I agree with both of those points.

Also Oculus Rift support.

Well, that's interesting. If they do it I just hope they can get the timing right; this thing could find them stuck with too little time to support it before the competition moves up and puts them in a bad position to compete next time around. They'll have to hope this gen lasts 7 years or more.

Come out with a super high end system now, make it compatible with all Wii/Wii U games, sell it for $400, but anyone who bought a Wii U prior to X date gets it for $50. Profit.

Backwards compatibility tends to be an Achilles heel, limits moving forward by sticking to the past. Still, technically, Sony allowed more or less full back catalog on the PS3 (at least on the one I own) and the PS4 (possibly. Maybe not.)

Turns out as much as I claim to want previous gen, once I catch a whiff of "next-gen" graphics I tend to struggle with returning to the previous gen.

Let the Wii U be Nintendo's 32X, now bring on your (more successful) Dreamcast dammit.

I think that's really only a problem for PS1 era style graphics and beyond. As they add polygons and increase texture depth and draw distance, you feel those hits going forward.

That's not as true for older games and more "stylized" presentations like what Nintendo is famous for, as a choice or as a result of hardware limitations doesn't matter.

I'm okay with backwards compatibility if it doesn't get in the way. The implementation of backwards compatibility with the Wii U isn't exactly ideal, and I'd argue that the overemphasis of Wii stuff is part of the reason the Wii U flatlined, muddying Nintendo's message. I'd love to see Nintendo leverage the past as an asset, but I don't want it to be an anchor that drags them down.

Nintendo would have a really tough time justifying another PowerPC-based system to developers unless they're just completely going their own way.

I meant to add that, there's a big difference between playing Flashback on the Genesis and Fade to Black on the PSX.

Word.

For two days I have intended to post Nintendo needs to get Rift support. However it just doesn't seem like their style. It would be a match made in heaven for me though. VR Zelda.

I get the analogy, but the Wii U is clearly HD, so there would be a difference between it and the Wii.

Aside from "graphics" there is not much different between the Xox 360 and Xbox One. Both have controllers and some camera attachment.

I sorta disagree with that. Nintendo had clearly dropped the "3D" about 6-9 months after launch. What was always "It looks amazing in 3D!!" was ignored. Nintendo at least corrected that ship pretty quickly, and while I agree the 2DS was probably sold for the kids, it's not like Nintendo had just recently stopped talking about 3D because of Pokemon. (I have a 2DS and love it)

I really can't remember the last time a Nintendo Direct mentioned '3D' for a 3DS title. It's all gameplay and such.

The problem with the Wii U being HD is that while it's a big step up from the Wii, it isn't a marked improvement on the Xbox 360 and PS3. Which would be fine, except for the fact the Xbox 360 is nearly 9 years old.

I'm so glad we've nearly solved this problem.

Yes, there's a difference between the Wii and the Wii U, but that's the same difference that Sony and Microsoft leveraged almost a decade ago. It doesn't have quite the same draw now.

Right. That's why Sony snd Microsoft are pushing social features this gen. The graphical difference isnt as significant as SD to HD. Nintendo hasnt had the best tech in a few generations, so they aren't likely to get tech heads who want cutting edge tech.

Here, here!

I'd argue that the DS itself rarely used the dual screen all that effectively. Sure there are titles that really integrate it into the gameplay, but many just tack it on as an extra map screen or something. And I'm not downplaying those games, some of my favorite DS games barely use that second screen.

I never owned a DSi, but I never really saw a need for any of the "upgrades" that version had. And the 3D in the 3DS was a novelty that I would switch on, then quickly switch back off, because it was gimmicky and drained the batteries. But what turned the tide in all of these systems (except maybe the DSi) was software, and mainly (but not entirely) 1st party software at that.

Why did they go DS anyway? I thought it was odd that they originally said it wasn't a sequel to the GBA, and then I wondered if it wasn't to try to curb piracy, since simulating a second touch screen seems awkward at best without the actual hardware.

I actually kind of disagree with this, especially after playing Assassin's Creed IV, Battlefield 4 and Need for Speed Rivals. It's amazing just how bland last gen actually was.

I wouldn't necessarily say bland, but I would still say there is noticeable difference. Pop in NFS Rivals and compare it with last year's version of NFS Most Wanted or BF3 vs BF4 and there is a fairly noticeable difference in the console versions. And since these are just launch versions, I expect by this time next year we are going to start to realize what the next gen systems can really do.

It depends on the game. Dead Rising 3 didn't blow me away visually, but the sheer amount of chaos on the screen without any real hit in framerate (despite what previews claimed) definitely doesn't feel like something I could see on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Killzone: Shadow Fall easily eclipses anything from the previous gen as far as visuals go...far and away the most dramatic leap of any of the next-gen games I've played.

...but yeah, I don't completely disagree. When I picked up my Xbox 360, I stopped playing Xbox games. When I picked up my PS3, I didn't play the PS2 anymore. I generally stopped playing the Wii when I upgraded to a Wii U. On the other hand, even though I have an Xbox One and a PS4, I don't feel like I'm slumming it at all on the Wii U. (It continues to be my favorite of the 3 most recently released consoles.) I still play my PS3. I goof around with Rocksmith on the 360 every once in a while. This is the first generation of gaming that I've been a part of where I didn't want to completely turn my back on less capable systems.

I still don't see the big leap in next gen. Sure, kill zone is prettier, but at least for the current crop of games it seems like mainly ports and more of the same as last gen. And I have both systems and a half dozen next gen games. Still it's early. I still think Nintendo is filling a niche that the other companies are not. Compare the launch lineup of the new systems to the 3ds or wiiu lineup and they're vastly different. Even Knack, which seems on the surface to be the most accessible launch game, is brutally hard.

If you haven't bitten on Super Mario 3D World yet, it'll be $39.99 at Target between 2/2 and 2/8. I'm sure there'll be an Amazon price match then too.

There's a lot of "will they / won't they" about the Wii U release of Watch Dogs. First Gamestop's Italian stores started cancelling pre-orders, telling people that Ubisoft had cancelled the Wii U version. Ubisoft said "no comment", and before too much longer, the game popped back up on gamestop.it (or whatever). Now, the same thing's reportedly starting to happen at U.S. Gamestop stores. It's still up on the website, but stores are informing customers who preordered that they need to shift their preorder to another game or cancel it. Again, no comment from Ubi.

This could be a big misunderstanding, but if it is, I don't know why Ubi wouldn't just say so.

It's possible they haven't decided the fate of it either; could be a case where development has progressed solely on certain platforms for time/resource reasons, and they've left the Wii U version as a "if we have time" sort of thing.