Lol..its tru a 95nm or 65nm 4.0ghz cpu might keep your house nice and warm but a 45mn or smaller in size 4.0ghz cpu can be very energy efficient , but might point is, keep the original 3.2ghz tri-core Xenon cpu and overclock it or tweek it a little and do the same with the GPU ..  or go with a faster cooler Quad core cpu that in 3 years from now it will be cheaper to produce..

The main priority is increase Ram speed for next gen, The Xbox 360 as is right now with 4gb of Ram would do miracles..

I think a new generation has to wait a couple of years, because it is not possible right now.

Okay, MS made some money with the Xbox360 and Xbox Live, but they need at least 1 more year of profit. Sony has no chance to cover the losses they made with the PS3. Hell, they still aren't profitable. And the price cut won't help either profit wise. The only one that could afford a new generation of consoles is nintendo, but why should they do this? The Wii is the fastest selling console EVER (without any kind of price cut or any kind of redesgin), the DS will be the best selling "console / handheld" ever. They surely want to milk this cow.

But the biggest problem are the 3rd party developers. A lot of developers lost much money the past years. EA lost a lot of money, THQ was almost bankrupt, midway is gone etc etc.

Today, the biggest investments to get in this generation are done. Now, they need some years of revenue without huge investments. So late 2012 would be perfect for a new gen. The hardware will be crazy, the 3rd party developers will be healthy again, the economy will be better, the internet will be bigger and faster (Games on Demand / Video on Demand etc).

And I feel 7 years are pretty much for a hardware. Imagine the PC you would have bought 7 years ago ^^

I honestly wish Microsoft would have added an HD-DVD drive and used HD-DVD's instead of DVD-9s. But alas they didnt and now their disc size is becoming an issue

Good but i rather see the Ms actually make a profit instead next gen.

I agree with the OP,Next gen 2012 ftw!

720 horrible name.

how about something 1080 or higher.

I'd like to see MS release a new console, but natal looks like it's going to be the new big project for MS for a long while

In my opinion, 2012-2013ish is a good period to release something. I think Nintendo will be the first to release some sort of Wii-HD like SKU. Now, I don't think Sony will make the same mistake and launch its console an entire year after Microsoft... neither will they have a $600 price-point.

I like the idea of a loss leading console. In theory, it makes sense. I bought the console which offered the most out of the box, and that IS the PS3. Sony made it for a huge loss, and the consumer benefited in a large way.

Its not as if developer support was hindered, and the install base is large right now, even if they are in third place.

The topic of which console is best is just opinion.
But it is sad that more people did not think which console offered the most for the money because it wasn't even worth thinking about to so many people........
because regardless of what is offered, a $600 game system is a little Nuts.

So when we say 2012, do we mean November 2011? or not until November 2012. The latter of which is the better choice for something like the PS4.

I hope they offer a system that I can buy that costs them, (Sony) more to make again next gen. Although $600 is crazy, a $300, and $400 launch scenario would be perfect for the next gen. I guarantee Sony wants to wait for as long as possible though, since in order to increase hardware performance of the PS3 at all would put them way into the red at the $300 price point currently.

I think it would be cool to offer a disc drive-less sku for $300 and one with a disc slot for $400. Although it still (currently) seems incredibly risky to have a Download only console which would not be able to play blu-ray.

The future is unknown... so the future will have to be now! With PS3.