2010: Too early or just right?

I was reading a snippet in a gaming magazine (Game Informer), and I saw possible release dates for the new iteration of the current consoles. Do you think it's a bit early or do you think with the average lifespan of a console being 5 years or so, it is the time to release them? It's too early for me, especially since too many people still own a last-gen console.

Way too early. I didn't pay £300 for a new console only for it to become obsolete only 3 years later.

Why is everyone saying its too early? If anything 2010 is late. Look at the history of major console releases:

PSX and Saturn - 1995
N64 - 1996
Dreamcast - 1999
PS2 - 2000
Xbox and GC - 2001
X360 - 2005
PS3 and Wii - 2006

So if you look at console generation trends 2010 is when we would expect at least one new console to come out. In fact, 2009 wouldn't be too out of the question either, but since we haven't heard anything at all yet about new consoles 2010 seems more likely. It doesn't matter if you just now bought your first 256 bit generation console (or Wii), the fact of the matter is that this generation started when the X360 launched three years ago, not when you bought your console. If you just now got one you're three years late to the party, hence the reason you didn't need to pay $400 for a premium 360 or $600 for a 40GB PS3. You got your console cheaper because in another two years its going to be obsolete.

User Wibwanabeebubble

I thunk iss 2oo earlies 200 tim01890

Just kidding guys.

Why is everyone saying its too early? If anything 2010 is late. Look at the history of major console releases:

PSX and Saturn - 1995
N64 - 1996
Dreamcast - 1999
PS2 - 2000
Xbox and GC - 2001
X360 - 2005
PS3 and Wii - 2006

So if you look at console generation trends 2010 is when we would expect at least one new console to come out. In fact, 2009 wouldn't be too out of the question either, but since we haven't heard anything at all yet about new consoles 2010 seems more likely. .....

gameguy6700

Playstation - 1995, 2000, 2006

Nintendo - 1996, 2001, 2006

Xbox - 2001, 2005

As you can see, aside from the 360, they were all released 5-6 years apart. Unless another company releases a console soon, the earliest we should expect to see a new console is late 2010.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Why is everyone saying its too early? If anything 2010 is late. Look at the history of major console releases:

PSX and Saturn - 1995
N64 - 1996
Dreamcast - 1999
PS2 - 2000
Xbox and GC - 2001
X360 - 2005
PS3 and Wii - 2006

So if you look at console generation trends 2010 is when we would expect at least one new console to come out. In fact, 2009 wouldn't be too out of the question either, but since we haven't heard anything at all yet about new consoles 2010 seems more likely. .....

Twiggiy

Playstation - 1995, 2000, 2005

Nintendo - 1996, 2001, 2006

Xbox - 2001, 2005

As you can see, aside from the 360, they were all released 5 years apart. Unless another company releases a console soon, the earliest we should expect to see a new console is late 2010.

Yeah, like I said, 2010 is when we'd expect at least one new console. 2009 is a small possibility but again, like I already said, its a very small one since we haven't even started hearing rumors yet. It's very unlikely that MS or Sony will release after 2010 since they both realize the dire importance of not letting the other get a head start (and MS probably wont release in 2009 since they've learned the importance of QA testing). Nintendo could very well hold off on making a successor to the Wii though since their new main audience isn't the type of consumer who is going to rush out to buy a new console.

Like I was saying, 2010 is a perfectly reasonable date of release for the next generation so I don't understand why people keep saying that it would be too early. The last time we saw a six year long generation was the 16 bit gen which went from 1989 to 1995.

i could see a new nintendo console. they made huge gains from start with the wii. they have everything to gain.

i doubt sony would release ps4 by 2010, though. they took some big hits to finally start making profits off ps3. this hits even harder considering that they released the ps3 a year later than the 360.

i think its possible that ms would release the next xbox in 2010, but i think 2011 is slightly more likely. they had a year headstart, but this will be offset by replacing all those broken 360's. ultimately, i think ms will realise that there's more to milk from the 360. xbox live is still profitable, and will likely be moreso in 2010. a blu-ray drive would extend its multimedia capabilities without needing a new console.

The market will work everything out I hope. The console manufacturers want people to buy their systems, so they have to deliver what people want. They'll put out their stuff when they think people want it, and if they don't, it will only hurt them in the long run. Some people think it is too early, some will think it is too late, but there will be people who buy it.

However, the market is also letting microtransactions happen, and those are totally lame. Then again, some of you here bought the horse armor. You know you did, don't deny it! :)

IF anybody aside from Nintendo makes a new console before 2011 I will shoot myself.Nifty_Shark

Nifty_Shark RIP

I'm still waiting to buy an xbox 360 so i say thats way to early.But even if it did end up dieing out in 2010, plenty of great games and consoles for a much cheaper price.

Yeah, like I said, 2010 is when we'd expect at least one new console. 2009 is a small possibility but again, like I already said, its a very small one since we haven't even started hearing rumors yet. It's very unlikely that MS or Sony will release after 2010 since they both realize the dire importance of not letting the other get a head start (and MS probably wont release in 2009 since they've learned the importance of QA testing). Nintendo could very well hold off on making a successor to the Wii though since their new main audience isn't the type of consumer who is going to rush out to buy a new console.

Like I was saying, 2010 is a perfectly reasonable date of release for the next generation so I don't understand why people keep saying that it would be too early. The last time we saw a six year long generation was the 16 bit gen which went from 1989 to 1995.

gameguy6700

Generations overlap. Next gen hardware being released doesn't mean that developers and gamers automatically drop the previous generation of hardware (my rule of thumb is that until next gen hardware starts outselling current gen hardware on a consistent basis the current gen hasn't ended).

Yeah, like I said, 2010 is when we'd expect at least one new console. 2009 is a small possibility but again, like I already said, its a very small one since we haven't even started hearing rumors yet. It's very unlikely that MS or Sony will release after 2010 since they both realize the dire importance of not letting the other get a head start (and MS probably wont release in 2009 since they've learned the importance of QA testing). Nintendo could very well hold off on making a successor to the Wii though since their new main audience isn't the type of consumer who is going to rush out to buy a new console.

Like I was saying, 2010 is a perfectly reasonable date of release for the next generation so I don't understand why people keep saying that it would be too early. The last time we saw a six year long generation was the 16 bit gen which went from 1989 to 1995.

gameguy6700

I don't think that timing has much to do with anything. In the past the first system to be released was never the bestselling system. The X360 is the bestselling system among hardcore gamers, but the PS3 caught up with it in month to month sales in a year's time, so I suspect factors like pricing (the PS3's), Blu-Ray (the PS3 is the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market), library (Japanese developers decided to support the X360 this time around) and hardware reliability (the X360's failure rate is astronomical) all played a role.

The market will work everything out I hope. The console manufacturers want people to buy their systems, so they have to deliver what people want. They'll put out their stuff when they think people want it, and if they don't, it will only hurt them in the long run. Some people think it is too early, some will think it is too late, but there will be people who buy it.

However, the market is also letting microtransactions happen, and those are totally lame. Then again, some of you here bought the horse armor. You know you did, don't deny it! :)

AtomicTangerine

Saying microtransactions are lame because of horse armor is like saying games are lame because of Lair. Sometimes microtransactions represent content that is either A) held back, B) overpriced or C) A and B but sometimes microtransactions are kickbutt content worth the asking price developed since a game was released (Warhawk's Broken Mirror and Oblivion's Shivering Isles spring to mind).

No way, maybe for Wii, but it would be too soon for PS3 or even 360 (maybe a hardware revision). I'll say 2012, the current gen is way to powerful to dump so soon and remember that Developers need to recoup the costs that this generation shift has causedSciFiCat

i think itll be 2010. both ms and sony will be rushing to be first out the gate, or at least closer in launch timing with each other. sony cant let ms have the lead they did this gen. hopefully sony can flesh out its online scheme in order to have as big of a draw as ms does.

unfortunately, even in 2 years digitial distrobution wont be where it needs to be in order to succeed. so i am unsure what the big draw will be next gen. DRM and lack of broadband penetration are hindering what could be an awesome shift in console gaming. if those issues were solved, we would have a great battle for the all in one video game/movie box that would stream in our content to big hard drives on the systems. the big problem with games and DD is that loss of ownership and ability to resell or lend games out.

anyway itll be interesting to watch happen. i am just unsure what the big draw could be for next gen. i still dont think either ms or sony will let each other have a big lead given what happened this gen. nintendo is in its own market so i really have no clue what they will do. they definitely have the most reason to launch a new system imo. if they can beef up the specs while keeping the cost in line, they will have something great. the wii lacks a hard drive which is just killing it. the online needs massive overhauls. and the system could be a bit more powerful. it doesnt need to be cutting edge, but somewhat current would be nice.

itll be fun to see none the less.

im expecting microsoft to come out with another system next year and nintendo in 2011 and PS 2012

and yes i think that the only reason that they say when a game is going to come out say two years from is just to get everybody all excited

If a new console wanted to come out by the end of 2010, the time to announce it has past. You gotta give a new console at least 1.5-2 years to bake and get the hype up. I see late 2011 at the very earliest.

And I don't care if a 360 game is on 2-4 discs.

It will be fall 2010 at the earliest, (Microsoft, Nintendo) and 2011 at the earliest for PS3.

What makes this gen different then most others is the cost involved in making and maintaining (360) those consoles. The learning curve it takes for programers to learn how to push the system. Each release has soooooo much $$$$ invested in it, the game has to sell well to recoup expenses. If you want to piss off developers, and release a bunch of systems, they will thank you by not supporting your systems :::cough Sega cough:::.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Yeah, like I said, 2010 is when we'd expect at least one new console. 2009 is a small possibility but again, like I already said, its a very small one since we haven't even started hearing rumors yet. It's very unlikely that MS or Sony will release after 2010 since they both realize the dire importance of not letting the other get a head start (and MS probably wont release in 2009 since they've learned the importance of QA testing). Nintendo could very well hold off on making a successor to the Wii though since their new main audience isn't the type of consumer who is going to rush out to buy a new console.

Like I was saying, 2010 is a perfectly reasonable date of release for the next generation so I don't understand why people keep saying that it would be too early. The last time we saw a six year long generation was the 16 bit gen which went from 1989 to 1995.

CarnageHeart

I don't think that timing has much to do with anything. In the past the first system to be released was never the bestselling system. The X360 is the bestselling system among hardcore gamers, but the PS3 caught up with it in month to month sales in a year's time, so I suspect factors like pricing (the PS3's), Blu-Ray (the PS3 is the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market), library (Japanese developers decided to support the X360 this time around) and hardware reliability (the X360's failure rate is astronomical) all played a role.

I don't know if I'd say that it is of "dire importance", but I do believe that releasing first provides some great advantages. If MS launched around that same time as Sony, I don't think they'd be in nearly as good a position.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

The market will work everything out I hope. The console manufacturers want people to buy their systems, so they have to deliver what people want. They'll put out their stuff when they think people want it, and if they don't, it will only hurt them in the long run. Some people think it is too early, some will think it is too late, but there will be people who buy it.

However, the market is also letting microtransactions happen, and those are totally lame. Then again, some of you here bought the horse armor. You know you did, don't deny it! :)

CarnageHeart

Saying microtransactions are lame because of horse armor is like saying games are lame because of Lair. Sometimes microtransactions represent content that is either A) held back, B) overpriced or C) A and B but sometimes microtransactions are kickbutt content worth the asking price developed since a game was released (Warhawk's Broken Mirror and Oblivion's Shivering Isles spring to mind).

But those aren't really MICROtransactions, if you get what I'm saying. Those are expansions that just happen to be downloadable. There is a difference between downloadable software and paying for tiny pieces of a game that are already on the disc and whatnot.

Either way, its just semantics really! Thanks for making me clarify what I meant.

Why is everyone saying its too early?gameguy6700

Instead of looking at the past, look at the present. Look at the console prices. A last generation console is still competing. The consoles themselves are much different than before - they're online, they're updateable. Sony has still to release Home. I honestly can't see a new console in 2010 - not by anyone.

Saying microtransactions are lame because of horse armor is like saying games are lame because of Lair. Sometimes microtransactions represent content that is either A) held back, B) overpriced or C) A and B but sometimes microtransactions are kickbutt content worth the asking price developed since a game was released (Warhawk's Broken Mirror and Oblivion's Shivering Isles spring to mind).CarnageHeart

Shivering Isles is a full-on expansion pack. Microtransactions are meaningless pieces of content designed not to prolong a great game experience, but solely to rip people off.

both ms and sony will be rushing to be first out the gate, or at least closer in launch timing with each other. sony cant let ms have the lead they did this gen. hopefully sony can flesh out its online scheme in order to have as big of a draw as ms does.OneWingedAngeI

I hope we're past that. The console "war" has never been as irrelevant as it is today.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

The market will work everything out I hope. The console manufacturers want people to buy their systems, so they have to deliver what people want. They'll put out their stuff when they think people want it, and if they don't, it will only hurt them in the long run. Some people think it is too early, some will think it is too late, but there will be people who buy it.

However, the market is also letting microtransactions happen, and those are totally lame. Then again, some of you here bought the horse armor. You know you did, don't deny it! :)

AtomicTangerine

Saying microtransactions are lame because of horse armor is like saying games are lame because of Lair. Sometimes microtransactions represent content that is either A) held back, B) overpriced or C) A and B but sometimes microtransactions are kickbutt content worth the asking price developed since a game was released (Warhawk's Broken Mirror and Oblivion's Shivering Isles spring to mind).

But those aren't really MICROtransactions, if you get what I'm saying. Those are expansions that just happen to be downloadable. There is a difference between downloadable software and paying for tiny pieces of a game that are already on the disc and whatnot.

Either way, its just semantics really! Thanks for making me clarify what I meant.

My mistake. You're right, microtransactions are pointless.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Why is everyone saying its too early?UpInFlames

Instead of looking at the past, look at the present. Look at the console prices. A last generation console is still competing. The consoles themselves are much different than before - they're online, they're updateable. Sony has still to release Home. I honestly can't see a new console in 2010 - not by anyone.

Its not uncommon for last gen consoles to still be selling. Remember last gen? The PS1 was still being sold and still had some decent games coming out even in 2005. We're seeing the same thing with the PS2 since they both had massive installed user bases. You don't see that with any other systems though like the Xbox or GC. Prices are also irrelevant if you compare the relative prices of older console to new ones (would've posted this here but GS can't handle tables it seems).

And this gen isn't nearly as expensive as people think it is. Furthermore, price doesn't mean anything about longetivity when talking about technology. GPUs cost that much just by themselves and they're outdated within a year and half. Hell, my four year old computer cost me over $2k and now it cant run any of the new games (at least on anything other than low-medium settings) being released.

Consoles having the ability to be patched doesn't mean much either. Patches don't improve the hardware they just tweak the Ui and system features a little bit to give you a few extra goodies. That's hardly something that can put off a generation transition.

Finally, you say I should look at the present. I say you shouldn't be looking at the present, you should be looking at the future. It seems too soon now because we've only been in this gen for three years. We've still got another 2 1/2 years before Q4 2010 which is nearly twice as long as we've been in the current gen. I don't know about you but I'll probably be ready for a new console by then.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Why is everyone saying its too early?UpInFlames

Instead of looking at the past, look at the present. Look at the console prices. A last generation console is still competing. The consoles themselves are much different than before - they're online, they're updateable. Sony has still to release Home. I honestly can't see a new console in 2010 - not by anyone.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. I can't believe that there are people comparing this generation's consoles to previous ones. This generation, at least for Sony and Microsoft, was meant to last longer. It's been said time and time again.

There was even one gamespotter who said that "I wouldn't play my Genesis for 10 years, why would I for the PS3?"

Really now? I didn't know the Sega Genesis first launched at $600....Doesn't the price already give an idea of what's to come from this generation? I'm not paying $400-$600 just so I can play it for another 5 years again until the next consoles come out.

Not only that, but consumers have really spent a lot from this current generation....$60 games, games and media downloads, and overly expensive add-ons.....I'm surprised people are already expecting the next gen consoles. You'd think they'd be happy that they they wouldn't have to spend so much on another console.

I think having a new console coming out so soon is also bad at a developers standpoint. As time goes on, game developent takes much longer. I've heard that many games takes as much as 4-5 years to develop. Say a dev team wanted to make a game for the Xbox 360, but their plan for the game is very big. They want a huge massive game and create a game engine from scratch. You know long that would take? If the 360 was only for 5 years, then by the time the dev team were done with the game it would be a bit late as people have moved on the the next Xbox.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Why is everyone saying its too early?martialbullet

Instead of looking at the past, look at the present. Look at the console prices. A last generation console is still competing. The consoles themselves are much different than before - they're online, they're updateable. Sony has still to release Home. I honestly can't see a new console in 2010 - not by anyone.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. I can't believe that there are people comparing this generation's consoles to previous ones. This generation, at least for Sony and Microsoft, was meant to last longer. It's been said time and time again.

There was even one gamespotter who said that "I wouldn't play my Genesis for 10 years, why would I for the PS3?"

Really now? I didn't know the Sega Genesis first launched at $600....Doesn't the price already give an idea of what's to come from this generation? I'm not paying $400-$600 just so I can play it for another 5 years again until the next consoles come out.

Not only that, but consumers have really spent a lot from this current generation....$60 games, games and media downloads, and overly expensive add-ons.....I'm surprised people are already expecting the next gen consoles. You'd think they'd be happy that they they wouldn't have to spend so much on another console.

I think having a new console coming out so soon is also bad at a developers standpoint. As time goes on, game developent takes much longer. I've heard that many games takes as much as 4-5 years to develop. Say a dev team wanted to make a game for the Xbox 360, but their plan for the game is very big. They want a huge massive game and create a game engine from scratch. You know long that would take? If the 360 was only for 5 years, then by the time the dev team were done with the game it would be a bit late as people have moved on the the next Xbox.

I said it before and I'll say it again: The price you pay for a product is NOT indicative of how long it will remain supported

The 3DO, for example, was barely supported at all and support was killed after just a couple years despite its $700 price tag (and if you adjust for inflation that number is actually $920.30). N64 games were $70 for quite sometime (again, not even adjusting for inflation). I've got some news for you: If you find the idea of spending $400 every five years just so you can stay up-to-date a load of BS then you should stop playing games and find a new, less technical hobby. Technology gets outdated fast. I'm sorry but if you think that spending hundreds of dollars means that the company isn't going to replace what you just bought anytime soon you're very deluded.

Of course MS and Sony say their consoles will last longer. They want you to buy their systems. They say this every generation. I'm surprised anyone actually believes them at this point. Besides, they only said "we'll support our systems for X years". That doesn't equate to "we're not going to put out a new system for X years". Sony has a policy of supporting their systems for long periods of time, about ten years each. That said they sure as hell don't wait ten years to put out a new console.

No one is forcing you to buy a new console. If you want you can keep playing your PS3 even after the PS5 is released.

Also, most games take 3 years max to make. However, most are completed in about 1-2 years. I don't know where you got five years from. Typically a game that takes longer than three years to make either sucks upon release because its already outdated or it gets delayed for another 1-2 years so the devs can go back and revamp the entire thing.

Oh, and for the record: The Sega Genesis did cost nearly $400 (the price of a launch premium 360) if you take inflation into account, so yeah...I didn't play my Genesis for 10 years, why would I play my 360 for 10 years? And in case you're wondering the cost of other major consoles when you take inflation into account was:

Atari VCS - $811.21 ($211.22 more expensive than a launch 60 GB PS3)
NES - $354.91 ($54.92 more expensive than a core X360 at launch)
Genesis - $389.67 (only $10.32 cheaper than a launch premium 360)
SNES - $282.21 ($32.22 more expensive than a Wii. and keep in mind it was released two years after the start of the 16 bit gen)
Saturn - $497.66 ($97.67 more expensive than a launch premium 360, and only $2.33 cheaper than a launch 20GB PS3)
PSX - $372.01 ($72.02 more expensive than a core 360)
N64 - $242.75 (cheaper than a Wii by $7.24. Don't get too excited though; after the GC and DC this is the cheapest console in gaming history)
DC - $228.09 ($21.90 cheaper than a Wii)
PS2 - $333.15 ($33.16 than a core 360)
GC - $216.89 (to my knowledge the cheapest console ever released)
Xbox - $325.34 ($25.35 more expensive than a launch core 360)

And this doesn't even take into account lesser known systems like the 3DO ($920.30) or the Neo-Geo ($1041.12). So stop complaining about prices, they're actually not very far off from what most consoles cost.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Why is everyone saying its too early?gameguy6700

Instead of looking at the past, look at the present. Look at the console prices. A last generation console is still competing. The consoles themselves are much different than before - they're online, they're updateable. Sony has still to release Home. I honestly can't see a new console in 2010 - not by anyone.

Its not uncommon for last gen consoles to still be selling. Remember last gen? The PS1 was still being sold and still had some decent games coming out even in 2005. We're seeing the same thing with the PS2 since they both had massive installed user bases. You don't see that with any other systems though like the Xbox or GC. Prices are also irrelevant if you compare the relative prices of older console to new ones (would've posted this here but GS can't handle tables it seems).

And this gen isn't nearly as expensive as people think it is. Furthermore, price doesn't mean anything about longetivity when talking about technology. GPUs cost that much just by themselves and they're outdated within a year and half. Hell, my four year old computer cost me over $2k and now it cant run any of the new games (at least on anything other than low-medium settings) being released.

Consoles having the ability to be patched doesn't mean much either. Patches don't improve the hardware they just tweak the Ui and system features a little bit to give you a few extra goodies. That's hardly something that can put off a generation transition.

Finally, you say I should look at the present. I say you shouldn't be looking at the present, you should be looking at the future. It seems too soon now because we've only been in this gen for three years. We've still got another 2 1/2 years before Q4 2010 which is nearly twice as long as we've been in the current gen. I don't know about you but I'll probably be ready for a new console by then.

I don't think that list proves much. The 360 was ~$75 more than the original xbox and the PS3 was ~$270 more expensive than the PS2. The other problem is that actual wages are pretty much where they were in 2001. People that were making $40,000 when the PS2 was released are pretty still making that today. Then you tack on the hike in game and peripheral prices, "marketplaces", and online services.. Without question, I think this one of the most expensive generations we've ever had.

You can't really compare the PC and console industries. PC hardware is sold at a profit, while consoles are sold at a loss. If console were sold for profit you'd be spending similar amounts on them. The price of PC hardware also plummets much faster than console prices.