What is wrong with the WiiU?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] The ps2 has a computing power of 6.2 gflops The dreamcast only 1.4 gflops And the ps2 was the weakest of all the rest. But the playstation had a lot more going for them, the succes of the playstation 1 for instance, the dvd, they released also ahead of the others (besides sega then). The xbox may have been a lot stronger on paper but it was basically just a pc, which is not the same as a custom console. Xbox was also new to the market and came more than a year behind the ps2. The ps2 had enough power to make it, the dreamcast didn't. evildead6789

lol, flops...

It doesn't matter how much "flops" a console has (we're not talking about general computing here after all), it matters what it actually manages to output.

Dreamcast was impressive for it's time, a big jump from consoles such as PS1 and N64.

PS2 having, on paper, much more capable CPU didn't really mean anything for real-world game performance.

The GameCube and Xbox had newer GPU architecture and left it in the dust easily when it came to graphical quality.

So no, you're completely wrong about the reason why DC flopped.

It was simply Sega's decision to retreat from the console hardware race due to their heavy financial losses and the hype around the PS2 and other "next-gen" consoles (i.e. GameCube & Xbox) at the time.

You saying flops aren't important doesn't change the fact that they are very important, general computing or game computing, a cpu is a cpu, and it was way more important back then than it was now, because a lot more was programmed on the cpu than on the gpu.

The dreamcast may have been impressive compared to a ps1 and a n64, but it was far from impressive compared to the hardware available at that time. So was the ps2 actually but the ps2 was still strong enough to keep up with the latest game developments like first person shooters for instance. There's a reason the game unreal tournament was laggy on the dreamcast, i couldn't keep up with it, while the unreal version of the ps2 was actually an enhanced version of that on the pc, allthough it came out several years later, but so was was the dreamcast version.

You're talking about the gamecube and the xbox, but they came like 1,5 year later than the ps2. And they got their graphics quality from the developments in gpu's. The fact is the ps2 had enough computational power to keep up, that and the succes of the ps1, the dvd, made the system succeed. Sega's dreamcast had a too weak cpu too keep up and they knew that, the fact that the system didn't support any dvd 's only made it worse, and the screen in the controller would not have saved them. They just threw in the towel to avoid any bigger catastrophes.

Nintendo may have more money than sega had back in the day, but they put a lot of money in that wii u, and it's going to fail miserably, The 3ds is a fail too. Trust me , i can't see the future, but i can't see nintendo competing anymore in this next console war. The next xbox and playstation will support all sorts of crazy stuff (3d for instance), that the wii u simply won't have the power for.

The only thing they can do , is invest in more motionplus games, because i have that, and that works great. But sony has this too, and xbox next kinect will probably deliver. So having a 3d hologram swordfight in your living room will happen , i just don't think the wii u will be able to handle that. It will also not be able to handle next gen graphics, the system will become laggy very fast and it will be RIP nintendo.

How was running Quake 3 on high settings at silky-smooth 60 fps not impressive for a 1998 console?

Dreamcast outdid even top PCs when it first came out in 1998.

DC got a fair share of FPS games and it would have gotten more would Sega not drop support for it. (the DC version of Half-Life was practically finished for instance and came with an exclusive new episode, i.e. Blue Shift)

I'm not familiar about UT on DC but perhaps it was just a lazy port rather than DC being incapable running it smoothly. (because it could run Quake 3 and that had better graphics)

Yeah, you're right about WiiU being incapable of "next-gen" graphics.

Hardware isn't it's strongpoint so it should focus on other things. (i.e. enjoyable, exclusive games, lower price, ect.)

5 years too late, it can't do anything new what the competation have been doing for years , no one wants one because its not needed its irrelevant, only reason to buy one is for the nintendo games, which there are hardly any worth while ones out yet. Say if I buying my first console now, why would I buy a wii u, when I could just buy a 360/ps3 for much cheaper that offers a much larger library of games, and simular hardware, or wait for ps4/720 that have a possiblity of backwards compatibility so I can play all the 360/ps3 library, and will be able to play next gen games unlike the outdated wii u, plus they only just around the coner.

It's too similar to 360 and PS3, which already have libraries of hundreds.

PAL360