If you guys want to "believe" that the WiiU will be some powerhouse that Nintendo "designed in-house" and will sell for a high price so they could make a profit on hardware then more power to you...we will find out soon enough. If all they could come up this generation is Wii with outdated console paired with new controller then next generation I see them doing the same with WiiU's new controller.
Well, you could get all defensive for everyone disagreeing with your
miss&miss rampage of decisively wrong statements (Gamecube being a "Dreamcast + PS2", Flipper being somehow equivalent to GS because it has edram, SH-4 being MIPS, Nintendo not having anyone to design a GPU, you being able to "design" a console.. the list goes on and on) or... you could just accept that you were wrong and come out in a more responsible manner.. It's your call.
If you look closer, you'll see that none of the people refuting your statements actually implied that the WiiU will be very powerful or very weak,.
BTW, regarding the "if I had enough money" statement.. well, no sh..t sherlock..
With enough money you can buy a house. It doesn't mean you're competent enough in all civil construction areas to make a house by your hands.
Following the exact same line thought, any person/company can get pretty much anything if they pay another person/company to do the job for them.
Either you can make a profitable business out of it, it's a whole other issue, and Nintendo does
not pay other companies to make the motherboard design + component/specs choice for their consoles.
Honestly I can't believe the number of people proclaiming Nintendo had designed the most balanced consoles. Seriously?
Did you guys already forget the N64 ROM fail.
Yes, seriously.
Both GC and Wii (so home consoles designed during the last 10 years) were well balanced consoles within their own segment and very cost-effective too.
The N64 (15 years ago, who knows which employess from '96 are still working in the company..) wasn't a good example, granted. It was also kind of a rushed console, though. Let's not forget that Playstation was originally a Nintendo+Sony project, and the N64 ended up rushed-up and late when Sony decided to go alone (AFAIK, mostly because of Nintendo being too arrogant at the time).
Did you forget the weak non-programmable GPU in BOTH GameCube and Wii? Did you forget the split memory design with "extra slow" 16Mb audio memory?
The TEVs are programmable. They're not as flexible as DX9+ shaders but I've seen many developer statements claiming they're comparable to DX8.1 pixel shaders. There's no way that a game like The Conduit could be made otherwise.
No one complained about the console having 16MB of slow and cheap RAM because audio processing and CD buffering doesn't require faster memory. Nintendo went with a non-UMA design because it proved to be very cost-effective at that time. OTOH, developers actually praised the fast and low-latency 1T-SRAM in the console.
Or are you just buying up the hype they have designed a super balanced new console?
Consider this - a lot of developers have seen the specs already and you don't see anyone but being cautious about what they say ...
Some people have assumed that building a gaming system using more cost/transistori/power efficient components than PS3 or X360 should be probable to happen simply because of the technology they have at their disposal right now -> it's by no means related to a dumb hype... You almost make it sound like we're adoring Steve Jobs because he invented video-calls..
And no, not many developers have seen the final specs.
In fact, most of the latest developer statements about the console are leading to the fact that the specs aren't finalized yet, hence the general "silence" about the console being more or equally powerful than the other two.
