The PS3 and 360 have pushed things pretty far in terms of shallow graphical processing (polygons, pixel effects, etc.): but with massively more processing power (which should be available by the next gen) there's a lot new you could do in terms of physics and AI that's not feisible today. E.g. apply real physics to *everything* in the game world (not just a select small number of things), apply much smarter AI techniques (e.g. recursion, etc.) In terms of control, I don't think stereo cameras would be practical because of the set-up involved, and how carefully you'd have to position yourself. The sensor bar is hassle enough. Voice, while an element of control in some games, I don't think will become central (e.g. it adds an interesting element to things like Manhunt and Brain Age, but I don't know how you'd design a whole game around voice recognition, or if you'd want to)

Well, in the case of physics and AI you wil probaly even reach limits on the current NG-Consoles, not in the way of what can i get, but what do i want. You are not really interested in what does happen under this circumstances, but more in how does it look, feel, when i do this. And in an AI: Yo don't have real problems in how to give an AI perfect capabilities, but you don't really want these perfect capabilities. You want limited capabilities that look realistic. But there you will find real problems with AIs. There is no single program, that would really pass the turing test. It does not matter how smart a single AI can be, you will have to run multiple AIs at the same time. It doesn't really matter, what you do: players will always find the limitations of your behaviour models, or be doomed and frustrated by their superhuman capabilities. Well, as an example if you woiuld have a space flight simulator you could give commands to your virtual colleagues on board of the ship. It would ba more realistic if they would report to you and you don't need to press a button in a multiple choice menu. You could have a bigger number of options than you would have buttons on your controller.

Quite true - if the PS4 didn't use the CELL (or CELL II), then it would have to be considered a *failure*, as this was the point of its design. But its also quite easy for MS to scale up. Look what is out already for PC's - and imagine what will be available in 3-4 years time. Take 3 chips with 16 cores each - running at 4-5Ghz. That would be a ridiculous amount of CPU power - more than 10x what a PS3 can do (and probably in line with a PS4). And MS don't have to design the chips at all - they will be "off the shelf" components. Next generation will be about price point ($250-$400), and manufacturing capacity. Look for some huge launches at affordable prices. I can't imagine Sony would repeat its strategy (although they may try...).

I can't imagine the low-price-point-big-numbers Wii launch strategy working for MS or Sony next time *unless* they do something big on control innovation, because an appreciable graphical upgrade won't come cheap. Again, Nintendo is in the enviatble position where they can offer a big graphical jump next-gen for little coin.

I am not even sure, how long IBM will bother with the cell. In its core applications,it showed several problems (lacks sufficient double prcission speed, local memory to small for many newer applications, traffic jam of the memory interface and internal bus. The basic fundamentals do not differ so much from a multi core, but multi-cores are easier to program and in changing situations they can switch easier between tasks (a major hazard for the cell). IBM knew what they were doing, when they designed the chip, but I am not so sure if Sony knew what they were doing, when they bought this chip. The cell has advantages in some situation, but even IBM did not believe that they were developping a new generation of general purpose processors. They saw a possible market for such an optimised processor but it is not the new solution for all kinds of problems.

Yes, it was probaly the best solution, that they could get. They will have to change earlier, but they will have cheaper, more special HD chips and more of their costumers will have switched to HD (at the moment a general problem for the next gen consoles in europe), Another think that I would guess, for the next genration; a special physics and effects processor (particles and so), or such applicationsin the GPU, not in the processor itself. The processor does not need the data of rain dropsand so on, these are just gimicks. In fact you could try to create such a situation in the GPU of the Xbox 360, but this GPU still has certain limitations and pifalls. It will probably be standard by 2010.

Nintendo has to keep to that ~$250 launch sweet-spot however (plus profit plus room for other new stuff). Is anyone familar enough with the roadmaps to know where that would put them in 5 or 6 years? E.g. if they wanted to drop ~$150 on the processing hardware at launch in ~2012?

An admission the xbox360 is already a dead dog?.

It has sold almost 10 million units in 16 months. How is it dead?

No. It's an admission there will be a Xbox 3 :)