It's been 5 years, and no ones talking 'next gen' yet.

[vivaeljason]

I do not see myself keeping up with a next generation of video gaming. It's hard enough for me to get interested in this generation.

I basically hate first-person shooters, I don't do RPGs, and most everything else is basically a copy of something I've got on some other system. My 360 collection is basically at sports and racing games, Guitar Hero, and Lego stuff, and a few other games here and there I sort of like.

I echo these sentiments completely, hence why I've gotten into vintage game collecting. I find myself only playing things like Smackdown vs. Raw or sports games on the 360. I barely touch the Wii, save for occassionally dusting off a first party game. I think those of us not into FPS's (or, for the Wii, "casual" gaming) are being left out in the cold this generation.

[duffmanth]

I think Sony helped put an end to the traditional 5 year console life cycle with the PS1 and PS2, and that's why there hasn't been much talk about "next gen" right now. This current generation of console gaming is going to last longer than previous ones I think? Because the current systems are so computer like now and have loads of power and online capabilities, I think their life cycles will be extended through software updates and hardware additions like Natal and motion sensing.

There's so many people that have just got onboard with this console gen, that it be would stupid for a new round of consoles to launch any time soon. The PS3 is just starting to hit its stride in the last 6 months or so, the 360 has Natal on the way and still has tons of games coming. I think the Wii is going to be the system that is going to be replaced first though. It doesn't have the power and capabilities to compete with the PS3 and 360, and as HD becomes more the norm, I think the Wii is gonna get left behind.

[heybtbm]

Just release a HD Wii with decent storage and I'll be happy. The 360 and PS3 are perfect as is.

Besides, developers can barely afford to make current-gen games right now. Why would they want to push those costs even higher? Nope, "Next Gen" isn't happening anytime soon.

[Trebuken]

I think then upgrade to the Wii will be a new, fully compatible, console, with HD. They need more power under the hood. Likely to include something innovative as well.

I unfortunately suspect Natal will not wait fot the next Xbox, but will arrive for Christmas 2010, with perhaps Fable 3...

Consoles profit most in after the first couple of years and I think after the costs and hardware failure rates of this generation we will see an attempt to maximize that potential, and prepare for the costs of the next gen consoles -- what happens to Natal if you add in 3D gaming? Will it still integrate well? Maybe the two techs will be the next gen...

Anyways I can wait as well. I'm a PC Gamer and current games are not really challenging the hardware the way they should be - and since I current PC trumps a console (espeacially with nVidia's new CPU's coming) I think developers have not maxed out what they can do this generation yet.

E3 is not that far away...

[diskoboy]

Wow. What weirds me out, is I was totally expecting all the "I'm not ready for the next gen, yet" comments.

I'd give it about another 2 years, myself.

My guess is Sony still has a good 3-4 year shelf life with the PS3, and I assume if MS does start to work on another console, they'll wanna do riggorous testing to make sure they dont have the failure rates of the 360. So I'm sure they're gonna spend alot of time on the design process.

[calistarwind]

A lot of it as people have touched on is that all these companies minus Nintendo are just now getting into the black on selling their systems. Software companies are laying people off because there are too many games flooding the market and people just don't have the money to take a chance on the uncertain titles. Most people just this past year were able to jump into this generation of gaming and so to them it is year one with a ton of gaming to catch up on.

I see it first hand everyday and it is getting harder to justify an extra dollar here and there. Nintendo is going the route they know best and making tons of add ons that never see more than one or two games of use. I think were beginning to see more of that effort from the big 3 because it is all mostly profit.

[kedawa]

I'm surprised so many here actually think that the current gen systems are somehow the apex of computer technology. The 360 and PS3 were bog standard hardware the day they were released, and the Wii... well, we all know it was never anything but a modified Gamecube.

Most games can't even produce 1080p visuals at 60fps, which means they aren't even taking full advantage of the HD video format. 3D shutter glasses, which seem to finally be making real inroads in the market, require a steady 120Hz framerate. Nevermind the fact that all of the lighting and surface rendering techniques being used in games today are just clever tricks designed to hide how simplistic the graphics rendering really is.

Graphics aren't the only thing that would be improved by having more powerful processors, either. Most modern games have adaquate graphics anyway, but the physics and AI are a joke. I don't see the point of striving for photorealistic visuals when the actual mechanics of the games have barely improved over what we had on the last generation of systems. Most games that are touted as realistic are just heavily scripted and have pre-rigged models for anything destructible. With the right middleware and powerful enough hardware, game development might actually get easier in the next generation.

All of the advanced motion tracking gimmicks that are being hyped at the moment take their share of processing resources in order to function quickly enough for gaming, too.

I'm not in any rush to have a new generation of consoles, mostly because I hate what the current generation has done to gaming, but there is ample technological justification for an upgrade.

[XYXZYZ]

Also consider that Microsoft packed 360 with the technology required to take gaming to the next technical level, and the damn things just didn't work and they melted themselves. PS3 brought us the latest gaming technology in a much more stable package, but the damn things were $600.00.

If the market does require that new consoles debut every five years, I shudder to think of the clusterfuck of failures and ridiculous prices the new hardware would have trying to outdo the last generation this early.

[Flack]

Sixth-gen gave us DVD games and online play. Seventh-gen (current) gave us Blu-ray/HD-DVD, HD video, and default wireless controllers. I'm not really sure what Eighth-Gen plans on offering us. I almost see a "7.5" gen coming, where everything equals out -- Microsoft and Sony add motion controls like the Wii's, and the Wii adds HD video like the PS3/360. That's pretty common, I think. I remember a lot more exclusive titles near the beginning of the sixth-gen race than near the end.

But yeah, I'm not sure what next-gen is supposed to offer us. Better graphics? I don't really think the problem with the current-gen is the graphics. I know there's a push right now with 3D stuff but that's a fad. I could see more interactivity but that's not enough of a technology push to launch another generation of consoles.

I know it doesn't always work like this, but I paid twice as much for my launch PS3 as I did for my launch PS2, so I'm kind of hoping it remains current-gen twice as long. Wishful thinking, I know.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

I'm with most everyone, because I too am not ready for another generation. The Wii would be great with an HD upgrade, and maybe Microsoft could do well with a standard Blu-Ray drive (although I don't think microsoft will add one this gen). But thats it. I think many people wouldn't mind some minor updates to the current gen consoles, but don't want whole new systems.

[Bojay1997]

I'm surprised so many here actually think that the current gen systems are somehow the apex of computer technology. The 360 and PS3 were bog standard hardware the day they were released, and the Wii... well, we all know it was never anything but a modified Gamecube.

Most games can't even produce 1080p visuals at 60fps, which means they aren't even taking full advantage of the HD video format. 3D shutter glasses, which seem to finally be making real inroads in the market, require a steady 120Hz framerate. Nevermind the fact that all of the lighting and surface rendering techniques being used in games today are just clever tricks designed to hide how simplistic the graphics rendering really is.

Graphics aren't the only thing that would be improved by having more powerful processors, either. Most modern games have adaquate graphics anyway, but the physics and AI are a joke. I don't see the point of striving for photorealistic visuals when the actual mechanics of the games have barely improved over what we had on the last generation of systems. Most games that are touted as realistic are just heavily scripted and have pre-rigged models for anything destructible. With the right middleware and powerful enough hardware, game development might actually get easier in the next generation.

All of the advanced motion tracking gimmicks that are being hyped at the moment take their share of processing resources in order to function quickly enough for gaming, too.

I'm not in any rush to have a new generation of consoles, mostly because I hate what the current generation has done to gaming, but there is ample technological justification for an upgrade.

Strongly agree. Anyone who has played a current game on a high end PC knows there is a lot that can be done to make a whole new generation of consoles worth picking up. There are really just two reasons why this generation will probably go an extra two years beyond the traditional five years and that's the economy and the losses both Microsoft and Sony experienced early in this generation. Other than picking up a new Nintendo handheld or a new HD Nintendo console for under $300, I doubt you could get the general public to buy a $400-$500 new MS or Sony console right now. The economy is just in really, really rough shape and that is the only reason the next generation will be delayed.

[j_factor]

I'm not totally itching for a next gen myself, but I'd like to point out that a lot of what you guys are saying are things that I was thinking five years ago.

Also, it's only the very beginning of 2010. Xbox 360 launched near the end of 2005. It ain't been five years yet, only four years and a couple months. Remember, we didn't really hear about the 360 until a few months before its launch. If we still haven't heard anything by the end of this year, that'll be something.

A different way of looking at duration would be to note that 3DO launched in 1993, Dreamcast launched in 1999, and Xbox 360 launched in 2005. So the first console of the next generation isn't due until 2011. If nothing else, I do predict "Wii HD" will come in 2011. But I really hope it's more than just the Wii augmented with the ability to output HD resolutions.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

You gotta figure with the size and resources of these companies, that they are creating the next system right now, in some back room somewhere. They'd be stupid not to continue to develop their technology in the face of such competition.

Of course, if that info leaked out, they'd stunt their own sales as people would say "I'm holding out for the Wii 2."

By the way, I think the next generation will be 100% download-only games, not discs or cartridges. No more box art, etc.

I also want to point out that I have never played a PS3 or an X-Box 360. I'm 95% old school with a little bit of Wii added in.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

By the way, I think the next generation will be 100% download-only games, not discs or cartridges. No more box art, etc.

Not possible. There are many sections of the country where high speed internet isn't available.

[kedawa]

You gotta figure with the size and resources of these companies, that they are creating the next system right now, in some back room somewhere. They'd be stupid not to continue to develop their technology in the face of such competition.

The technology is all developed by IBM, Nvidia, and AMD/ATI nowadays anyhow, so the console giants don't really have to do much until the market is ready. Sony doesn't even bother with middleware development until the last minute, it seems.

Not possible. There are many sections of the country where high speed internet isn't available.

Right, because hardly anyone lives there. Even if somehow the broadband situation doesn't improve over the next couple of years, I doubt Sony or MS are going to include optical drives just so some insignificant percentage of rural americans aren't left out.

[j_factor]

Right, because hardly anyone lives there. Even if somehow the broadband situation doesn't improve over the next couple of years, I doubt Sony or MS are going to include optical drives just so some insignificant percentage of rural americans aren't left out.

I still don't see it happening yet. Even on a relatively speedy cable connection, a 25GB download will take quite a chunk of time. And if you think it takes a while already, just wait until your connection gets throttled.

[Fuyukaze]

I dont believe companies can afford to launch a next gen system these days. Maybe in 3-4 years we may see some new systems but right now the market's not ready and the expense of developing new hardware isnt justified. For all the top notch specs the 360 and PS3 have, they are still taking second and third to a system like the Wii.

[Breetai]

By the way, I think the next generation will be 100% download-only games, not discs or cartridges. No more box art, etc.

Zero percent chance of that happening. If anything, we might start to see dual hard and soft copies of games being releases with perhaps the soft copies being released a week or so before the hard copies. IF (big, big, big IF) they try to phase hard copies out, it will take another couple of console generations. It would be at least the 9th generation, more likely 10th, before it's downloadables only.

[kedawa]

I still don't see it happening yet. Even on a relatively speedy cable connection, a 25GB download will take quite a chunk of time. And if you think it takes a while already, just wait until your connection gets throttled.

Yeah, I'm not really sure how it would work.
It's possible that you could start playing the game before it's fully downloaded, which would just require proper prioritization of files.
The games could also just download portions as needed, which would suck since you'd need to be online at all times.
Maybe they'd simply have to be archived with some high ratio compression.
There's also the outside chance of one of those remote gaming networks actually becoming viable, although that wouldn't require more powerful hardware than what we have now.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a console maker could cut a deal with the cable and phone companies for higher throughput for their service, possibly even selling their system as a subsidized set-top box.

[Flack]

I was actually thinking about this the other day. What if GameStop, Walmart and a few other authorized distribution centers could download the game, and then you could just take your hard drive (in some sort of removable caddy) to the store and have the game downloaded to you there. Not for everybody, but as an alternative for people without hi-speed Internet access ...