Until games look like Blizzard cinematics there is always room for improvement =)

so the thing is....if things stay the same, i think it will be a hard sell to need hardware much more powerful than the ps3/360 in terms of visuals.

..but, i could new techs like head tracking/3D displays/much more advanced motion techs/multitasking events (running the game plus all extras like picture in picture/web browsing/cross game speech) will complicating things enough that a significant hardware improvement will be needed.

so short answer...the tech will still matter just in different ways that simply improving the pixal/poly counts.

Oh, one more thing:

I want dynamic fire in games that looks real. Rogue Squadron actually had this, more or less, but they cheated because every explosion was essentially an FMV. It wasn't dynamic!

I want particle and gas physics that make fire look real. Then I'll be satisfied.

We hit the point when graphics no longer matter a long, long time ago, actually. It was 1985, and we called it the Nintendo Entertainment System. But PC gamers called it the Death of Gaming. But then some companies got this idea that people wanted bigger, better, more impressive graphics. And we forgot that they were good enough already. The PC gamers had won after all. Or did they? Wii think not.

Words of Wisdom pointed out that we used to think 5mb of memory would be more than enough, and that tech inside our console will undoubtedly get way better and we will find use for it. This I do not disagree with. My point is more about the speed in which this happens in any meaningful way.

let me frame it this way. Right now there is a huge topic of screenshots trying to show that the wii makes better looking games than the Xbox. Not a big deal really, it was a high end system from last gen compared to a low end (tech wise) system of this gen. But imagine if it was the same topic but comparing the PS3 to the PS4, and you had to shell out 400-500 dollars for a PS4. Would that be worth it?

We're getting to a point of diminishing returns where alot more power is only going to have small meaningful demonstration on screen. I think that generations will become more drawn out as the big three don't want to take any big risks putting out something expensive that doesn't make any drastic improvement over their current profitable product, and people will be less willing to shell out big money for something that looks and plays very close to what they already have. Which means that there will have to be a longer wait time to produce something that is noticeably better that will be marketable and justify the price.

Alot of people have already said that the jump from Xbox to Xbox 360 was a much smaller jump than from PS1 to PS2, or whatever generational example you want to use. And I would have to agree. And if the PS4 launches in 2011 or 2012 then I think that will be an even smaller jump. The generation will have to last longer to produce a more meaningful jump from generation to generation.

I think there is a sizable population who care about graphics enough that even current HD consoles aren't good enough for them. There is still quite a bit of room to grow in graphics.

In reality though the tech in the box deals with more than just graphic. When you compare one of the HD consoles to the Wii you could just look at the graphics difference, but you could also look at the difference in online capability, the difference in on system storage, or the difference in controls (many wii owners will say wii is better, many HD owners will say wii is worst, so ~...).

When, if there comes a time when all consoles on the market are essentially clones of each other it will boil back down to who has the best exclusives, who can utilize the console better, the different strategies of the console makers, etc.

I doubt that will ever come to pass though. I think strategically there may always be a maker who goes the cheapest route, the one who takes the middle route, and the one who takes the higher cost route.

A couple generations, probably by gen 10, then CPU/GPU clocks, RAM, etc, probably won't matter. But of course, by then the next revolution in computing will probably be here, so who knows?

If things continue as they are, certainly we'll quickly reach a point where you have "enough" power, but by that point console gaming might be moot, if computers become powerful enough to simply do it all out of the box (which will happen especially quick if they start making unified chipsets, like Intel's Larabee, making the separate graphics card obsolete), and consoles, as a distinct entity, will die off anyway

I think there is a sizable population who care about cars enough that even current production models aren't fast enough for them. There is still quite a bit of room to grow in speed.

But it's expensive, horribly expensive. And what you gain in speed you lose in being able to park easily, room to stash the shopping, fuel consumption and so on.

Sure, graphics will continue to improve, but I doubt they'll improve much more than now, if at all, while remaining mass market. Development cost caps it out.

Unless you get to the stage where you build the console around the game enginerather than the other way round - but that will be one expensive, specialised, niche beast. You won't buy one, you will rent time on it.

Back to the arcade days.

I dont think new consoles should stop being released until we reach photo realism. If dev's don't push for photo realism just to save some money that's the day I stop gaming.