition is meant to come out

It will be outdated from launch. The rumored GPU architecture AMD's R700 series is openGL 3.3 and DirectX 10.1 complaint when Nintendo's competitors GPU's will likely be openGL 4.1 and Direct3D 11 complaint. Technically there wouldn't be as large a difference in total functionality as the transition from openGL 3.3 to openGL 4.1 and DirectX 10.1 to Direct3D 11 primarily was simply fixing the issues with the previous API's and adding software based tessellation. Project Cafe's GPU will likewise be capable of tessellation through a hardware based operation AMD integrated into the R700 architecture,but it was hardly used outside tech demos. As far as raw power goes Nintendo's next console could very well be a true next gen leap. There are GPU's in the R700 series that would give an eight to ten times increase over current consoles. It depends on whether Nintendo utilizes a double GPU. The rumored size and price of the console at around the size of the original Xbox and costing from $350 to $400 U.S. dollars because of high manufacturing costs points to the possibility its packing a lot more power than many expect. The only reason N6 ends up being a mid generation increase in power at an expected TDP of 150 watts or more judging from the rumored size is if it uses over the shelf PC parts.

Regarding hardware and software the console will be outdated by release, but few games even use open GL 3.3 and DX 10.1 so there is a level of complexity possible using existing API's that you don't see in majority of games possible on the console. Whether it will be outdated in regard to its hardware's raw power comes down to exactly what R700 series GPU the console's own GPU is based on. The three options I'm hoping for is Radeon HD 4850, Radeon HD 4870, or Radeon HD 4890, which would mean a four, five, or six times more powerful than Xenos. If Nintendo is serious about maintaining 3D party support for the long hall they may choose either a Radeon HD 4850x2 or a Radeon HD 4870x2 equivalent dual GPU, which would mean eight to ten times as powerful as the Xbox 360. Ironically optimizing proven tech from 2008 seems a very Nintendo thing to do and both a Radeon HD 4850x2 and Radeon HD 4870x2 are likely the cheapest way to equal a jump in power equal to the jump from PS2/Xbox to Xbox 360/PS3. I'm reasonably optimistic that Nintendo's next console will be reasonably powerful just on there rumored focus on 3D party developers and regaining the hardcore. Only issue is tessellation, which would be in software with Xbox 3/PS4 and on hardware with N6. Ultimately tessellation will be the largest visual improvement next gen the rest of the power will be utilized for more subtle things, but it would take longer to learn to utilize in hardware tessellation capabilities. The year to year and a half headstart the console may have on the market may remove that issue for any dev that seriously utilizes its hardware.

The "Hawk" statement comes from the complete version of the Japanese Garden tech demo. After the Japanese koi fish the demo continues with a hawk or falcon that then precedes to move around the garden as the seasons change ending with the falcon playing in the snow on one of the roofs. This tech demo is something you really needed to see in person at the event or through high quality video to get the full effect. It's actually quite impressive in my opinion certainly not something you can do on current consoles outside the PC. We don't yet have any real hard facts on the consoles specs, but from the IBM Watson statements we can determine its based on Power 7 architecture (honestly the only real choice Nintendo had anyway). It really is possible that Wii U's CPU could be a full generational leap over Xbox 360 and it wouldn't make sense if the GPU didn't match the CPU's capabilities. It still greatly depends on what exactly you expect from a generational leap and the specifics of the chipset. There likely will be a gab between Wii U and Xbox Next and PS4, but it likely isn't going to be as large as many think. Currently I'm thinking Dreamcast comparative to the GameCube or Xbox is about as bad as its going to get.

I'm sure it could but it would have to be with low settings, lol.



I was impressed with the background but something about the bird just seemed off...idk what it is.

Anyways, that was a tech demo, not representative of graphics during actual gameplay.

Remember the Quantic Dream's tech demo for the PS3 that had everyone's jaws dropping to the floor? Well it took Quantic Dreams 4 years to actually to be able to make a game with those visuals (Heavy Rain) and even then it wasn't on par with that original tech demo...and to even get close to it, the entire game had to be done in QT events.

Other than Heavy Rain, no game has even come close to what they showed off in that Tech Demo for the PS3 and we're well into the systems life cycle...if games were going to be able to do it, they'd have done it already.

It's entirely possible (if not likely) that it'll be the same for the Wii U with it's tech demo's.

Not that it would be a bad thing, it's still a MAJOR step up from the original Wii and short of people who made the massive mistake of actually buying into all the b/s pre-reveal hype no one expected a modern day graphical powerhouse from Nintendo.



I'm not against Nintendo, I love me some Zelda, Mario, DK and Kirby. I'm against people who try to irrationally overrate products or features of products.

You have to look at Nintendo's attitude regarding tech demos and general tech specs. Really the reason Nintendo stopped releasing technical specs regarding its systems is what happened with GameCube. Sony and Microsoft give the media fluffed specs regarding their consoles, which simply wasn't possible in a full game setting. Nintendo on the other hand were more honest and openly discussed the capabilities of the GameCube and the whole situation soured on them. This isn't Sony or Microsoft where consistently you can expect them to show case a tech demo simply not possible on the hardware in a game. Nintendo's tech demos for certain franchises for instance often end up not quite as impressive as the finished product and it wouldn't be like Nintendo to show case a demo that didn't represent what the console is truly capable of pulling off.

Hard drive's seems to be the best choice. One, it's very reliable. Two, you can transfer data between one hard drive, to another.
I think Nintendo should go for the hard drive this time around, if they use an SD card, I will be highly upset.

I think they should make two models, in both $300 and $350 form. (Or $350 and $400 form, whichever.)

The $300 form will have no Hard Drive (however, you can purchase one at a later time if you should want to) and will use external memory to save.
The $350 form will have a Hard Drive (The amount of gigs is TBD) and can also use external memory to save, and you can transfer data from the Hard Drive to the external memory card.

Just my two cents on it anyway.

The reason that Nintendo isn't using an internal hard drive is that they simply aren't reliable enough as well as the extra costs that an internal hard drive adds to a system. Hard drives add more moving parts than Nintendo is comfortable with increasing the likely hood that something breaks. This is primarily why Nintendo likes solid state memory. You will never see a Nintendo console with an internal hard drive. The wide variety of options open currently from SD cards to external hard drives is more than enough storage. For the average consumer 8GBs is more than enough for those who need more at least there will be options to supply that.

firstly i really hope this epicly high power rumour is true, are the quotes definite or possible quotes anyway regarding reasons not to make games for wii u, it seems there should be none untill u realise that the sliders arent clickable like R3 and L3 on ps3. i hate to give bad news but this may make life harder for developers plz someone prove me wrong but i dont know what buttons can replace the click buttons on ps360 controllers. how would you sprint in battlefield

This shouldn't be an issue. The touch screen can handle some functions removing them from face buttons.

Microsoft will most definitely try to round up the pursuit for the gamers choice over the 3 next gen consoles, especially pushing themselves further ahead of PS3. This I am sure of; they want to capitalise on the success of Live, and be able to force Kinect into the mainstream. They will also take some PS3 gamers away from their pedestals, and finally settle a score. I don't' think they will care about costs too much, they will keep throwing money at 720 or whatever till it works, pulling gamers into their consumer base, and will most likely make it an awfully powerful machine and with great potential...somehow. I reckon they are watching Nintendo closely here, and would expect there to be a clash at some point. It would be interesting to say the least! Nintendo will hopefully stand to the mark! They haven't competed properly in years. GO NINTENDO!



XBox fan-boys can go ahead and state that the Wii U will have nothing on it, and I know it has been spoken of before that next gen won't be so 'next gen' when it comes to recently-produced hardware, but Microsoft can work very very hard if they want to. Don't quite understand the unintended contrast stated here. But, sounds to me Jikayaki, that you're suggesting ARM will make the 'loop' more powerful for sure, but will be closer to the Wii U's potential in hardware more so than we understand. Don't know how you've come to suggest all of the above, but i'd be interested in reading a link? Would be good to check out new XBox rumours, if there is any. Might be similar to the way Wii U supposedly had information 'leaked' all those months ago, before E3

All I'm saying is even with ARM architecture its rather easy for Xbox Loop to out perform the Wii U. It certainly isn't a certainty. If the Next Xbox is ARM based its also possible that in some ways the Wii U using more conventional hardware would have some advantages. ARM architecture however would be in Nintendo's favor if it is in the next Xbox. Development for ARM is focused toward mobile devices I doubt creating a chip equivalent to modern desktop chips would be a wise investment to the point that more conventional hardware would cost less.