Analyst predicts new Xbox, Nintendo consoles by 2010

[bdbdbd]

Ail said:

1*You know we're reaching a stage where computing power in consoles is starting to be pretty good and i can see the PS3 lasting longer than what is being predicted in this thread.
I started to notice that for PC like 3 years ago and it will be the same for consoles.

2*It used to be you had to update your PC every 2-3 years if you wanted to play the most recent games and now you can keep it for 4 years and you're still fine except for a few rare crazy games ( Crysis).

It's going to be the same for consoles. The majority of games don't need more powerfull consoles to be able to run well.( only thing you could argue for is the somewhat low RAM in this gen consoles).
So yeah I see the PS3 around until like 2013....
And that's part of Sony's brand image.
You pay more for their stuff, but it's good quality and will last you a while..........
Of course I can see Microsoft wanting to replace their 360 faster cause that DVD-Reader is gonna start being obsolete pretty soon and most ppls don't want to switch 4 discs during game play.....

3*Right now I could be wrong but I really don't see the case for a killer new console in 2011 or so that would make this generation's consoles obsolete by blowing their performances out...( in a way that can actually be noticeable in games). Only exception is the Wii but their price point allow them to get a new console out and not upset their customer base...

PS : Consoles are not Ipod. 4*Microsoft and Sony really don't make any cash out of selling them, the cash is from games, so as long as you can design kick ass games on the current consoles there is no incentive for them to replace them early.....( there was last gen for Microsoft because of the Nvidia issue and their market share). This gen however I don't see any of the big 3 in such a bad market position that they would want to say ' these cards sucks, lets shuffle the deck and start over again'

Actually your arguments can be used also against them. 1. This definately is proved by console sales. The weakest hardware by far is beating the competition combined by weekly basis. 2. This is because of longer development times. The longer the a game takes to develope, the more harder it is to predict what kind of hardware will be available when the game comes out, so the devs need to "play it safe". 3. Who says anything about blowing performance out? You miss the most important part. I said in another thead, that next generation consoles will all propably use single processor CPU, performance around twice what PS3 has. It doesn't matter how powerful for example PS3 is, when it's finally wise to use only 1/3 of it's power because of its complex processor. What the 3 want to do is blow this gen away with lower game development costs (except maybe for Nintendo), since it makes easier profit and less risks. If the game sells a million, why would you spend 20 million to develope it, when you can do it with 10? And besides, new hardware may be cheaper in long term, if it's designed in the right way. In 2011, beating PS360 performance with single RISC isn't going to be a big deal. 4. This was just to fill number 3. They could sell consoles at profit. They could make games cheaper. They could make more money with bigger marketshare. But they don't. Maybe next gen they will?