Yeah, seems like practical reasoning.  Sony & MS should be the first out of the gate, and I have a good feeling that MS will be first.  Now whether that's a poor or smart decision remains to be seen.  My best guess would probablly be Nov 2011 for MS, May 2012 for Sony, and Nov 2012 for Nintendo.  But then again, a lot can happen in 3 years.... so I reserve the right to change my mind ;)

@Comrade Tovya: I think M$ gained a lot with the year headstart (atleast indirectly) and i believe they want the advantage again. Sony is maybe the hardest guess. Could be a release close to Nintendos release, as it was with PS3 and Wii, or maybe not. But i'm pretty sure Sony don't want to be left behind either and the "release window" is already decided. I don't believe in 2010 release for the next Xbox, despite some people do, due to long game developement time.

Can't we all just play the games we want and be happy with that.

1. But as a gamer, what do you care more about - the games, or the companies' profit? Most of the time, profits & good games go hand in hand (as they are with the X360 now). I understand your logic, but at the same time...Nintendo's profits aren't bringing more core AAA games to the Wii.......Are they?

2. Again, with 60% of Xbox 360 owners having their consoles online...Survey says a lot use the online components, even in the least bit. A good example of profitability thanks to DLC features would be Namco's 'IdolM@ster'. They reported that IdolM@ster made $3.2 million dollars in DLC alone. That's amazing given the Japanese userbase for a X360 exclusive (that'd be like selling an extra 50,000 units with the vast majority of revenue going to your company).

3....Have you actually played a lot of games with/for gamerscore? Most achievements are based on doing certain things like racking up lots of points, finishing a game, and competing insane tasks (such as 100,000 kills on Gears of War 2).

4. You give 2 examples of Wiii games - one takes ages to play online,  the other...Not so much. With the vast (and I mean vast) majority of online X360 games, it takes a matter of a minute or two. The usage of multiplayer online with X360 games is vastly more robust for almost any given game, than the Wii counterpart. That's pretty big, considering how many people play games online (at this moment, more than 80,000 people are playing Halo 3 online).

5. So you've always been mad at PC expansion packs, right? Most gamers enjoy more of a good thing. Furthermore, not every developer has the ability to push 100% of what they want out at release. Many games that have DLC have tons of great content added for free, or very affordably that would have most likely killed sales due to changed release dates, and budget overruns.....Halo 3 maps, CoD4 maps, and N+ maps would be good examples. As well as Shivering Isles - do you really expect SI to be included in the base game of Oblivion when it launched?!

Why does the idea of a Wii HD threaten people so much, or why does it have to be a "new console", and not merely an upgrade of the existing Wii?

Are people upset that the DSi has a bigger screen than the previous DS models, too?  Or that future DS models might have both screens touch-sensitive?  Mad that Sony increased the frequency cap of 222 MHz to 266 MHz for Ratchet & Clank, and to 333 MHz (the max) on the PSP processor just before the release of the PSP-2000 and God of War PSP?

The early software didn't have the option to use more cycles, or use both touchscreens, etc... yet new software does have that option ("option" being the operative word -- the old DS and PSPs still need to be able to play the games).  Wii games can have the option to increase texture resolution and output display resolution, with a faster GPU/more texture memory... not a big deal.

The only problems with this console generation are pricing (I'm looking at you DLC and PS3) and a lack or original IPs. High development costs are likely the cause of both.

Hey Thanks :)

Yeah, I didn't expect this thread to go super smooth. It's looking better as I look though the pages.

The point was I noticed two things that were odd. One was the lack of the Wii in any form of disscusion. This is something I've noticed more often as PS3 vs 360 is an appropriate title for this generation. Yes, the Wii has pretty much won, but even last generation the PS2 was in talks. Now, the Wii has been totally excluded. But why?

The other thing is I think the Industry has overshot the consumer. Look at how they talked in the video. Besides Netflix, they talked about all these things they think consumers want, but they really dont (outside of the gaming circles). DLC is the big one. I tlaked to a friend and he thought digital distribution was the way of the gaming future. But last generation people didn't connect online. I wouldn't be surprised if people did the same thing this time around.

In some ways, I feel the indusrty is stumbling down the wrong path.

I don't feel threatened by a Wii HD.

But then again I am happy with my HD console, it seems to me that some of the people mentionning Wii HD, actually wish their Wii was HD......

@Mrstickball

I see your points, but I see your post are a "gamers" perspective. The perspective of one playing the games. I am looking at it in a analytical way. What I speak of is business, something the industry forgets.

Thing is, many view it because of how limited the Wii is in terms of hardware...When the Wii gets inferior ports of nearly every single title, analysts wonder if Nintendo will upgrade the Wii to at least get decent ports for competitive reasons.

Good point. I think the problem is a pit of a path. The publishers/developers make "casual" games and other games to cash in on the Wii. They fail. The indusrty see it's a problem with the Wii hardwares and "predicts" a better one will come. The industry never took Nintendo seriously.

So you, as a gamer, take high amounts of comfort in who brings in the most profits? For Microsoft losing a lot of cash, I'm a relatively happy gamer as a X360 owner - I've got tons of fun games (the 'Big titles' as you call them). In business terms, yes, the profit is all that matters. But as a gamer, the content matters far more - which is why people love talking about awesome game X selling well, and shovelware game Y doing poorly.

No, I say all of this as an analysis (not to say I'm a professional). I point blame at the industry becuase instead of looking at this with a business lens, they see console wars. This has been a big fault of the industry.

Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 owners connect their systems to the internet 60% of the time. 35% of all Xbox 360 owners have downloaded at least 1 title via Live. Those are pretty important numbers, no? Maybe in your world, the majority does not matter, but in real life it does.

35% is not the majority. That means there are 8.47 buyers of DLC. Microsoft is doing their business wrong. They are not focuses on growth but stagnation. With only 8.47 buyers of DLC, it should not be a consern. The focus should be getting more of those 60% of people buying DLC, or getting the other 40% online. But instead of doing this, Microsoft skipped a step and marketed to the people who aleady consumers rather then get the rest of their user base buying up DLC. So, with this in mind, why does Microsoft and Sony spend SO much money on DLC when there is only 35% of thise user base is buiying it. Couldn;t the money be spent on better things.

Also, keep in mind that the 360 and PS3 are both systems selling to higher tier gamers, ones who will get their consoles online. I doubt very many of the 120million PS2 owners got online. But, if you can find numbers to disprove me..

And some gamers do play games for high scores. If that wasn't the case, why do some gamerscore junkies have 20x and 30x the number of points above the average? Ever looked at a high score list before...On ANY game in history that has 'em? What about watching 'The King of Kong: Fistfull of Quarters' - High scores exist as an athletic achievement in the same way sports statistics do. It allows us to visually see how good, or how much we improve on a game.

No, people KEEP playing for highscores. People play for fun games.

Maybe because the race for second is the only relevant one. The Wii has one. At this point, it's like talking about Playstation 2 dominance years ago. And who are 'they'? Business leaders always talk sales - and I don't think a lot love to talk about Game Party being a million seller, because they may be embarrassed that such an odd title sold that well.

I don't know about you, but the PS2 was still a focus in the industry's mind.

Now look at what I underlined. Why wont a business leader talk about a game that sold well. Oh, becuase it's a "non-game". As a business, you SHOULD be talking about game sales, no matter how odd. Why? Becuase you can make money by studying an odd game that sells well. Guess what? If an "odd" game sold well, it did something right. This is just another fault of the industry.

Also, being involved in the XBLA download sales scene - I can tell you that a ton of business leaders care about that segment. I've talked to dozens of developers about my weekly charts.

This may seem like a low blow, but, with what was mentioned earlier, these business leaders may have some bias. If they refuse to talk about "odd" games then they may not be doing their job correctly.

We can also say that a business leader looka at all points of the industry. Looking at anything can give you an insight of how to do other things, or how something can be done better. It's just good analysis.

Ever thought that DLC may be a way to make a fun game....Funner? Or longer? I loved Oblivion. That's why I bought Shivering Isles. Rather than risk buying another game which may be inferior, I payed $30 to expand my Oblivion experience by dozens of hours. If offered the option - Wouldn't you enjoy playing a few extra levels of Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess? I know I would.

My point was that the industry has lost focus. Can DLC make a game better. Yes.

But something interesting you pointed out. If SMG and TP had DLC, then wouldn't it be better. Why does Nintendo not do this? It is the same reason Nintendo is behind every generation. Take online for instance. The "gamer" likes online. So why not do it. The truth is many people didn't get their systems online. DLC is the same thing. Only 35% are getting DLC. Remember this is a console with lower sales and higher tier games. Additionally, the lower selling console have higher attach(is that the word?) rates. So, naturally, it would not be surprising to see a higher % of people online or consuming DLC.

So perhaps there is a reason Nintendo does not follow suit.