If they weren't working on a new xbox THAT would be an admission that the 360 was dead and Microsoft was getting out of the console business. As for the 11-12 date. I'd say it's a bit early. The early date really helped the 360 in terms of getting a leg up on the competition. But I'd imagine the PS4's date would be significantly later. On the one hand, another 1 year head start would be great for Microsoft. On the other, if it's much more than that, it might be almost be a dreamcast situation.

I have that magazine, and I read that entire article. I did not get that out of the statement he said. It was more like. "After the 360 was launched our dev team took a much needed 1 year break, and now their working agian." He never said anything about the 2011 or 2012, that EGM tryed to put in his mouth. He also said... "I cant say anything about your 'zephyr' or else I'd loose my full time job." (something to that extent) I think it will come around then, but I dont think that is what he meant when he said that.

Geez...the actual quote: "As with any platform group, they're always looking ahead once they deliver a system. They start looking at scenarios, four, six years from now -- where will we be, what will the consumer be looking for, what will be the capabilities of silicon in 2011, 2012, whenever it is that the next next generation starts, These things take years to develop; you have to work with partners to be able to make sure the next-generation console is truly a next-generation console. We're going to be ready for the next generation if and when it arrives." This is not a news item, it's a statement that if there's a next generation they are looking into it. Obviously they are already planning it as Sony and Nintendo are. They would be stupid to not be looking ahead with a 3-way battle like we have right now. This quote says nothing, though.

I think Nintendo will be the only one that comes out with a 200-250 price tag, I can't see MS or Sony doing considering they are still selling systems at the prices they brought them out for.

I think the long term success of the Wii will determing what the price points will be for all three next gen consoles. If the Wii leads or is in a strong second place, I think all three next consoles will have a lower launch price. Not necessarily at $250 price but maybe the $300 price that was the upper limit in the previous generation. I could even see $400 still being the upper limit depending on the success of the 360 and the overall cost of electronics in 5 or 6 years. I can safely say that a $500 to $600 won't be the case or any of the Big Three next gen. Look at what the PS3's high price has done to Sony's momentum after being so successful in the two prior generations. I think Sony overshot the pockets of even the hardcore gamer. Honestly I think the 360s going for such a high price on Ebay caused Sony to think that a $600 price wouldn't be that big of a deal for the hardcore market. Heck, even I though I balked at the price, I thought there would be enough gamers that would pay it. I, like Sony, was mistaken.

Not because of the graphics, but because of the games. You know that as good as I do. If it was about the graphics people would buy a PS3 and no Wii would have been sold in the US today. Of course graphics are a big part of the games we play but honestly: Would you buy a PS3 because it can do "Raytracing"? EDIT: Okay guys, I read everything you wrote now and one question to the statement "the next XBox won´t have a chance because the PS4 will have better graphics" - tell me one system with a major competition that had the best hardware of it´s generation and became market leader. None? Oh... crazy... Maybe the SNES is a different case but we know Sega broke the Neck of the Megadrive / Genesis by itself. N64 vs. PS? PS2 vs. XBox vs. GC? GB vs. two hundred Sega handhelds? GBA vs. Wonder Swan color? DS vs. PSP?

Well technically the Neo Geo, which launched in 1990, was more powerful than the Genesis, TG-16, and SNES. It literally had arcade perfect translations and it didn't compete in sales due to the high price of the console and its games. So your argument is still quite valid Louie.

Nintendo had the best graphics and it was #1. It's also now known (look at God of War 2) that the PS2 in fact has comparable or even better graphics now than the Xbox and the Gamecube. It just took the devs time to fully exploit the system. PS1 won it's gen and I'd say it's graphics were much better than Segas offering and N64. N64 basically had no jaggies, but it didn't have smooth surfaces and shapes. PS1 was able to generate nice shapes and surfaces though there was pixalation and jaggies. Honestly, did N64 have 1 single game that looked as good as Metal Gear Solid?? So that's not neccessarily true. I agree, it's not just about graphics. It's about the whole experience. And having a large library is a major part of that, having good developers. Both things that the PS3 has despite people saying they are losing all their exclusives. They lost "some" third party exclusives. But not that many. Plus SCEA still is the 3rd largest development studio in the world behind Ubisoft and EA. Larger than both Nintendo and Microsofts 1st party game development divisions. While we are on the subject I have heard a lot of developers from 3rd party studios saying that the Nintendo devs are not putting in the effort they could be. I've heard them say games like Zelda could have been much better than they were but the devs just didn't seem to put the work or time in to do so. I never make the argument that 1 system will beat another based soley on graphics. However, graphics can turn the tide of a war. Had the Xbox been properly supported it would have continued to gain ground on the PS2 despite the PS2s massive library advantage and number of developers it had. But Xbox essentially made it known in 2004 that they would be abandoning the system and they started taking all the development away from the system and started on games for the 360.

You know this battle isnt over yet. PSP sales are starting to pick up a little, and some GREAT games are slated for this year.

No chance in hell the 360 sells like the PS2, in the US or anywhere else. Even with the longer lifecycle that's nothing more than a fanboy's dream. The PS2 is outselling the 360 now for Christ's sake. 115 million plus sold world wide, and 40 million just in the US. The fact is none of the three consoles will even approach PS2 numbers. On the longer lifecycle of the console I think it's a great thing for the gaming industry. I don't know why Microsoft just tossed the X-Box brand away 4 years in. I mean they just wanted to end it, and screwed X-Box fans with this limited backwards compatability crap. I think if the 360 has a 6-7 lifespan before the next console it will end as a far more successful system than the original X-Box, and I think it'll allow more gamers to buy multiple consoles as they won't be looking to next gen too soon. And when we get the new console people will be more satisfied as it's developement will be thought out long and hard. It will give the industry some stability. Increase the general console cycle from 5 years to 6 or 7 or even 8. Most people who aren't in the very hardcore graphics crowd will appreciate having a console for longer time without the pressure to buy the next one.