Same here its 20mbit. with normal wifi (80% of my connection). 3ds however sucks to dl with.

 

with 32gb internal.

The problem is its STILL 20Mbit max even on 100Mbit broadband which when downloading a large game is annoying.

That makes sense over WiFi, its only capable to around 30-40Mbit at best, but on Ethernet it should be able to hit close to 100Mbit.

That said, even the PS4 only goes around 40Mbit.

What you also have to watch out for are USB 3.0 drives as they will only have a single USB connector due to USB 3.0 being able to output enough current, but when plugged in to USB 2.0 will not have enough current to work reliably.

Like said above though, a USB 2.0 drive designed to work on a single port should be fine, although I have never seen such a device.  Personally, I wouldn't risk using a USB 2.0 HDD without a Y cable no matter what as you can never be sure any USB host puts out exactly 500mA.  Its not unusual for them to be slightly under-spec and a Y cable ensures you do not have any problems.

Also, caddies that you put your own drive in sometimes only come with a single cable even though almost all 2.5" drives need a Y cable to work properly.  You most certainly CAN damage the drive by running it on less current than it needs as it will randomly fail to write data correctly and become corrupt, potentially even damage the platters as it may spin up/down at random preventing the auto head parking from working correctly.

However, if your Wii U is having problems with a USB 2.0 HDD plugged in, either the Wii U or the drive is faulty.  The Wii U should cut power to a USB port if a defective device is plugged in, I would be very surprised if they did not have sensible safety precautions on the motherboard to deal with that.

My head hurts!

This game is finally making me feel happy to own a Wii U again.  I just hope I am better at it than MK7 lol.

Portal is but one game, and its a very unique one at that.  It doesn't compare to the many many console exclusives.

Its rather besides the point though as without PC we wouldn't have the healthy console indie market we have today.  I dare say it also contributes to iOS/Android software because there were already trained programmers thanks to the PC indie market.

We also must not forget that a lot of games which have gone on to do well on console wouldn't have existed without the PC indie/shareware market.

Indeed.  I am constantly surprised by how nice games can even look on the 3DS with its INSANELY low resolution by todays standards.

Do I wish it was higher resolution?  Sure.  Does it ruin the games that its not?  Nope.

The only reason resolution-gate is a "thing" is because some of us, me included, bought a next-gen console partly to finally HAVE 1080p games on console.  I already had it on PC and liked it.  Its more a value-for-money thing.

Then again, if ANY PS4/One game looked as nice as Mario Kart 8, I really wouldn't give a crap what resolution it was in.  Again yes, it would look even nicer in 1080p native, but its darn gorgeous game anyway.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Dont know, but it wouldnt surprise me.

I haven't seen that on PS4, pretty sure I would have noticed it.

Personally, I really enjoyed the game as I didn't have the insane expectations that some people seemed to have.  I'm very much looking forward to Watch Dogs 2 HOPEFULLY properly optimised for the PS4/One/PC.

Then again I have also been enjoying Assassins Creed: Unity and still looking forward to The Crew even after playing the beta, so I'm guessing I wont have much credibility.

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.

For off-screen play the GamePad is a great idea.  I don't get along with playing games on such a small low resolution screen myself, but I can see the merit for it.

Also when you compare it to PS Vita Remote Play, its leagues above.  The PS Vita only having 2.4Ghz WiFi makes it useless, too much interference and it just constantly loses the connection.  The same distance from the console, the WiiU GamePad works flawlessly.

However, its not very ergonomic and that is by far the most important feature of a game controller.  Its a big reason why I loved the Xbox 360, its what I loved about the Gamecube, which is why its so disappointing that Nintendo dropped the ball on the ergonomics this time.  I refuse to get a pro controller because it doesn't work on everything and I am losing out on the Gamepad functionality.  I have it, I might as well use it.

Still, at least Nintendo were thinking about gaming.  Xbox One is even worse, throwing away 25% GPU power compared to PS4 just for the sake of including a better version of Kinect, something already proven as pretty pointless for most games.

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.

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

One of the most innovative features is the wobbling mode

 

Hehehe, yeah I don't know what that is all about.  I bought some adhesive rubber feet for mine as my shelf is too shallow so it wasn't sitting on the PS4s rubber feet at all (so it didn't wobble anyway).

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.

What i mean is all the features on ps4 are available on ps3 or its easy to create on ps3

No they are not, because of the huge increase in RAM mainly.  Also the fact it can access the HDD quicker than PS3.

Streaming to twitch.tv/Remote Play/Saving your last 15 minutes of gameplay.  This is all done due to hardware encoding, the PS3 didn't have that which is why only a few games worked with remote play as those games had to specifically use LESS CPU power for the game and be optimised to work with the software video streaming tech.  Also to be able to remote play from power off you effectively had to leave the PS3 powered on, the PS4 uses ten times less electricity in standby than the PS3 did in remote play off mode.  Likewise the PS4 will be able to suspend your current game in RAM and go into standby in the future, so you can instantly resume playing.

Then there is just general OS improvements.  Being able to go into the Playstation Store without quitting your active game, how quickly you can go look at your trophies without quitting the game (PS3 is very slow as it has a tiny amount of RAM for system tasks), how background downloading works.  Its just a more pleasant OS to use and that is because of the improvements in the hardware.

These are the sorts of improvements I expected Wii U to have over Wii and sadly it does not.  Its still slow and clunky going into different sections of the OS.

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.

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 don't understand some of the logic in here that somehow the Eurogamer article is wrong because a few small developers can write perfectly fine on the Wii U.

That doesn't prove the developer was lazy or incompetent, it proves what we already knew - that it CAN be done but it costs too much time and money to be worthwhile if your game is also releasing on other much easier to write on platforms.

The Wii U is not a BAD platform to develop on, that is clear, but its certainly not as easy as the competition.  When you consider that even the Xbox One and PS4 now have an equal or larger install base than Wii U (and the code can easily be ported between those platforms as they are similar), its a no-brainer than the Wii U is just not third-party developer friendly, unless you are willing to commit a lot of resources to that single platform.

As many have said already, Nintendo thought they could capitalise on the popularity of the Wii and blew it. 

Is the Wii U a failure?  I don't think so, just as I never felt the Gamecube was a failure (and Nintendo certainly didn't, they made a profit on it).  But from a multi-platform developers point of view it is and that doesn't mean they are wrong, because the most important thing for them it for the platform to be profitable and its pretty clear the Wii U so far is not, for them.

I have said it before, based on the Wii I always expected the Wii U to be a platform only really worth buying exclusives on, I always intended to get a PS4 or One for multi platform titles.  The problem is that Nintendo promoted it otherwise and clearly did not support the port teams well enough to achieve that goal and then delayed their own titles so much that many of us felt ripped off.

I read it. Sounds like someone's butthurt over Nintendo not doing his job for him.

I disagree, its clear that Nintendo screwed up.  No way a developer should have been struggling to get a simple "Hello World" to run on a new console and if the debugger has issues, how exactly do you expect the developer to do their job?  Having to GUESS that the network code would work okay because you couldn't run it on proper debugging mode, seriously?

It sounded clear to me that Nintendo made it almost impossible for them to do their job and the end results makes it seem totally plausible.  Its perfectly understandable that with a poor experience like that, no developer is going to give it a second chance.

I mean come on, the sheer fact that the WiiU OS is still such a slow laggy mess should be a clue.  Sony aren't exactly fantastic when it comes to OS coding but the improvements between PS3 and PS4 are huge, its finally is up to Xbox 360 quality of experience (when ironically the Xbox One seems WORSE).  In comparison the WiiU OS experience is just a joke.  If the end user experience is poor, I can only imagine how bad the underlying code must be.

I am still very much looking forward to Mario Kart and Zelda, but that's not going to make me say the WiiU is something its not.  The only thing I can really say that is positive about the WiiU OS is that the backwards compatibility is fantastic.  Although that said, they could easily have made it compatible all the way back to Gamecube and I wouldn't have to go out and buy a Classic Controller to play N64 games.  So even there, its not perfect.

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.

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.