dankir said:Honestly, let them take their damn time.
I'm enjoying the fuck outta this current generation. I don't wanna upgrade for at least 3 - 4 more years.
Because you typically sit about half a metre away from your monitor, compared to over 2 metres from your TV?kiUNiT said:Then why are PC 26" lcd's 2500x1600 already?
duk said:if ps4 comes in 2016 expect even less developer support, sony can't be late to the ball game anymore, it needs to come out within 6 months of 720.
duk said:if ps4 comes in 2016 expect even less developer support, sony can't be late to the ball game anymore, it needs to come out within 6 months of 720.
With the expense and success of this crop of systems--which have been out two to three years--it could be closer to eight years before we see the PlayStation 4, Xbox 720 and Nintendo "Us"--or whatever they end up being called.
viciouskillersquirrel said:I honestly don't know on what grounds you're expecting the market leader to have a shorter lifespan than the other two. Market leaders have typically had a vested interest in keeping a generation going for as long as possible.
In the case of this generation, the other two will want to keep the generation going for longer than usual too. This is mostly for profitability reasons. I believe that this current generation will be the last where a tech arms race will occur for a long time.
Mark my words: Nintendo will not announce its new system before Microsoft and Sony do.
Also, next gen will feature cheaper components and more modest specs in comparison high end PCs of their day than either the PS3 or Xbox 360 did when they launched. The generational leap may be comparable, but only because more time will have elapsed between the start and end of the generation.
Kuramu said:One thing that I find interesting... Every gen has had a newcomer, save one.. this one. Sony Nintendo MS, same as last time. Surely some company out there smells blood and is plotting a coup.
Agent X said:Atari founder Nolan Bushnell once said something very similar. I don't have the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of, "Nobody wants to buy hardware, they only want software. Hardware is just something you buy in order to use software."
Dirtbag 504 said:The next system I think we are going to hear about is DS2. And I'd guess we'd hear something about it by next e3.
Psychotext said:Are we really suggesting that MS will go even longer with the 7 years between releases it would take to bring the next xbox out in 2012? Let alone the utterly ridiculous 7 years from now in the article.
I think it can't be more than a year unless Nintendo really wants to challenge itself. It's normally really hard to beat a competitor when he already has a good library and the goodwill of the third parties (except when he screw it big time like Microsoft).charlequin said:Since the PSP is essentially free money for Sony right now, too, I don't think they'll be any hurry to replace it -- but they'll definitely announce PSP2 before DS2, probably by a significant margin.
The question is: When the competitors won't release their consoles in 2012, do they think they will have a better position against Nintendo one or two years later? Nintendo itself gains the more influence the longer this cycle lasts.charlequin said:Yes. This generation is very different from previous ones, especially in pricing: given the path they've taken so far, Microsoft could easily continue to sell 360s at increasingly mass-market-friendly prices for years well past 2012.
As people have noted, dev cycles are longer, prices are higher, and R&D losses on the HD systems are immense -- it's simply not sustainable to maintain five-year cycles given the current economics of the industry.
kiUNiT said:Then why are PC 26" lcd's 2500x1600 already?
Well technically they already look like crap.. I mean you can run any games (except Crysis) on a 169$ HD4850 at 1920x1200 at 4xFsaa , 16xAF between 40-90fps+...jon bones said:I'm down for getting a new system in 2012, my 360 has plenty of life left in it.
Deus Ex Machina said:Well technically they already look like crap.. I mean you can run any games (except Crysis) on a 169$ HD4850 at 1920x1200 at 4xFsaa , 16xAF between 40-90fps+...
Psychotext said:To the best of my knowledge, the longest gap between console releases was Sony with the PS2 - PS3 (6 years, 1 month based on US release dates).
Neo C. said:I think it can't be more than a year unless Nintendo really wants to challenge itself.
The question is: When the competitors won't release their consoles in 2012, do they think they will have a better position against Nintendo one or two years later? Nintendo itself gain the more influence the longer this cycle last.
jmdajr said::lol :lol :lol
Diablos said:GTFO, nobody's waiting until 2018.
In fact, Sony and/or MS will probably copy Nintendo and come out with a console that is basically a minor upgrade to its predecessor, with waggle-like functionality. I would not be surprised at all if this happens.And it will suck if it does.
Zero_Phoenix said:I'll add some :lol :lol :lol No way you're going to be running Crysis anywhere that good even on crazy multi-SLi setups... Guy is full of shit.
Forbes said:"The worst case is, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all pick a different interface," says id Software's John Carmack. "That's because you have to program so differently for [the different architectures]. If we end up with a diverse set of GPUs [graphics processing units], it would make life difficult."
"The truth is, we just don't know," Carmack says.
KHarvey16 said:To be fair he said "except crysis."
[Nintex] said:Nintendo might want to push the competitors out of the market. The perfect way to do this is to lower the price of the Wii to $99 in 2010 to cover the budget market and to launch a new high-end console for $249/$299 which is slightly more powerfull than the Xbox 360/PS3 has a new "innovation" but games will look better than their Xbox 360/PS3 counterparts since Nintendo will be able to use the newest GPU features and shaders. The competition won't expect them to launch early. It's the "market disruption" all over again.
Kuramu said:One thing that I find interesting... Every gen has had a newcomer, save one.. this one. Sony Nintendo MS, same as last time. Surely some company out there smells blood and is plotting a coup.
To assume that the 360 and PS3 will stay longer than the previous cycles, you also assume that they will do somehow allright in the next few years. I think this is quite hard to predict, perhaps those two consoles will die quite harshly and be forced to drop the price big time. There's no guarantee that both competitors can stay profitable in the next few years, we don't know when they reach the peak in their sales.kame-sennin said:Most people in this thread seem to disagree with the article. They expect the current generation to last as long as previous ones. But how can we talk about next gen without talking about the costs involved (something I haven't seen a lot of)?
The 360 and PS3 are barely profitable now. Will Sony and Microsoft's shareholders be happy about launching another presumably loss-leading console so soon? Think of the development, production, and marketing costs involved with a new launch. Also, how cheap will the 360 and PS3 be in 2011? Are Sony and MS willing to leave the mass market on the table as they move into next-gen?
Iced_Eagle said:2010, 2011 would be my hopes. I mean, sure the systems will still do well after that, but I think after that, we're no longer questioning their power, but whether consumers will want to deal with having the systems that long.
kame-sennin said:Why? The Xbox, Playstation, and Wii are just plastic boxes until you put games in them. If the game experiences remain fresh, why would consumers get tired of them? We have limited data on long lasting consoles because losing manufacturers are always trying to change the market with new entries (and incumbents are rarely brave enough to not respond). But looking at the NES, Gameboy*, PS1, and PS2, it seems that consumers have no problem sticking with an older product as long as there is a steady supply of new software.
*The Gameboy actually survived multiple generations before it was even updated, and then later replaced.
disappeared said:just throwing this out there as kind of a b-side discussion, but I can't wait to see what 360 and PS3 games look like by 2012. By that time pretty much all developers will have grasped the technology ins and outs and we're probably going to see some really good stuff. Things like MGS4 and Gear of War are hopefully just a taste.
kame-sennin said:The PS2 held out for a while against the 360 in spite of the fact that development resources were being shifted to its successor - both externally and internally. How well would PS2 have done if it had full support and no threat of a PS3?
stewacide said:The thing that bothers me about this generation is that we're stuck with either inferior graphics (Wii) or inferior controls (360/PS3). It seems almost like a half-generation advancement in each case.
Knowing what we know now, I wish I system(s) with 360/PS3 level graphics with Wii/Motion+ controls was launching right around now for ~$300. Last-gen ended way too early / had a lot more lift in it.