Why are people discussing Next Gen Consoles already?

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

Zero_epyon

sometimes they're referenced as part of a joke, but it's mostly out of boredom

sometimes they're referenced as part of a joke, but it's mostly out of boredom

WINDWAKER1

Why not? Half the fun of SWs is at the end of a generation when all we have speculation and rumors about the next.

this gen is boringVideoGameGuy

they cant discuss something when theirs nothing to discuss

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

Zero_epyon

The more you realize you're losing, the quicker you want things to end.

Feel free to interpret that however you want. I can see two different interpretations so far.

well, that is the way with technology i guess. As technology progresses, the life-cycle of products shorten drastically. Just compare the life cycle of an NVIDIA card now compared to 10 years ago.

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

Zero_epyon

[QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"]this gen is boringwayne_kar

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

Zero_epyon

just started? what are kidding me? the 360 has been out for almost 4 years now. if anything, we're nearing the end of this generation. the 10 year life cycle is total BS. every time some one states this, they forget that the successor of the console comes out 5 or 6 years after the first launched. case in point, the ps one launched in 1994, the ps2 launched in 2000. the ps one had a 10 year life but it didn't stop sony from launching the ps2 6 years after the ps one. the ps3 came out in 2006, once again 6 years after its predecessor. MS launched the xbox in 2001 and the 360 in 2005.

the current gen is nearing its end and has at most 2 years left in it. get used to the fact that the closer we get to the launch of the new gen consoles (abut 2012) the more threads you'll see about people guess what hardware will be in the consoles and what kinds of graphics they will produce.

[QUOTE="wayne_kar"][QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"]this gen is boringVideoGameGuy

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

AppleBlade

the 360 launched in November 2005. this gen, both MS and sony, as well as a few devs, have stated will be longer. why? because it's too expensive and they need to make some money to recoup their loses (especially sony) before they move on to the next gen consoles. it's logical to say that the new consoles will come out in 2012.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

AppleBlade

[QUOTE="AppleBlade"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

cowgriller

the 360 launched in November 2005. this gen, both MS and sony, as well as a few devs, have stated will be longer. why? because it's too expensive and they need to make some money to recoup their loses (especially sony) before they move on to the next gen consoles. it's logical to say that the new consoles will come out in 2012.

Nintendo didnt go the high power route, they took the Gamecube 1.5 route this gen- kinda meant the console got stale after motion controls got boring.

next gen will be about 2 years away. by then the X360 & PS3 will be obsolete. the Wii well lets not talk about it. sales for it are already plateauing.

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

Zero_epyon

This gen just started? xbox 360 came out in late 2005, that means couple of months from now 360 will be 4 years old. you know the original xbox only lasted 4 years?

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

sikanderahmed

This gen just started? xbox 360 came out in late 2005, that means couple of months from now 360 will be 4 years old. you know the original xbox only lasted 4 years?

[QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"][QUOTE="wayne_kar"] no its not. wayne_kar

can i try my guess to what he was thinking? this gen is made up primarily of sequels and games with short campaigns (6-10 hours). tbh, most games are not worth the $60 asking price. there are a few games that are worth the price, but there are still a lot more that are not. for instance, the CoD series, short 6 hour campaigns that are just last years game with a new skin; guitar hero, did we really need 5 of them? couldn't they just add more music tracks to the older title instead of making a "new" version with more gimmicks? same goes for rock band.

then there are games that are too ambitious and promise to give gameplay and storytelling a huge jump, only to flop. examples, alone in the dark, to an extent killzone 2 (failed to sell very well despite its 4 year hype cycle. *gets flame shield*), lair (there have to be more 360 games that fit this category but i can't seem to think of any right now, so if you or anyone else would like to add to the "ambitious fail" category, please do so.)

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="AppleBlade"]The 360 came out in 2006, if it had a normal 5 year lifespan it's successor would come out in 2011. Usually systems get revealed about a year or so before launch. So that means if the 360 has a normal lifespan it's successor will be shown in 2010 which is next year. I think next gen could be closer then you think.

AppleBlade

the 360 launched in November 2005. this gen, both MS and sony, as well as a few devs, have stated will be longer. why? because it's too expensive and they need to make some money to recoup their loses (especially sony) before they move on to the next gen consoles. it's logical to say that the new consoles will come out in 2012.

aww man, that must've been one hell of a mental fart. your room must stink? :P

don't worry about it. it's an honest mistake.

[QUOTE="wayne_kar"][QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"] Othe then Nintendo throwing a wrench in things, it's basically last gen, with fewer good games.. i.e. more boring.cowgriller

can i try my guess to what he was thinking? this gen is made up primarily of sequels and games with short campaigns (6-10 hours). tbh, most games are not worth the $60 asking price. there are a few games that are worth the price, but there are still a lot more that are not. for instance, the CoD series, short 6 hour campaigns that are just last years game with a new skin; guitar hero, did we really need 5 of them? couldn't they just add more music tracks to the older title instead of making a "new" version with more gimmicks? same goes for rock band.

then there are games that are too ambitious and promise to give gameplay and storytelling a huge jump, only to flop. examples, alone in the dark, to an extent killzone 2 (failed to sell very well despite its 4 year hype cycle. *gets flame shield*), lair (there have to be more 360 games that fit this category but i can't seem to think of any right now, so if you or anyone else would like to add to the "ambitious fail" category, please do so.)

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

Zero_epyon

This gen just started? xbox 360 came out in late 2005, that means couple of months from now 360 will be 4 years old. you know the original xbox only lasted 4 years?

actually it had a 4 year life cycle because MS lost billions of dollars on it from royalty fees it had to pay to nvidia and intel for using off the shelf pc parts. even though the parts were out dated, they refused to lower the price of the hardware, in turn, when MS lowered the price of the console, they lost more money.

to say that MS was scared of the ps3 and had to scrap the xbox original is ridiculous. infact, MS launched the 360 before the ps3 so that they could get a larger install base, thus more potential game buyers which in turn leads to MS making back the money that they lost on the xbox original. truth is, sony was supposed to have launched the ps3 around the same time frame as the 360 but they had a blue laser diode shortage. this one small item caused a one year delay in the shipments/sales of the ps3.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="wayne_kar"] still don't agree but thank for explaining. wayne_kar

can i try my guess to what he was thinking? this gen is made up primarily of sequels and games with short campaigns (6-10 hours). tbh, most games are not worth the $60 asking price. there are a few games that are worth the price, but there are still a lot more that are not. for instance, the CoD series, short 6 hour campaigns that are just last years game with a new skin; guitar hero, did we really need 5 of them? couldn't they just add more music tracks to the older title instead of making a "new" version with more gimmicks? same goes for rock band.

then there are games that are too ambitious and promise to give gameplay and storytelling a huge jump, only to flop. examples, alone in the dark, to an extent killzone 2 (failed to sell very well despite its 4 year hype cycle. *gets flame shield*), lair (there have to be more 360 games that fit this category but i can't seem to think of any right now, so if you or anyone else would like to add to the "ambitious fail" category, please do so.)

it's not so much that the games are boring, it's that they have little replay value or incentive to replay the game. look at assassins creed. the game is fun the first time around, but gets boring and repetitive when you try to replay the game. mass effect is similar but only for the side quests.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

This gen just started? xbox 360 came out in late 2005, that means couple of months from now 360 will be 4 years old. you know the original xbox only lasted 4 years?

cowgriller

actually it had a 4 year life cycle because MS lost billions of dollars on it from royalty fees it had to pay to nvidia and intel for using off the shelf pc parts. even though the parts were out dated, they refused to lower the price of the hardware, in turn, when MS lowered the price of the console, they lost more money.

to say that MS was scared of the ps3 and had to scrap the xbox original is ridiculous. infact, MS launched the 360 before the ps3 so that they could get a larger install base, thus more potential game buyers which in turn leads to MS making back the money that they lost on the xbox original. truth is, sony was supposed to have launched the ps3 around the same time frame as the 360 but they had a blue laser diode shortage. this one small item caused a one year delay in the shipments/sales of the ps3.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] The original Xbox lasted 4 years because it arrived late in the generation. It would have been crushed if it had to go against ps3 and MS would have to work harder if it launched together with PS3. It had little to do with the hardware being outdated enough or with developers. Zero_epyon

actually it had a 4 year life cycle because MS lost billions of dollars on it from royalty fees it had to pay to nvidia and intel for using off the shelf pc parts. even though the parts were out dated, they refused to lower the price of the hardware, in turn, when MS lowered the price of the console, they lost more money.

to say that MS was scared of the ps3 and had to scrap the xbox original is ridiculous. infact, MS launched the 360 before the ps3 so that they could get a larger install base, thus more potential game buyers which in turn leads to MS making back the money that they lost on the xbox original. truth is, sony was supposed to have launched the ps3 around the same time frame as the 360 but they had a blue laser diode shortage. this one small item caused a one year delay in the shipments/sales of the ps3.

that is true. infact, the ps3, if launched for $400 would have sold more than the 360 because of brand recognition. thanks to an unforeseen delay to the ps3, the xbox brand is now becoming huge and well trusted (though the RRoD and E74 problems were like a kick to the nuts. MS lost some respect and user support from those. it may even have kept the sales low for a time but that's just speculation.)

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

I've seen numerous threads about PS4's and Xbox 720's and even a Wii 2! This gen just started. The xbox has another 2-4 years on it and the wii and ps3 has another 4-6. Let's wait another couple of years before we start waisting time speculating specs and enjoy the games we're getting now.

Javy03

the same reason people begin discussing new models of automobiles early. For that fact any update of any product usually gets speculated about at least a year in advance, how old are you?ColdfireTrilogy

I love this gen but i love even more the jump from a gen to another. 2010/2011 i´ll be ready for the next one :D

What does is age have to do with this question? You want to know how many dumb questions I've read today? Where were you to question those people?EwwFanboys

why not? we will probably have a new xbox in fall 2011, at least that's the odds on favorite, it's possible that ms will milk the 360 until 2012 but i doubt it

[QUOTE="EwwFanboys"]What does is age have to do with this question? You want to know how many dumb questions I've read today? Where were you to question those people?Zero_epyon

the only thing unrealistic about your time line is the life span you gave to the ps3. if sony wants to be competitive and steal momentum from nintendo and ms, they need to launch a new console around the same time frame as their competitors, not a few years later. there is also the fact that sony has yet to make a profit on the ps3. sure they lowered the production costs by 70%, but 70% from what? we don't know for a fact how much it cost sony to make the ps3, only speculation. furthermore, they are "starting" to manufacture the ps3 at a lower cost, but the ps3's on the shelves are still costing them 70% more because they were made with an older, more costly method. they will still lose money on those units. they may be able to make money from the new ones, but that has yet to be seen, though i am not doubting that they will make money off the slim.

why not? we will probably have a new xbox in fall 2011, at least that's the odds on favorite, it's possible that ms will milk the 360 until 2012 but i doubt it

Riverwolf007

remember, ms is going to sell a new 360 sku in the fall of '10 that will come with natal. they may want to sell that for more than one year to see how well it does and to try to make more money from it (also to see if it's popular enough to be added to the next gen xbox.)

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="EwwFanboys"]What does is age have to do with this question? You want to know how many dumb questions I've read today? Where were you to question those people?cowgriller

the only thing unrealistic about your time line is the life span you gave to the ps3. if sony wants to be competitive and steal momentum from nintendo and ms, they need to launch a new console around the same time frame as their competitors, not a few years later. there is also the fact that sony has yet to make a profit on the ps3. sure they lowered the production costs by 70%, but 70% from what? we don't know for a fact how much it cost sony to make the ps3, only speculation. furthermore, they are "starting" to manufacture the ps3 at a lower cost, but the ps3's on the shelves are still costing them 70% more because they were made with an older, more costly method. they will still lose money on those units. they may be able to make money from the new ones, but that has yet to be seen, though i am not doubting that they will make money off the slim.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] thanks. I guess he felt that since he disagrees with me I must be a child. But anyway his point didn't really apply well to the argument. people don't seeem to notice the numbers i posted. we're in 2009, the xbox has 2-4 years left putting us in a range of 2011-2013 for a new console. the PS3 has another 4-6 putting us in 2013-1015. What's wrong with that speculation? It seems very realistic to me. We should at least wait till next year to talk aout next gen and worry about our games now. If we don't show interest what will motivate the developers, besides money?Zero_epyon

the only thing unrealistic about your time line is the life span you gave to the ps3. if sony wants to be competitive and steal momentum from nintendo and ms, they need to launch a new console around the same time frame as their competitors, not a few years later. there is also the fact that sony has yet to make a profit on the ps3. sure they lowered the production costs by 70%, but 70% from what? we don't know for a fact how much it cost sony to make the ps3, only speculation. furthermore, they are "starting" to manufacture the ps3 at a lower cost, but the ps3's on the shelves are still costing them 70% more because they were made with an older, more costly method. they will still lose money on those units. they may be able to make money from the new ones, but that has yet to be seen, though i am not doubting that they will make money off the slim.

the ps3 is a different case though. it's the only ps console too continue to lose money for sony even after it's been in the market for nearly 3 years. it is also the most expensive simply because it was the most ambitious. sony's other two home consoles were never the most powerful and thus, the cost to make games on them was lower than the competition. sony not only designed the chips in the ps2, but they fabricated them in house as well. that leads to lower costs because they wouldn't have to pay for royalties. the ps3 uses an nvidia gpu (and judging by nvidia's home console track record, whose to say that they won't screw sony over like they did MS?), and a cpu that they sold off all of the rights to the cell b.e. to toshiba. this means that sony now has to pay toshiba and ibm royalties to use the cell.

xbox lasted 4 years.... then xbox 360 came out

Now with ps3 price drop coming upand xbox 360 not selling well. even thougth they have a $199.00 price point the pressure is started. More games are coming out on PS3 and they look really great. XBOX 360 is nearly 4 years old. The console standard is 5. Sony already said that they will not launch a console like they did with the Xbox 360 but would hold to the standard!! which is again 5 years.

Thusbysepetember2010 there is a high chance of Xbox 3 being launched, if not by then, by 2011.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the only thing unrealistic about your time line is the life span you gave to the ps3. if sony wants to be competitive and steal momentum from nintendo and ms, they need to launch a new console around the same time frame as their competitors, not a few years later. there is also the fact that sony has yet to make a profit on the ps3. sure they lowered the production costs by 70%, but 70% from what? we don't know for a fact how much it cost sony to make the ps3, only speculation. furthermore, they are "starting" to manufacture the ps3 at a lower cost, but the ps3's on the shelves are still costing them 70% more because they were made with an older, more costly method. they will still lose money on those units. they may be able to make money from the new ones, but that has yet to be seen, though i am not doubting that they will make money off the slim.

cowgriller

the ps3 is a different case though. it's the only ps console too continue to lose money for sony even after it's been in the market for nearly 3 years. it is also the most expensive simply because it was the most ambitious. sony's other two home consoles were never the most powerful and thus, the cost to make games on them was lower than the competition. sony not only designed the chips in the ps2, but they fabricated them in house as well. that leads to lower costs because they wouldn't have to pay for royalties. the ps3 uses an nvidia gpu (and judging by nvidia's home console track record, whose to say that they won't screw sony over like they did MS?), and a cpu that they sold off all of the rights to the cell b.e. to toshiba. this means that sony now has to pay toshiba and ibm royalties to use the cell.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] I see but If you look at the track record though, each PS systems lasted about 6 years before a new console was released which is what I based my speculation on. The difference is that Sony will most likely continue to produce and support PS3's even if the PS4 is out. That could happen in the next couple of years but who's to say right now. Zero_epyon

the ps3 is a different case though. it's the only ps console too continue to lose money for sony even after it's been in the market for nearly 3 years. it is also the most expensive simply because it was the most ambitious. sony's other two home consoles were never the most powerful and thus, the cost to make games on them was lower than the competition. sony not only designed the chips in the ps2, but they fabricated them in house as well. that leads to lower costs because they wouldn't have to pay for royalties. the ps3 uses an nvidia gpu (and judging by nvidia's home console track record, whose to say that they won't screw sony over like they did MS?), and a cpu that they sold off all of the rights to the cell b.e. to toshiba. this means that sony now has to pay toshiba and ibm royalties to use the cell.

actually, i said that sony, ms and nintendo will probably launch their new consoles around 2012. what i said above is that the ps3 is a completely different situation than the ps one and ps2 and there is a chance that sony may not want to support the ps3 for 10 years like the others. so far, the ps3 costs them too much to make and they aren't making a dime on each console sold (so far). i'm not saying they'll bring out a ps4 next year, i'm saying that whenever they launch the ps4, they may drop support of the ps3 altogether.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the ps3 is a different case though. it's the only ps console too continue to lose money for sony even after it's been in the market for nearly 3 years. it is also the most expensive simply because it was the most ambitious. sony's other two home consoles were never the most powerful and thus, the cost to make games on them was lower than the competition. sony not only designed the chips in the ps2, but they fabricated them in house as well. that leads to lower costs because they wouldn't have to pay for royalties. the ps3 uses an nvidia gpu (and judging by nvidia's home console track record, whose to say that they won't screw sony over like they did MS?), and a cpu that they sold off all of the rights to the cell b.e. to toshiba. this means that sony now has to pay toshiba and ibm royalties to use the cell.

cowgriller

actually, i said that sony, ms and nintendo will probably launch their new consoles around 2012. what i said above is that the ps3 is a completely different situation than the ps one and ps2 and there is a chance that sony may not want to support the ps3 for 10 years like the others. so far, the ps3 costs them too much to make and they aren't making a dime on each console sold (so far). i'm not saying they'll bring out a ps4 next year, i'm saying that whenever they launch the ps4, they may drop support of the ps3 altogether.

they want to brag about the sytems so when it comes out they say that they bragged about it 5 years ago and it was worth it

Because it has almost been 4 years since the start of the generation... and the average length of a generation is 5 years. The PS3 definitely will probably stop selling before the PS2. This console generation is almost over, I don't care what anyone says, I would easily bet that its coming in the next 1-2 years. They need to keep the hardware up to the times, and the PC is already at least 2-3 generations ahead already.

Because this generation is ending :?

On average a gen has 5-6 years, so I'm guess next gen is 2011-2013. 10 year cycles it just stupid, you'd have outdated technology for 6 years. Devs need new updated technology so sooner or later next gen has to start.

well, that is the way with technology i guess. As technology progresses, the life-cycle of products shorten drastically. Just compare the life cycle of an NVIDIA card now compared to 10 years ago.

jhcho2