And yet, if you combine the sales of GCN and WIi they sold 117 million (95 million of that Wii) and if you combine the 360/PS3 sales, they surpass Nintendo in sales by 14 million (131 million total sales). However, alone, 360 only sold 67 million and the PS3 sold 62 million. So, the Wii was weaker, yet sold more, and the hardware was developed back in 1998. So Nintendo clearly won, and they made a ton of money, considering the development of the Wii tech was paid for in the previous generation. The Wii sold more, was cheaper to develop, and now Nintendo has ton of cash to spend on ... what, exactly? Making GCN 3.0? Really? No, they are making a Wii U -- a next generation console.
To show more evidence of this point, Nintendo is not taking the Wii hardware and just upgrading it. They are going from a PowerPC G3 processor to a POWER7. Literally jumping four generations from what the Wii had. And two generations from whath the 360 is based on. To add to the point, the technology in the POWER7 is not a minor upgrade. The POWER6 was said to be a super computer on a chip, and people asked if Apple made the right choice going to Intel (clearly they did, Intel is way cheaper). POWER7 is leagues better than the PowerPC G5 processor (or Xenon, actually, which is not in the same family as the G5 but are similar in technology).
Sure, we still don't know what the GPU will be. We know it is part of the Radeon HD family. But why would the grandfather of video games -- the oldest still making hardware in the business (Microsoft and Sony are "new kids" on the block) -- choose a weak card when they are choosing such a great processor? It doesn't make any sense, at all. In fact, the first rumors were pointing Nintendo choosing an old card, sure, but one of the best ones from that time period -- one that AMD based for the newer models going forward. Basically, a good foundation for building a grand card for a company that was -- according to developers -- changing the specs constantly.
My final point, is that Wii U older dev kits were able to do the Zelda demo which was in 720p. It was outstanding. And it was older hardware. Unfinished, yet still able to out preform the other, last generation consoles (PS3/360). Don't get me started on that Garden demo, which was fantastic. Speaking of that one, look at the trees. Then go watch the Last of US trailer on PS3 . The environment clearly shows the age of the PS3 tech, yet the Wii U was able to outshine it on unfinished, older tech. Epic practically said in other comments that UE3 can do more on the Wii U then what that Zelda HD demo showed. (Samaritan video, anyone?) By the way, just because he said UE3 doesn't mean UE4 can't run on Wii U. In fact, the comment could indicate it will -- it's like saying, "Yeah, we can do better with out current tech, and our newest baby will smoke you." Remember, they are making a point OF NOT CONFIRMING anything at this point.
..... Need I say more?
why did you quote me lol im not doubting the wii u's ability at all i was simply telling him that the wii was still next gen.
idk what your post had to do with mine but it was good nonetheless.
