I like Microsoft the least of the three console manufacturers, but it's fairly clear if MS was to bait Sony into a tech war, Sony right now is in no shape to keep up.

Sony is billions of dollars in debt (it was recently downgraded to BBB+ ... which in layman's terms is very bad).

MS still makes comfy profits every year because of their OS business. If they view the 720 as a 7-8+ year investment and see an oppurtunity to release a better piece of hardware than Sony thus giving them a competetive advantage, just based on the way MS tends to behave, I think they would take it.

hahaha fantastic post!

While I agree with the first part. Interactivity depends on game design about as much (or even more) as on hardware, interctivity is not only destructable enviroments, an example of interactivity may be you character going near rotten fish, than being spotted because you smell like fish in MGS, another example is in Monster Hunter being warned of a dangerous monster incoming because you see its prays running away. These kind of interactions are almost completely unrelated to the hardware.

Also I am a bit skeptical about IA since, while I've seen a lot of progress in graphics from the beginning of this generations to today, at the same time I have't seen a great progression in IA since NPCs in Assasin's Creed are about as much as dumb as in Brotherhood, Gears Of War 3, UC3, CODMW3 NPCs doesn't seem to me a really smarter than GeOW1, UC1, CODMW NPCs. This leads me to belive developers were not really willing to max out consoles on this front.

At the end, what you say is right, but if want more interactivity, bigger words, smarter NPCs what you need, more than the hardware, is the will of developers to create such things, rather than beautifully looking, shiny, corridor-like levels.

At the end of the day, what it all means is that we have no way to know anything and we should just shutup and wait for something official and real.

And make satire.

1st para) I know there are plenty of other examples of interactivity that don't depend on hardware, but I'm talking about the ones that do like destructible environments or large moving environments. 

I'm gonna stay away from talking about AI since I think we both don't actually know enough about it, I shouldn't have brought it up, you could well be right that it's just up to developers to invest time into it. But with the kind of interactivity I'm talking about and having huge detailed maps, we need better consoles, especially if we want to take this level of interactivity, detail and scale online. Prettier graphics and 1080p and/or 60fps is also only achievable on better hardware. You're right in saying a lot of things are achievable now, you can say look at Skyrim or GTAV and what they are doing on current tech, which is great, but think of the potential of these kind of games, imagine skyrim with fully destructible environments, gorgeous visuals, better physics and animations and running at 60fps. Then imagine taking that world onto a server with several to hundreds of more players. This is no where near possible on the current consoles we have, that only scratches the surface of what more we can do with better hardware. 

It will be...interesting and possible. What kind of phylosophy have the new president of Sony?

Another Wii U powerful than this and not powerful than that thread. 

same here tbh

I am calling it now: The next gen Sony and Microsoft consoles will be a PS3 and 360 duct taped together, while the Wii U will be a PS3 and 360 duct taped together with a DS.

Considering Sony is a hardware company, I don't see Microsoft able to pull that off. Plus if the rumors are true and Sony is going with all AMD, devs will have no problem making games for the PS3. I have a feeling the specs will be a little higher on the final announcment for the PS3.