Topic: Is this bad news for the Wii U?

Higher specs also mean better splitscreen gaming, and being able to game at 60fps on both screens instead of 30fps without sacrificing the eye candy.

That carton of river water will be mine... BOOM!

I fail to see how the cloud is going to matter to a games console, but the OS on the Wii U is patchable, so I have no doubt Nintendo could match any service offerings on other platforms if they determined there was a demand for them.

I don't have a 3DS and I don't plan on swapping out my hardware every time Nintendo releases a new fashion colour, so I don't see any need for it myself.

Not really a massive concern. It's the games that sell systems, not the technical power (and look back a bit, the 'weakest' console has won in nearly every generation), so I suspect the mainstream won't care.

And Nintendo generally have their exclusives to fall back on if things go wrong with third party support (if Microsoft or Sony don't get it, they've basically had it).

And finally, people don't have a lot of money at this time. So if they can barely afford a Wii U, how they going to be able to afford Microsoft or Sony's next system?

guys dont worry game developers will come up with a solution to this but even i reckon nintendo were a bit to hasty to bring out there console to early thay should of waited so that thay could keep up with the ps3 and xbox but nintendo is all about fun. the one game i am looking forward to coming out is smash bros and zelda

I'm not interested in "the cloud" (I hate that name) for games. I don't use the services mentioned here, the only one I do use is Dropbox, for collaborating with colleagues. I do get why some people might be interested in it though, which is more than I can say for Facebook or Twitter.

I'm not so convinced by Microsoft's idea of being able to play a game on their console and then continue on their 'phone though. What kind of game, playable on a 'phone, would you want to play on a console?

...yawn....

As glad as I am to finally see some rumoured specifcations I'm over discussing it in any depth for any period of time.

Read Skywake's post, points 3 - 5 (1 is subjective, 2 I'd just drop the adverb "highly" )

Why does it have to be exactly the same game?

Why not, say, an RPG on the console, and then when you're out and about on your phone you could do minigames for experience or the like? Or a platformer where you design levels on the tablet, which is a better platform for user generated content? Or an AR type game where you use your phone's GPS data or location data from photos you take to feed back to your console which then alters the in-game experience? Imagine a fitness game that kept track of the walking routes you take, or a mystery game that requires you to visit physical locations to track down clues?

There are all kinds of new game experiences that Cloud technology can enable, with the kinds of GPSes, wireless connectivity, cameras, and other features that pop up in devices these days. All it takes is some creative developers, not powerful processors.

Interesting!

I see it two different ways: On one hand, better specs do allow for properly-funded games to do some amazing things not possible with lower specs. You have to admit that. I, for one, know that I have found myself, while playing ZombiU, sometimes taken a bit out of the experience by some really terrible, pixelated environment items and other visual shtuff that could have been "smoothed out," so to speak, with higher power (or more time to squeeze available resources out of the console, which I do know will happen down the line). And, for millions of gamers, unfortunately, this is a make or break thing- hundreds of thousands, if not millions of gamers will buy a PS4 or 720 for the higher tech specs. Unfortunate, but true, and I don't really see that mindset miraculously being changed anytime soon.

Then you have the "games are the most important" side of the coin. For me, I can get WAY more fun and enjoyment out of playing Mario rather than playing the next cutting-edge Halo or even Uncharted (although Uncharted does rock...). It's just how I am. I think some of you guys feel the same way, and that's why you bought a Wii U and like to visit Nintendo-oriented forums. Nintendo games are fun for us and can't be found on other consoles, end of story. We always look forward to what this company, which has been in it from early in the game, will amaze us with next. There are ups and downs, but we've thrown in with Nintendo once again, and put our faith in them to keep producing.

Honestly, I think it's going to come down not to specs, but how Nintendo can stay different. And this time around, they put their chips in with the gamepad. If they can make this puppy do some creative and revolutionary things, I think Nintendo will be just fine, no matter the power that Sony and Microsoft can emit from their new consoles. If Nintendo can create an experience, regardless of lower technical specs, that can't be found on other systems- "it will find an audience," to quote from one of those sales-related articles I saw.

Also, we are on a site called "nintendolife"... I think we need to accept the fact that we're going to see a lot of bias swinging the way of the site's aforementioned name.

Long as Nintendo has plenty of exclusive,and big titles they'll be fine.

We're at the point now where there are perhaps five publishers in a position to be able to fund games that take full advantage of an imagined jump in console specs, and of those five publishers, only one or two would have the resources to fund more than one game at that level. That game would have to be so generic to ensure that it can sell enough copies just to break even that it would be a worthless game.

And even then the studio would likely fail because no one seems to want to pay $50 or $60 for a game that cost $50 million to make. The games industry has done a horrible job in pointing out to consumers "hey, you guys make it hard for us to, you know, survive". And that's before a blowout in required budget for a "next gen" console game.

The current console power is about the limit. I expect the PS4 and Xbox 720 to offer something a little bit more to future proof those consoles for a normal console cycle, but it won't be the focus of the next gen of hardware, I would hope. Sony and Microsoft would be better off throwing features like Cloud readiness, GPS, smart phone integration, social networking features, NFC and the like into the console, and give developers the ability to make interesting and creative big budget games without blowing out the development costs beyond where they're at at the moment.

In other words I would hope the next gen of hardware is fought over features, and not specs. The indication is that it will be, if you look at how Sony and Microsoft have been behaving with acquisitions, product development and so on.

It depends on what you look for in a console. If you care more about specs, then the Orbis and Durango will no doubt be better than the Wii U. However, if you look for the games you like, then you will have to make the decision of which console you find better.

I'm sorry but the things you describe don't need a console and if that is indeed the way gaming is going then home consoles are finished. I think augmented reality using eyewear linked to a portable device could well be where games end up going, but if so then I only need the portable device and the cloud for that. In any event I don't think we're there yet (and I'm not sure I'd want to participate in that kind of gaming). What you're describing sounds interesting, but it doesn't sound like killer app territory or anything that Nintendo cannot offer if they wanted to.

After seeing these specs, only one word that came up in my mind: expensive.

My computer has similar specs using AMD Crossfire and it only cost me $500, so I can see these costing a similar amount.

Those are all great ideas and have really been talked about in one way or another for a while. I just wish someone would implement MORE of them. One example is the Fable 3 series. Fable Coin Golf was released on Windows Phone 7. In FCG, you could earn gold that would transfer over to your Fable 3 character on the Xbox. It was a pretty novel idea and made a fun mobile game a bit more rewarding to play. Also, achievements were unlockable on the phone and would transfer over to yoru xbox live account (another example of cloud-based technology).

Yeah, they mentioned something about that a bit ago and then....nothing. I don't know if that's a bad sign or not.

@Bankai
The "cloud" by it's very nature isn't tied to hardware so it's a pretty weak point. As it has since the industry started, what will matter is the games and nothing much else. Nobody cares about cross platform play, cloud saves, GPS phone integration and the power of rooms full of supercomputers behind it. If all you have to play is peggle nobody will be interested in the shiny visuals or unique cloud services.

The c
Our is important because it makes you realize how far back Nintendo online section is. For example I went to a friends house over the weekend and he wanted to play Saints Row 2 with everything unlocked. I logged in and downloaded my save file from the cloud and played from my last save game with everything unlocked.

Same thing with Skulls of the shogun. I can start a game on my Xbox, pull the save up non my phone and play a bit, and then during lunch play on the same file from my tablet.

Sonic 4 episode 2 has cloud saving between the windows phone and Xbox 360 versions.

Data transfer between the fusion Genesis game series and the fable games.

Also more stuff like On live or Gaikai which were going to see Sony GPO big with as it might just save the PS4 backwards compatibility.

Really hope that Nintendo is Woking on it because looking at the transfer process between the 3DS and Wii U versions of monster Hunter Tron Ultimate makes me sad.

I'm sorry, but if 'hardcore gamers' called the Wii 'gimmicky' because the games utilized motion controls, how do you think they would feel about games that required them to walk around and visit real world locations to progress in them? Or take photos of things in real life and put them into the game? Hell, since the days of the N64 we were hearing how games would allow you to take your own face and map it into the game, and some have, yet no one gave a damn and it hasn't caught on at all. All those 'cloud' ideas just sound like a massive waste of time. 99.5% of console gamers just want to sit on a couch (or lay in bed), veg out, and play games on a controller.