No new Playstation, XBox until 2014?

No new Playstation, XBox until 2014?

(CNN) -- Gamers might have to wait at least another three years before there's any update to their Xbox or PlayStation consoles.

Prominent gaming news site Kotaku on Thursday quoted multiple unnamed sources saying both Sony and Microsoft hope to extend the life of the current generation of consoles for as long as possible.

"Both MS and Sony are telegraphing to each other that they're delaying, to milk the current [generation] and fill in previous craters better," said a source Kotaku described as an "insider who has worked with the first-party companies like Sony and Microsoft."

Other sources told the site that 2014 is the target date for the two companies, both of which rolled out significant updates to their gaming consoles in 2010.

Microsoft introduced its Kinect system and Sony introduced Move. Both motion-activated systems that were rolled out at the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles.

As Sony and Microsoft pushed their motion systems (in some ways an effort to catch up with Nintendo's motion-activated Wii) Nintendo stood pat in that space at E3. Instead, the company focused on software and its new handheld 3DS gaming system.

Observers expect Nintendo to announce, and possibly demo, an updated Wii at this year's E3.

As Kotaku notes, a wait until 2014 would make the Xbox 360 Microsoft's lead console for nine years and Sony's PlayStation 3 its top product for eight. That's an eternity in the world of consumer electronics.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/04/21/new.playstation.xbox/index.html?hpt=T2

Any thoughts from you guys?

Makes sense. It's evident that the game industry is going through a technological stagnation of sorts and all parties involved seem to be content with the status quo. Consoles still haven't hit that low pricepoint which would indicate that the manufacturers are satisfied with sales and they're in no hurry, developers are enjoying a large audience without having to work on new engines and gamers are enjoying the myriad of great games available for their systems of choice without having to buy new consoles or upgrade their PC's.

That said, technology facilitates new design concepts so let's hope this lull, which while pleasant, won't go on for too long.

Nintendo will be the first to kick off the next generation closely followed by Microsoft and finally Sony.

Makes sense. Both Sony and Microsoft introduced their respective motion devices as a means of breathing some extra life into their current platforms (a 10 year life-span is what their going for, I believe). Waiting until 2014 for new consoles seems to fit with those plans. Jumping to a new system too quickly would essentially render their new motion tech pointless for this generation.

It'll be interesting to see how the next few years play out. We've never had a console generation go on for nearly 10 years before. Should be interesting.

I have to admit, I'm pretty happy with the level of technology we have at this time. I agree with what was said about how bringing new consoles now would kill Kinect and PS Move.

I just hope we start trending away from FPS into other genres. In another thread, someone was asking for adult-themed platofrmers (as opposed to Mario and Ratchet n Clank), that would be cool.

I can certainly live with that. I mean, there are already a number of games landing in 2012 I'm looking forward to, so even if they didn't, I'd still wait until then.

2014? I'm already bored with this generation.

Nintendo will be the first to kick off the next generation closely followed by Microsoft and finally Sony.

LazyMushroom

If 2014 is true, The games will be looking terrible by then compared to PC. Even though they look pretty bad already. Thats almost a decade after this gens release!

If 2014 is true, The games will be looking terrible by then compared to PC. Even though they look pretty bad already. Thats almost a decade after this gens release!

morrowindnic

PC Ftw :P

Nintendo is behind, they are playing catch up. Their new system isn't going to be superior to the PS3 or 360.. not if their launch title will end up being GTAIV and other games that have been out for the other systems for years. Rattlesnake_8

Alot of people have been saying that Nintendo's new console won't be more powerful then the PS3 and 360, but I just don't see that. All spec rumors aside I see no reason why Nintendo's new console won't be significantly more powerful then the current gen. The PS3 and 360 are five going on six years old and tech has come along way since then (just look at the pc market). It would be pretty easy for Nintendo to put out something with considerable more power and they need to if they want to attract the core gaming audience. With that said I'm sure MS and Sony will surpass Nintendo's new console with theirs since they will have an extra two years to developer and get better tech. Of course without good 3rd party support all those pretty specs won't mean anything.:P

I still expect 2013 personally, if the wii 2 comes out in 2012 like expected, are ms and sony really going to allow Nintendo ( the leaders this gen) to get a 2 year lead on their next systems, sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Nintendo is behind, they are playing catch up. Their new system isn't going to be superior to the PS3 or 360.. not if their launch title will end up being GTAIV and other games that have been out for the other systems for years. Rattlesnake_8

How on earth is Nintendo behind when their home console has managed to outsell both of it's competitors by a significant margin....on the weakest hardware where every unit sold was profitable from day one. In fact, from a sales and business standpoint, it's pretty safe to say that Nintendo "won" this gen.

If anything Nintendo's approach is absolutely the smartest one from a business standpoint. They've literally forced Microsoft's and Sony's hand while Nintendo has the luxery of sitting pretty regardless.

Sony and MS have two options....rush new systems out, at which that hope of producing a system that's both a significant leap over their old one as well as being profitable from day 1 goes completely out the window, and which it can all be futile if this new Nintendo system still possibly outsells them (after all, the Wii managed to outsell the 360 and PS3)....or....wait it out and continue with the plan of producing a system thats a significant leap ahead of 360 and PS3 and delivering it at a time when it's cost effective that they start seeing profit from day 1, but where the catch is Nintendo has already had a two year or more advantage to market, and again...where the possibility that Nintendo still outsells them is quite a possibility.

5 years ago while Sony and MS were fighting to put out powerful tech at the time....where each unit was sold at a loss to the company and where it could be said the rush to get a powerful system out resulted in numerous hardware failures like we saw in the 360....Nintendo instead decided to release a system that didn't rely on raw power, and guess what, it worked. Not only has the Wii sold a boatload, far more then 360 or PS3, but MS and Sony have now spent on ton on R&D playing copycat on motion controls, which they had mocked 5 years ago.

Now Nintendo is releasing a new system, and frankly, their timing is perfect. From all indications on leaked specs and rumors which are looking more and more to be true, the new system will be more powerful then 360 and PS3...not a huge leap...but definitely a noticable step ahead...but most importantly, it's a step ahead when it's now very affordable to do so.

With the success of the Wii, again, which was the weakest hardware when it launched that still managed to trounce 360 and PS3 in unit sales, Nintendo can easily afford to release a new console that is a step ahead of the 360 and PS3...and they can now do it at a time when the hardware is cost effective, so there is a chance then can make a profit on the unit right from the start....while at the same time, all talk points that they've got enough of a lead on their competition that they look to have a huge advantage.

Nintendo can afford to launch a new console within the next 18 months.....Sony and MS don't exactly have that luxery. I believe Sony is just now beginning to make a profit on PS3....MS spent a ton making up for failures and on Kinect. MS has supposedly just started hiring people to start on the architecture for a new console, actual development planning supposedly hasn't even really started yet, so I doubt you'll see a new console before 2014, not if they want to make one that's cost effective and profitable from the start while also providing the leap in power they want. Also keep in mind how much they have currently invested in Kinect in this generation.

Keep in mind that actual development for the 360 began in February 2003....we didn't see the system until LATE 2005....almost over 2 and a half years later, actually closer to 3 years later....and that was when MS was literally racing to get the head start on Sony, regardless of cost. This time MS wants to make a unit that's profitable from day one, and I'm sure that the success of the Wii, despite being less powerful and launching a year later, has influenced their outlook.

I mean...Nintendo managed to outsell the 360 and PS3 with the significantly underpowered Wii, which pretty much launched after their competitors....you think they can't do the same, except this time with hardware that's actually more powerful, and possibly has up to a 2 year head start (or more) with nothing really in sight to compete with it?

Last, Nintendo's past systems have sold primarily because of their first party software as a selling point or some approach that caught the general publics attention.....that won't change with this new possible system. Except this time, with the possibility of the new system said to be more powerful by a noticable amount, it'll also be a stronger attaction of third party developers.

[QUOTE="Rattlesnake_8"]Nintendo is behind, they are playing catch up. Their new system isn't going to be superior to the PS3 or 360.. not if their launch title will end up being GTAIV and other games that have been out for the other systems for years. locknload17

How on earth is Nintendo behind when their home console has managed to outsell both of it's competitors by a significant margin....on the weakest hardware where every unit sold was profitable from day one. In fact, from a sales and business standpoint, it's pretty safe to say that Nintendo "won" this gen.

If anything Nintendo's approach is absolutely the smartest one from a business standpoint. They've literally forced Microsoft's and Sony's hand while Nintendo has the luxery of sitting pretty regardless.

Sony and MS have two options....rush new systems out, at which that hope of producing a system that's both a significant leap over their old one as well as being profitable from day 1 goes completely out the window, and which it can all be futile if this new Nintendo system still possibly outsells them (after all, the Wii managed to outsell the 360 and PS3)....or....wait it out and continue with the plan of producing a system thats a significant leap ahead of 360 and PS3 and delivering it at a time when it's cost effective that they start seeing profit from day 1, but where the catch is Nintendo has already had a two year or more advantage to market, and again...where the possibility that Nintendo still outsells them is quite a possibility.

5 years ago while Sony and MS were fighting to put out powerful tech at the time....where each unit was sold at a loss to the company and where it could be said the rush to get a powerful system out resulted in numerous hardware failures like we saw in the 360....Nintendo instead decided to release a system that didn't rely on raw power, and guess what, it worked. Not only has the Wii sold a boatload, far more then 360 or PS3, but MS and Sony have now spent on ton on R&D playing copycat on motion controls, which they had mocked 5 years ago.

Now Nintendo is releasing a new system, and frankly, their timing is perfect. From all indications on leaked specs and rumors which are looking more and more to be true, the new system will be more powerful then 360 and PS3...not a huge leap...but definitely a noticable step ahead...but most importantly, it's a step ahead when it's now very affordable to do so.

With the success of the Wii, again, which was the weakest hardware when it launched that still managed to trounce 360 and PS3 in unit sales, Nintendo can easily afford to release a new console that is a step ahead of the 360 and PS3...and they can now do it at a time when the hardware is cost effective, so there is a chance then can make a profit on the unit right from the start....while at the same time, all talk points that they've got enough of a lead on their competition that they look to have a huge advantage.

Nintendo can afford to launch a new console within the next 18 months.....Sony and MS don't exactly have that luxery. I believe Sony is just now beginning to make a profit on PS3....MS spent a ton making up for failures and on Kinect. MS has supposedly just started hiring people to start on the architecture for a new console, actual development planning supposedly hasn't even really started yet, so I doubt you'll see a new console before 2014, not if they want to make one that's cost effective and profitable from the start while also providing the leap in power they want. Also keep in mind how much they have currently invested in Kinect in this generation.

Keep in mind that actual development for the 360 began in February 2003....we didn't see the system until LATE 2005....almost over 2 and a half years later, actually closer to 3 years later....and that was when MS was literally racing to get the head start on Sony, regardless of cost. This time MS wants to make a unit that's profitable from day one, and I'm sure that the success of the Wii, despite being less powerful and launching a year later, has influenced their outlook.

I mean...Nintendo managed to outsell the 360 and PS3 with the significantly underpowered Wii, which pretty much launched after their competitors....you think they can't do the same, except this time with hardware that's actually more powerful, and possibly has up to a 2 year head start (or more) with nothing really in sight to compete with it?

Last, Nintendo's past systems have sold primarily because of their first party software as a selling point or some approach that caught the general publics attention.....that won't change with this new possible system. Except this time, with the possibility of the new system said to be more powerful by a noticable amount, it'll also be a stronger attaction of third party developers.

I agree with you that no matter what happens from this point forward, Nintendo has won this generation, but I don't quite share your belief that Nintendo is in a position to repeat the process.

Casuals are the new majority, but despite my scepticism, the Kinect (10 million sales in 6 months) has sold phenomenally well and the Move's 8 million sales in 8 months are nothing to sneeze at. Wii software sales are still okay, but hardware sales have slowed drastically because the majority of incoming casuals are picking up the Kinect (which gets the same mainstream media coverage the Wii once did).

I'm not saying Nintendo can't grab them back, but to borrow Nintendo's terminology back when they released the Wii, the casual market in 2010 went from blue ocean to red.

Since it hac the blue ocean (casuals)all to itself in the console space, Nintendo saw no reason to really focus on the red ocean (core games).The fact is the level and nature of support that Nintendo and 3rd parties offered the Wii is remarkably similar to the level and nature of the support offered to the GC, despite the fact that the GC sold only 21.5 million units lifetime and the Wii has easily sold five times that. The core audience for both systems is the same (gamers who tend to be focused on Mario/Zelda/Metroid to the exclusion of all else, though they do make time for Sonic).

My question is 'Is Nintendo willing to widen its releases the same way first parties who sincerely wish to open new markets try to do?' or are they just going to do what they did this gen and most of the GC era, mouth words but not back them up with actions (cranking out Mario/Zelda/Metroid), hoping that a third party can be tricked into doing the hard work of expanding a market for it (last gen Capcom at the insistence of Mikami played that role until shareholders revolted, this gen Sega played that role until they came to their senses).

Rolling out new hardware is well and good, but as others have noted here and elsewhere, unlike in past generations, 2007's Crysis aside, PC gaming hasn't provided much of a glimpse into the future of consoles. Sure, new hugely powerful processors are shipped every several months, but nobody's doing anything with them because the market for cutting edge games on PC is so small. Its quite possible that the Wii2 might see the type of support the PC tends to see(games with the same physics, AI, level geometry, etc as distinctly inferior hardware but boasting shinier textures and better lighting effects). The most likely maker of original, exciting core games for such a system is indies, but Nintendo has made a habit out of verbally pissing on them so its pretty clear they don't want the support.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/03/nintendo-garage-developers/

Also, online play is massively popular this gen (shows up in shooters, sports games, strategy games, platformers, fighting games and even the rpgs like Demon's Souls) and with the 3DS Nintendo showed that it is still indifferent to online and commitment to friend codes, so in one important way, the Wii 2 will be crippled vi a vi even against its 'last gen' competition.

In summary, yes, you're right, things went great for Nintendo this gen, but in 2010 MS and Sony have demonstrated the ability to attract casuals (the people who separated the Wii from the GC) and Nintendo still hasn't demonstrated an ability (or even a willingness) to attract core games indifferent to Mario/Zelda/Metroid.

Are we in such a rush to shell out 400 more bucks?Black_Knight_00

I'm not. I'd rather be spending 400 bucks on games than on any systems right now.

Casuals are the new majority, but despite my scepticism, the Kinect (10 million sales in 6 months) has sold phenomenally well and the Move's 8 million sales in 8 months are nothing to sneeze at. Wii software sales are still okay, but hardware sales have slowed drastically because the majority of incoming casuals are picking up the Kinect (which gets the same mainstream media coverage the Wii once did).CarnageHeart

I don't think Kinect's success translates into the casual audience moving from the Wii to the 360...simply because of the fact that those 10 million Kinect sales and 8 million Move sales didn't coincide with 10 or 8 million 360 or PS3 sales.

The significant majority of Kinect sales seem to be to customers who already had a 360...same with Move and PS3. I don't really see that as expanding the userbase into new homes significantly. Keep in mind also that there is also a different mindset to buying a new peripheral for a system you already own as opposed to buying a whole new system.

There is the factor that the Wii didn't have a single price drop for 3 full years after launch, and even then, it was only a drop of $50...it didn't need it, it was the top selling console. Hardware sales are going to eventually drop off when you've been dominating the sales charts for over 3 of the 5 years you've been on market since launch. With hardware sales of the Wii on a decline in the past year, the time is right for a price drop. Recently we got one, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get a further price drop for the old Wii at E3 to coincide with the announcement of this new system that seems to be launching next year.

Another reason why Nintendo is in a pretty good position...they can afford to drop the Wii down to a really cheap price, which becomes attractive for the budget consumer who doesn't yet have one....while introducing a new console next year to their core userbase, as well as the casuals who might be looking to upgrade who will probably pick it up based on brand attachment from buying the previous one if they had a good experience.

Especially since the attitude used to be that casuals that bought the Wii would eventually "graduate" to systems like the 360 and PS3...that hasn't really happened, at least not at the pace MS and Sony where hoping for....and now if anything, with Nintendo releasing this new system, which by all rumors looks to have more power then either 360 or PS3, if there is anything those Wii casuals will now graduate to...it's a Wii 2.

Rolling out new hardware is well and good, but as others have noted here and elsewhere, unlike in past generations, 2007's Crysis aside, PC gaming hasn't provided much of a glimpse into the future of consoles. Sure, new hugely powerful processors are shipped every several months, but nobody's doing anything with them because the market for cutting edge games on PC is so small. CarnageHeart

I think the market for cutting edge games on any platform is small....cause development costs are quite big and long in order to produce such titles, and it becomes more of risk to recoup costs, especially with a publisher breathing down your neck for a release date and high sales. There will always be some sort of cutting edge development on PC since it's open nature allows for much more experimentation without any limitations of a closed platform.

We've also reached a point where you don't need high-end graphics tools to produce an game that is visually impressive. Case in point, look at the game that won the award for Best Visual Arts at this past GDC, Limbo, a game that isn't running on any kind of high-end engine. Team Fortress 2 on PC easily stacks up with any current game in terms of it's visuals, despite running on an engine that at it's core is over 6 years old. Look at Okami, it was one of the best looking games of 2006....on PS2 of all systems.

Strong graphics tools will always be a benefit....but we've reached a point where the strongest and most hyped graphics tools and engines aren't necessarily needed to produce the best looking games. We've also reached a point were developers aren't really taking full advantage of the most advanced hardware resources already available to them. Even the with the PC, which is the go-to powerhouse system of technical resources, the scene on PC seems to be migrating towards more of a focus around innovative and creative indie titles (like Minecraft) over cutting edge productions with high-powered graphics.

Its quite possible that the Wii2 might see the type of support the PC tends to see(games with the same physics, AI, level geometry, etc as distinctly inferior hardware but boasting shinier textures and better lighting effects). The most likely maker of original, exciting core games for such a system is indies, but Nintendo has made a habit out of verbally pissing on them so its pretty clear they don't want the support.CarnageHeart

I don't think the Wii 2 will support the kind of support PC tends to see....Nintendo just isn't that type of company. Then again, they don't need to.

If anything, Nintendo will afford their already existing development ties a much more powerful system, in addition to becoming much more attractive to other developers who are primarily focused on console franchises, especially japanese development studios who will find interest in a system that has a higher ceiling of technical capabilities over PS3 or 360, and as such, will probably find it more attractive.

I don't see companies like Epic utilizing the Wii 2 for UE3, then again, I don't think there is any need. Especially since UE3 is long in the tooth and many games already out running on proprietary engines look as good, or better then UE3 games.

Also, Epic is in a interesting predicament, especially as a company that revolves around engine licensing. I really don't think they expected this generation to last as long as it will...I really think they expected a new console, particularly from MS no latter then 2012. They showed off new engine features at this past GDC, but it looks like the only platform with the ability to produce such graphics is the PC...and lets just say in recent years with action and comments Epic has squandered their goodwill and reputation amongst the PC audience in comparison to what they had in the late 90's and early 00's. On the console side, the only company that looks to be releasing a new system in the next two years that will raise the capability ceiling over current consoles is Nintendo...again, a company that Epic doesn't really have any kind of strong relationship. No wonder why Mark Rein has been harping on about the need for new consoles from MS and Sony now (which won't happen this year or next)...and in a recent interview with Mike Capps, you could literally see the "oh crap" look on his face when this subject was brought up.

Also, online play is massively popular this gen (shows up in shooters, sports games, strategy games, platformers, fighting games and even the rpgs like Demon's Souls) and with the 3DS Nintendo showed that it is still indifferent to online and commitment to friend codes, so in one important way, the Wii 2 will be crippled vi a vi even against its 'last gen' competition.CarnageHeart

This I will agree with....to say that Nintendo has never been a strong player in online development would be an understatement.

Then again, I think their audience, both the core Nintendo fanbase and casual....all those people who bought a Gamecube, Wii and DS....don't really care about online. Especially since in a way Nintendo can be seeing as being a standout company that fills a void by focusing on quality single player titles like SMG, SMG2, Pikmin, Zelda, etc., in addition to family friendly titles...while development on the other systems is becoming more and more multiplayer focused, some would argue to the detriment of single player experiences.

In summary, yes, you're right, things went great for Nintendo this gen, but in 2010 MS and Sony have demonstrated the ability to attract casuals (the people who separated the Wii from the GC) and Nintendo still hasn't demonstrated an ability (or even a willingness) to attract core games indifferent to Mario/Zelda/Metroid.

CarnageHeart

Again, I wouldn't say MS and Sony attracted a significant number of casuals, especially away from Nintendo....rather, they demonstrated a strong ability to get a chunk of their already existing consumer base to buy into a peripheral that was focused on casuals. There is a difference between greatly expanding your install base, like Nintendo did...and getting your existing userbase to buy into a different concept, which seems to be what MS and Sony did.

Like I said, those 10 million Kinects didn't translate into 10 million 360 unit sales...which pretty much says that the significant portion of people who bought Kinect already had a 360.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Are we in such a rush to shell out 400 more bucks?Metamania

I'm not. I'd rather be spending 400 bucks on games than on any systems right now.

Maybe not right now, but in two years (holiday 2012) it will be a different story.

I think we are already seeing the stagnation in technology. Mass Effect 3 and Uncharted 3 look very similiar to their predecessors, and clearly dont showcase the same leap we saw with U2 over U1, ME2 over ME1 etc.

I'm sure once everyone plays these games later this year, they would the next entries of these franchises to be on the next gen consoles.

I still expect 2013 personally, if the wii 2 comes out in 2012 like expected, are ms and sony really going to allow Nintendo ( the leaders this gen) to get a 2 year lead on their next systems, sounds like a recipe for disaster.

wizdom

Exactly. Two years is just too long. I personally believe MS wont even give them a year head start, especially since they are now going after the same audience, and launch their next console alongside the next Wii. This will force Sony to come out with a new console in 2013.

I also think it's funny how people are content with current gen games running at sub 30 framerates and sub HD resolution. Most dont realize how many games dont even run at 720p, let alone at 1080p which is full HD. Crysis 2 fps is consistently in the lower 20s, and can go down to 14 fps at times. I think once people see the same versions of current gen games running on Wii 2 running at 60 fps at 1080p, they will realize how weak current gen platforms really are.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Also, online play is massively popular this gen (shows up in shooters, sports games, strategy games, platformers, fighting games and even the rpgs like Demon's Souls) and with the 3DS Nintendo showed that it is still indifferent to online and commitment to friend codes, so in one important way, the Wii 2 will be crippled vi a vi even against its 'last gen' competition.locknload17

This I will agree with....to say that Nintendo has never been a strong player in online development would be an understatement.

Then again, I think their audience, both the core Nintendo fanbase and casual....all those people who bought a Gamecube, Wii and DS....don't really care about online. Especially since in a way Nintendo can be seeing as being a standout company that fills a void by focusing on quality single player titles like SMG, SMG2, Pikmin, Zelda, etc., in addition to family friendly titles...while development on the other systems is becoming more and more multiplayer focused, some would argue to the detriment of single player experiences.

Maybe so, but there's still a good number of Nintendo fans who are pinning for a better online service. They are, of course, in the minority, but Nintendo's going to have to expand their online efforts significantly. Their meager efforts in that area aren't going to work forever; especially if they plan to try and recapture the greater "core" market with this new system. I'm certain a lesser online structure wouldn't seem very appealing to "core" gamers.

Exactly. Two years is just too long. I personally believe MS wont even give them a year head start, especially since they are now going after the same audience, and launch their next console alongside the next Wii. This will force Sony to come out with a new console in 2013.

S0lidSnake

Microsoft and Sony can't just whip up a new console for mass market in 18 months. Architecture has to be designed, contracts have to be done, then their is manufacturing, etc....that's not even factoring in development kits that need to be produced and sent out well in advance.

I find it funny that some think that this will force MS and Sony to whip up a whole new system in less time that it actually takes to make some games.

Miyamoto has gone on record that Project Cafe supposedly went into actual development not long after the Wii first launched. Basically, if what Miyamoto and other insider comments say is true, Project Cafe has been in development for the past several years and supposedly some developers have had their hands on prototype development kits for well over a year...hence the reason it can release in the next 18 months and have launch titles for it.

All information points that Microsoft and Sony haven't even pinned down the strategy for their new consoles or even settled hardware specs. They just recently started actually hiring people.

This is a far cry from the more advanced development stage they were at in the first half of 2003 when they were designing the Xbox 360...which didn't release till Late 2005....and that's when MS had already had a developed plan early on to put a new system out early and beat Sony to the punch.

I think those expecting a new system from Microsoft and Sony in 2012 or even 2013 are in for a disapppointment...A new peripheral I can see, but not a whole new system, at least not one that's a worthwhile improvement. If they did actually rush something out by 2013, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it at launch, cause I would be very hesitant with a console system with such a rush and lack of development and testing time that I'd expect pretty faulty hardware as well as a lack of proper time for games to be properly developed for it.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Exactly. Two years is just too long. I personally believe MS wont even give them a year head start, especially since they are now going after the same audience, and launch their next console alongside the next Wii. This will force Sony to come out with a new console in 2013.

locknload17

Microsoft and Sony can't just whip up a new console for mass market in 18 months. Architecture has to be designed, contracts have to be done, then their is manufacturing, etc....that's not even factoring in development kits that need to be produced and sent out well in advance.

I find it funny that some think that this will force MS and Sony to whip up a whole new system in less time that it actually takes to make some games.

Miyamoto has gone on record that Project Cafe supposedly went into actual development not long after the Wii first launched, and some inside partners and contract spec sheets that have surfaced seem to back this up...in other words, Project Cafe has been in development for years and supposedly some developers have had their hands on prototype development kits for well over a year...hence the reason it can release in the next 18 months and have launch titles for it.

All information points that Microsoft and Sony haven't even pinned down the strategy for their new consoles or even settled hardware specs. They just recently started actually hiring people.

This is a far cry from the more advanced development stage they were at in the first half of 2003 when they were designing the Xbox 360...which didn't release till Late 2005....and that's when MS had already had a developed plan early on to put a new system out early and beat Sony to the punch.

I think those expecting a new system from Microsoft and Sony in 2012 or even 2013 are in for a disapppointment. If they did actually rush something out by 2013, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it at launch, cause I would be very hesitant with a console system with such a rush and lack of development and testing time that I'd expect pretty faulty hardware as well as a lack of proper time for games to be properly developed for it.

Sony is a hardware company first and foremost. they have a huge R&D department, even bigger than nintendo's. If you think Nintendo is the only one that started developing a new console after Wii launched then I dont know what to tell you.

The cell was in development for years. We just dont hear about it because it's all very secretive. They dont want their competitors to know what they are developiing. We didnt know about the Wii until 2005, same with this project cafe thing until now.

Looking at your Edit, i dont think either MS or Sony care about releasing hardware thats not faulty. Microsoft knowingly released a faulty hardware, and Sony quickly discontinued the YLOD prone 20GB and 60GB models. You couldnt find a 20GB model after January of 2007, and 60GBs were replaced by 40GBs by November of 2007.

Sony is a hardware company first and foremost. they have a huge R&D department, even bigger than nintendo's. If you think Nintendo is the only one that started developing a new console after Wii launched then I dont know what to tell you.

The cell was in development for years. We just dont hear about it because it's all very secretive. They dont want their competitors to know what they are developiing. We didnt know about the Wii until 2005, same with this project cafe thing until now.

S0lidSnake

Of course announcement are kept secretive...that doesn't mean that some hints of information or insider talk...or even official talk gets out.

Nintendo was talking about what would later be formally called the Wii back in January 2003 in a Reuters interview...in fact, they even pinned down the launch years in that interview from early 2003, and that's when those systems launched:

http://nin.vgf.com/news/2003/012303.htm

The "Wii" wasn't formally announced until 2005...but there was talk of the new system known by numerous code names, rumored and leaked specs, and talk of motion controls long before that.

Just as there has been talk of a "Wii 2" (that's "Wii 2", not "Wii HD") for quite some time, since as early as 2008, since Nintendo was supposedly showing early presentations according to insiders with talk of it then launching in 2011 or 2012...again, which is pretty much looking to be when the system will launch:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10055776-52.html

...what we're just getting now is some form of concrete information. Just like those past systems, "Project Cafe" hasn't been formally announced....that doesn't mean we don't have info on it and essentially have a good idea of it's development.

Meanwhile, on the Sony and MS front, we haven't seen such rumblings. In fact, all supposed inside information points that they haven't even started any kind of real development or strategic plan in addition to them saying that we won't see new systems from MS or Sony until 2014.

As for Nintendo, though we'll probably get the announcement of this new system at this E3, we probably won't get a formal name for the system until a few months before launch.console with a plan to release the new system around the same time as rival makers do," President Satoru Iwata told Reuters in an interview.

"We will get ready for a (new) battle in 2005 although foreign game developers are now saying that rival next-generation systems won't come until 2006."

We knew nothing about Wii HD other than it being updated version of the Wii. We had no specifics, hell we didnt even know if it will be a new console or just an upgrade. This is very specific stuff and it's only just coming out. A month before the official reveal. I am sure we will see the same rumors about Sony or at least MS by this time next year.

MS is going after the same market as Nintendo. No way they are giving Nintendo a two year headstart. I suppose we will see in the next couple of years.

Another reason why Nintendo is in a pretty good position...they can afford to drop the Wii down to a really cheap price, which becomes attractive for the budget consumer who doesn't yet have one....while introducing a new console next year to their core userbase, as well as the casuals who might be looking to upgrade who will probably pick it up based on brand attachment from buying the previous one if they had a good experience.

Especially since the attitude used to be that casuals that bought the Wii would eventually "graduate" to systems like the 360 and PS3...that hasn't really happened, at least not at the pace MS and Sony where hoping for....and now if anything, with Nintendo releasing this new system, which by all rumors looks to have more power then either 360 or PS3, if there is anything those Wii casuals will now graduate to...it's a Wii 2.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Rolling out new hardware is well and good, but as others have noted here and elsewhere, unlike in past generations, 2007's Crysis aside, PC gaming hasn't provided much of a glimpse into the future of consoles. Sure, new hugely powerful processors are shipped every several months, but nobody's doing anything with them because the market for cutting edge games on PC is so small. locknload17

I think the market for cutting edge games on any platform is small....cause development costs are quite big and long in order to produce such titles, and it becomes more of risk to recoup costs, especially with a publisher breathing down your neck for a release date and high sales. There will always be some sort of cutting edge development on PC since it's open nature allows for much more experimentation without any limitations of a closed platform.

We've also reached a point where you don't need high-end graphics tools to produce an game that is visually impressive. Case in point, look at the game that won the award for Best Visual Arts at this past GDC, Limbo, a game that isn't running on any kind of high-end engine. Team Fortress 2 on PC easily stacks up with any current game in terms of it's visuals, despite running on an engine that at it's core is over 6 years old. Look at Okami, it was one of the best looking games of 2006....on PS2 of all systems.

Strong graphics tools will always be a benefit....but we've reached a point where the strongest and most hyped graphics tools and engines aren't necessarily needed to produce the best looking games. We've also reached a point were developers aren't really taking full advantage of the most advanced hardware resources already available to them. Even the with the PC, which is the go-to powerhouse system of technical resources, the scene on PC seems to be migrating towards more of a focus around innovative and creative indie titles (like Minecraft) over cutting edge productions with high-powered graphics.

I never subscribed to the theory that a 60 year old women who looked down on videogames as something stupid her grandkids did up until the Wii was ever going to drop the Wiisports and move on toGears of War(where her grandkids were shoot her in the face and cuss her out :P ). Casuals and core gamers are two very distinct audiences. Which isn't to say that there are no core games who like casual games, but the reverse is rarely true.

Also, I agree that PC is moving away from big budget games (excluding MMOS of course), but that hasn't been true of consoles. Which isn't to say that indie games haven't been warmly welcomed, but there is no evidence that their success is coming at the expense of the retail games. If you think that TF2 is easily stacks up to any current gen games in terms of visuals, you've been playing the wrong current gen games (which isn't to say that it isn't a great game).

I don't think the Wii 2 will support the kind of support PC tends to see....Nintendo just isn't that type of company. Then again, they don't need to.

If anything, Nintendo will afford their already existing development ties a much more powerful system, in addition to becoming much more attractive to other developers who are primarily focused on console franchises, especially japanese development studios who will find interest in a system that has a higher ceiling of technical capabilities over PS3 or 360, and as such, will probably find it more attractive.

I don't see companies like Epic utilizing the Wii 2 for UE3, then again, I don't think there is any need. Especially since UE3 is long in the tooth and many games already out running on proprietary engines look as good, or better then UE3 games.

Also, Epic is in a interesting predicament, especially as a company that revolves around engine licensing. I really don't think they expected this generation to last as long as it will...I really think they expected a new console, particularly from MS no latter then 2012. They showed off new engine features at this past GDC, but it looks like the only platform with the ability to produce such graphics is the PC...and lets just say in recent years with action and comments Epic has squandered their goodwill and reputation amongst the PC audience in comparison to what they had in the late 90's and early 00's. On the console side, the only company that looks to be releasing a new system in the next two years that will raise the capability ceiling over current consoles is Nintendo...again, a company that Epic doesn't really have any kind of strong relationship. No wonder why Mark Rein has been harping on about the need for new consoles from MS and Sony now (which won't happen this year or next)...and in a recent interview with Mike Capps, you could literally see the "oh crap" look on his face when this subject was brought up.

locknload17

Nintendo doesn't need third parties to attract casuals or core fans of Mario/Zelda/Metroid, but they do need third parties to attract well, core games who don't care about Mario/Zelda/Metroid. The amount of gamers the Wii missed is huge (both the PS3 and the X360 have sold more than 50 million systems, which given the Wii's 85 million in sales, means the majority of gamers skipped the Wii).

Also, hardware isn't what drove 3rd parties away from the Wii. The GC was almost as powerful as the Xbox and certainly more powerful than the PS2, but developers (Japanese and Western) offered more support to the Xbox despite the fact both system were neck and neck in terms fo sales because Xbox gamers were willing to buy their games. The type of core gamers that buy Nintendo consoles tend to only buy Mario/Zelda/Metroid. They are not particularly fixated on Nintendo as a company since even Nintendo's rare attempts to offer original games were rejected by that group, even when the games were designed by Miyamoto.

Last of all, while I'm not fan of UE 3.0, I disagree with your notion Epic is in a bad spot. More platforms are popping up and development costs are rising (both those problems are what drove many developers to UE 3.0 this gen). The only other company selling a multiplatform engine I am aware of is Crytek and for whatever reason, I haven't heard of many developers adopting their engine.

Maybe not right now, but in two years (holiday 2012) it will be a different story.

I think we are already seeing the stagnation in technology. Mass Effect 3 and Uncharted 3 look very similiar to their predecessors, and clearly dont showcase the same leap we saw with U2 over U1, ME2 over ME1 etc.

I'm sure once everyone plays these games later this year, they would the next entries of these franchises to be on the next gen consoles.

S0lidSnake

That all depends if Nintendo's system turns out to be very promising and worth the money if the launch titles are solid enough to warrant a purchase. Remember, anything can change between here and holiday 2012. All this information and speculation could turn out to be good or bad news, but then again, this is Nintendo we are talking. They've had always good launches...not the best, but good ones that were consistent.

As far as ME3 and U3 go, I am NOT interested in either. If I really was, then I'd have to invest a crap load of time and dedication to those series, especially something like Mass Effect and quite frankly, I don't have the time for it. Games like Duke Nukem Forever, Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition, Batman: Arkham City, Skyrim, Saints Row 3, and a few more this year interest me more and I plan on investing my money into those games. Eventually, I will get around to picking up L.A. Noire and Dragon Age II as well. There's just too many games that I need to pick up first before I can wrap my head around a new console system...

[QUOTE="wizdom"]

I still expect 2013 personally, if the wii 2 comes out in 2012 like expected, are ms and sony really going to allow Nintendo ( the leaders this gen) to get a 2 year lead on their next systems, sounds like a recipe for disaster.

S0lidSnake

Exactly. Two years is just too long. I personally believe MS wont even give them a year head start, especially since they are now going after the same audience, and launch their next console alongside the next Wii. This will force Sony to come out with a new console in 2013.

I also think it's funny how people are content with current gen games running at sub 30 framerates and sub HD resolution. Most dont realize how many games dont even run at 720p, let alone at 1080p which is full HD. Crysis 2 fps is consistently in the lower 20s, and can go down to 14 fps at times. I think once people see the same versions of current gen games running on Wii 2 running at 60 fps at 1080p, they will realize how weak current gen platforms really are.

Crysis 2's framerate is bad by most accounts, but almost nobody bought it, so it doesn't make sense to claim that people routinely accept such a framerate. While 60 is nice, personally I've always been comfortable with 30 fps (it looks smooth to me).

As for resolution,I just don't think people care. You see people online 'OMG Da Fuzz is killing mah eyes! but honestly, Halo Reach looks fine to me. Many more people care about what is onscreen, how much of it there is and what it is doing than they do about where a not a game is 720p or 640p. The game which reveals how 'weak' current gen consoles are will be a game which offers an experience current gen consoles can't match, not just shinier textures.

We knew nothing about Wii HD other than it being updated version of the Wii. We had no specifics, hell we didnt even know if it will be a new console or just an upgrade. This is very specific stuff and it's only just coming out. A month before the official reveal. I am sure we will see the same rumors about Sony or at least MS by this time next year.

MS is going after the same market as Nintendo. No way they are giving Nintendo a two year headstart. I suppose we will see in the next couple of years.

S0lidSnake

That all depends if Nintendo's system turns out to be very promising and worth the money if the launch titles are solid enough to warrant a purchase. Remember, anything can change between here and holiday 2012. All this information and speculation could turn out to be good or bad news, but then again, this is Nintendo we are talking. They've had always good launches...not the best, but good ones that were consistent.

As far as ME3 and U3 go, I am NOT interested in either. If I really was, then I'd have to invest a crap load of time and dedication to those series, especially something like Mass Effect and quite frankly, I don't have the time for it. Games like Duke Nukem Forever, Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition, Batman: Arkham City, Skyrim, Saints Row 3, and a few more this year interest me more and I plan on investing my money into those games. Eventually, I will get around to picking up L.A. Noire and Dragon Age II as well. There's just too many games that I need to pick up first before I can wrap my head around a new console system...

Metamania

I used ME3 and Uncharted 3 as an example to show even the best looking games would feel a bit limited in scope when they hit the market this year. By the time 2012 rolls around, most early adopters will be clamoring for a new console. Again, maybe you're not one of the guys who gets every new console on Day 1. In fact, this gen his a very slow adoption rate, since most people just didn't want to pay $400-$600 for a console. By Launching their consoles in 2012 or 2013, Sony and/or MS wont be targetting everyone, just the early adopters. 360 didn't begin selling well until Halo 3 and COD4 hit. Sony had to cut the price by half to sell to a wider audience. Point is that not everyone buys the console in the first year. So for most people wont buy it till 2014 anyway.

2011 is packed with high profile release so I can completely understand why you wont want any new consoles appearing right now. But two years from now, things will be different. Would you really want to play the sequels of Batman AC, Skyrim, Dragon Age 2 and L.A Noire on the current gen consoles? All the games coming out in 2011 will have sequels coming out in 2013. They look great now, but how dated do you think they will look in 2013?

EDIT: And by dated, i mean not just better looking textures, framerate, resolution etc., I mean dated in gameplay design. Crysis gave you a whole island to play around in back in 2007 yet we cant have a decent looking shooter match it on current gen platforms 4 years later. Most of these great looking games feel very limited in scope even though they try to 'fake' it by making it see like you are in big open spaces but you are actually in just a wider corridor with most of the enviornment just out of reach and is there just for scenery.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

We knew nothing about Wii HD other than it being updated version of the Wii. We had no specifics, hell we didnt even know if it will be a new console or just an upgrade. This is very specific stuff and it's only just coming out. A month before the official reveal. I am sure we will see the same rumors about Sony or at least MS by this time next year.

MS is going after the same market as Nintendo. No way they are giving Nintendo a two year headstart. I suppose we will see in the next couple of years.

Oilers99

Dont think it came across, but I meant prior to the new leaks, we didn't know anything about Wii HD other than what Pachter kept going on about. (Which was just a small upgrade, not a new console) I was just trying to point out the rumors we got prior to the ones we got week were just random bs that didn't turn out to be true.

I know that Project Cafe is definitely a new console and will be the only console Nintendo will push for the next five-six years.

[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

We knew nothing about Wii HD other than it being updated version of the Wii. We had no specifics, hell we didnt even know if it will be a new console or just an upgrade. This is very specific stuff and it's only just coming out. A month before the official reveal. I am sure we will see the same rumors about Sony or at least MS by this time next year.

MS is going after the same market as Nintendo. No way they are giving Nintendo a two year headstart. I suppose we will see in the next couple of years.

S0lidSnake

Dont think it came across, but I meant prior to the new leaks, we didn't know anything about Wii HD other than what Pachter kept going on about. (Which was just a small upgrade, not a new console) I was just trying to point out the rumors we got prior to the ones we got week were just random bs that didn't turn out to be true.

I know that Project Cafe is definitely a new console and will be the only console Nintendo will push for the next five-six years.

Crysis 2's framerate is bad by most accounts, but almost nobody bought it, so it doesn't make sense to claim that people routinely accept such a framerate. While 60 is nice, personally I've always been comfortable with 30 fps (it looks smooth to me).

As for resolution,I just don't think people care. You see people online 'OMG Da Fuzz is killing mah eyes! but honestly, Halo Reach looks fine to me. Many more people care about what is onscreen, how much of it there is and what it is doing than they do about where a not a game is 720p or 640p. The game which reveals how 'weak' current gen consoles are will be a game which offers an experience current gen consoles can't match, not just shinier textures.

CarnageHeart

I am also more than happy with a solid, consistent 30 fps. And I think Reach looks gorgeous. So does MGS4 which runs at sub HD resolution.

The point i am trying to make here, and clearly failing at it :P, is that when Nintendo comes out with a powerful new console in 2012... with a high end GPU from 2008 at the very least, it will blow away everything made for current gen consoles, and it will do it with a gimmick. Nintendo will also not launch this for more than $300, and that will make it really easy for people to pick this over a last gen console for $200 or whatever PS3 and 360 would be retailing for in 2012.

Regardless, it will boil down to whether or not MS and Sony decide to give Nintendo a 2 year head start. Even if they come out with hardware more powerful than Nintendo in 2014, Nintendo wouldve built up a sizeable market among the casuals and more importantly the core, and we simply wouldn't see most developers making full use of the next Xbox or PS4. We saw this last gen with the PS2, we see it now with all the PC gamers complaining about having to play corridor shooters and we will see it next gen 2014-2019 when PS4 and XBox 720 games will just be shinier versions of a console built on a 2008 GPU. Not sure anyone wants that.

If you think that TF2 is easily stacks up to any current gen games in terms of visuals, you've been playing the wrong current gen games (which isn't to say that it isn't a great game).

CarnageHeart

I wasn't talking about graphics features as in textures, light maps, shaders, and all the other tech jargon that too many people get hung up about, many times without knowing what it all means.

I was talking about visuals...as in how visually pleasing and stylistic a game is...and the frankly, Team Fortress 2 and the use of the engine in that game in delivering it's stylistic look does indeed stack up well against how current gen games look.

I rather look at a games like Team Fortess 2 and Okami for hours over of some some of the UE3 games that seem to lack color and aesthetic, and which also look more long in the tooth now in comparison to the far more stylistic TF2 running on an updated version of an engine which made it's debut in '04.

Visuals like this look perfectly fine to me:

...and overall match up with a majority of the games that have been put out this gen in terms of visuals.

I don't think anyone can claim that Team Fortress 2 or Okami or Limbo look "ugly" or "underwhelming" visually....but there are plenty of games on higher-end engines that can be described as such.