Most of it has come down to pricing for the Surface Tablets being too high and initially limiting it's distribution when the Surface RT came out . There were a great number of consumers that were interested in the Surface originally, myself included. The fact is the Surface isn't the iPad ---I like that. MS shouldn't look at the Surface as competing with the iPad on a price level initially but Android tablets. Windows 8 tablets just don't have the apps or performance of the Android tablets or iPad yet. I own an Android tablet as well as I've owned various Apple products and I can say that there hasn't been anything to show on the Surface that says it can compete app wise to most consumers. The concept that it can do PC tasks is nice but most people don't expect that level of performance out of tablets unless one over-hypes it as MS has done. The truth is the technology isn't there just yet power consumption wise to do major task for hours on tablets and keep them slim, but light PC tasks, like web surfing, word processing, and light gaming, etc. are possible. I haven't even seen any games on a Surface tablet that rivals the best looking ones I have on my Android tablet/phone or had on my earlier iPhone. I've tried the Surface and love it but it leaves a great deal of questions MS needs to answer to get consumers more hyped about it. It can't let other tablet manufacturer's determine it's pricing if it wants to play with the big boys tech wise. I have a feeling if it does Windows 8 tablets will be duds just like most Windows 7 tablets were with the every day consumer.

@Legendcc Read your statement and think about it. The two consoles you named were cartridge based and memory was a great part of the argument of that time period's pricing and we let it slide. They were collectors items, not throw away like the current game gen is. Lol, To set the record straight I was a Sega Fan. As far as inflation goes I'm from the Pong era, I understand earning your own money for your toys. Mom and dad didn't give it to me. I watched the videogame industry collapse and rebuild its self thanks to Nintendo, Sega, etc. I'm not complaining about the price but about the value. With the current Gen of consoles I have notice that games have less value but you pay more for them just to throw them away. I have no issue with what others do with their hard earned dollars. I'm a collector, so I buy what I know I'm going to keep. I look for the best deal for my buck so I don't always buy day one but I buy. I probably have more Capcom imports than you can imagine for Sega Saturn. So, it's not the price that's the problem but the principle. As for laughing at the EA $69 dollar statement being incorrect I associated it with him not knowing his product's history and not being a gamer, as we know those things. You may have paid $50 dollars for your SNES and N64 games but I caught the sales at Target and paid $40 dollars. lol

@ceromaster It would be stupid except there has to be some credibility to it when the people developing the games are the ones doing the talking. That usually means MS or Sony has passed the idea by them to see what they think. So, MS may be heavily considering it but I think a huge number of developers would have to agree to having their games DOA on a console and that's a huge risk to take on a console succeeding.

If MS goes this route I think the 3rd Xbox will be a strikeout this round instead of a win. To be honest, I think that it needs to be straight-up about it, no need to alienate its consumer's trust. There is always a trend with console makers---they usually do things right once or twice and screw up some way the third round. I think it's a rule in the console business to do so. I don't care for having to have my console always online to play a single player game---especially if I'm traveling somewhere that I won't have that privilege. As far as the next generation after the PS4 and what ever the next Xbox will be called I don't think they will be consoles at all but just set top PC boxes marketed to consumers with brand names. I really think that this will be the end of true consoles as we know them after this coming generation. I can't really blame MS or Sony for trying to please developers/publishers but I also can't blame consumers for just walking away either. It may not happen all at once but it will gradually happen if this is true.

Sony is playing it safe with the industry but sitting on the fence with gamers. I have a feeling that it might bite them somewhere in the end. The fact is if a developer wants to put a lockout in their game then that developer should state it to consumers so they can decide if they want to buy that developer's games or a specific game. For me it would mean not buying games from certain developers because I know that they sell lemons and would prefer not to get stuck with junk.

I had to laugh when I saw the $69 dollars statement as I knew it was a mistake. $59 dollars per game is a stretch currently in this gen for me. This has been the only generation of consoles that I've bought less than 100 games and I've been there since day one. Every other generation of consoles when I've owned a specific console I've owned at least 200 plus games by the end of that generation. I don't believe in buying a game I'm not going to keep. For me that's troubling, I've always seen games as an investment in the past and that changed with the PS3 and Xbox 360.

@AyatollaofRnR I completely agree with you. It's hard for publishers/developers to break old habits and step outside of their comfort zones. I have a feeling we will see a great deal of what we are already seeing just with prettier graphics.

I'm looking forward to seeing what developers can do with a much improved version of the Kinect. I think in the coming new gen of consoles we're going to learn the same thing that we did with the PS3 and the 360, the consoles really aren't going to perform much differently from each other. The coming gen of consoles are going to be about the types of services and features MS and Sony can add to make their Brands standout. It's not going to be a processor or horsepower driven war but a feature driven one. If anything MS and Sony know that they need to provide a great environment for developers to bring their games to life but in the end it's the features MS and Sony can provide with their networks, interfaces, etc that will snag gamers as well as great games.

My only thought is that Sony is probably still going through about 3 design prototypes for the final look of the console and haven't really decided yet. They have until E3 to decide as that will make the real difference. Major Nelson is right, I can't remember anyone making a major announcement like this without at least showing the hardware. Sega and Nintendo use to do minor announcements before the big ones but never like this. Sony is mainly trying to get the first punch in, which is good but sometimes that can be bad if everything isn't ready on time. MS and Sony need to show a reason for gamers to want the new consoles. Game wise I didn't see anything that amazing. I just felt like the games were nothing special. Hopefully at E3 MS and Sony will show us some games other than what we've already heard about from last E3, for the new consoles. Otherwise, just the hardware announcements and new features will make things seem flat. Bottom line, show games that weren't intended for this gen and cancelled or ported for the new console gen.

My only worry with streaming anything is always the bandwidth limitations that Cable and DSL companies put on individuals. It could prove to be more costly for consumers than they consider at the moment in the end. Especially with PCs, tablets, Phones, etc. running on the same home networks. We easily forget how much we're using most of the time. Remember, that's not Sony, MS, or etc.'s worry but yours when you get the bill.