Analyst: Next console cycle isn't coming until 2013

I agree. Them adding a Wii HD would be unprecedented, and would make no sense. Nintendo makes hardware to match software, and what exactly could they do just making the console HD in terms of some sort of flagship title for it (it would have to be something very reliant on eye candy, and few, if any, of their titles work like that)

Of course, there's that thing called an economy, that thing called a major crises, another called unemployment, but hey, another 400$ per console isn't that much is it?
No, it won't be better by 2011. Really.

I never said anything about $400 consoles. They don't sell too well in good economies. I was thinking more along the lines of companies getting smart and releasing consoles in the 200 range. People are still buying $60 games practically as soon as they're out, I would think that for most of these console's target audience, it would only take a little bit of saving before they can afford a new console.

^ Above is @ 435.

Stupid comment system.

yeah my thoughts exactly

Meant to be a reply to Eliwood about digital distribution.

I actually do have satellite but its completely useless for online play, I can easily play Diablo II on dial-up but it pretty much unplayable on satellite. And yeah, it is expensive. $80 a month for a "rolling" 17GB download limit.

And its actually Roy. :P

Whoa! US$80? Jesus! I thought internets was dirt cheap over there. And how fast is Satellite anyway? I get 64KB/s for my broadband, but I am aware it's slow. Hopefully gonna get ADSL2+ soon, which will bump it up to 1MB/s. Yay!

And Roy and eliwood look veeery similar. They have the same clothes, face and hair.

Yep. And I'm pretty much guaranteed that the only reason the price is this high is because of where I live and the only actual competition being dial-up. What makes it even worse for me is that my friend, he lives in town and is only about five/six miles away, does have high speed internet. The companies that provide it in town just neglect to extend it out to where I live. I would absolutely love to kick my current ISP straight in the ass and tell them to take a hike once some other company comes in with better prices. Qwest has a better high speed connection that what I have, with no download cap, for less than 1/4th of what my family is paying now.

Really hope we get some kind of government mandate to vastly improve our infrastructure some time in Obama's presidency. That or whoever Iowa's Governor currently is, I forgot, signs one into law. No reason for this crap.

In Australia Rudd (PM) is building this National Boradband Network, so everyone can have ADSL2+. That being said, for out internet (~60kbps) we pay about US$70. If we upgrade to ADSL2+, we will get ~1mbps for ~US$35. makes sense, right? Also, how fast is satellite? I mean I manage to download full games off Steam with my connection, but they take a few days. :(

It is pretty quick. I've had between 130-150 KB/s download speed. The plan says mine is only supposed to be 1.5 mb/s but I'm fairly certain its far faster than that. A file that is a few hundred megabytes would probably take an hour or so, I think thats what a 350 MB one took. That just makes this even worse of a double edged sword, though. I know I have a good connection but, seeing as I don't want my internet speed dropped below that of dial-up, I can't download a lot thanks to the 17GB download limit.

17 GB is plenty providing you aren't downloading entire movies. And 150kbps is pretty fast (well, it's OK). So you personally would not really be affected by having to "spend" half a gig getting a game, assuming you aren't downloading 10 each month. :)

What exactly do you mean by nothing will have changed?

The PS3 uses a modified nVidia 7000 series graphics card. Crysis runs great on the 9800 cards, and even those are slowly becoming obsolete. By 2013 we will likely have seen at least two more major nVidia series video cards. Nothing will have changed?

Exactly: the next upgrade, at least for Sony and Microsoft, will be more about function than power.

For Nintendo, it'll probably be the opposite.

Next time try hitting "Reply" on your own comment rather than creating a new comment. It keeps the conversation readable and helps group all the relevant posts together.

I'm not really sure what more can be done for a console than it's graphics or space limitations. CPUs have slowed down lately, the only major breakthrough I can think of being multiple cores or SPUs, but even that technology is about 3 years old now. Video cards keep getting better, online is improving, and we are starting to see motion controls galore.

Every other console was defined by it's graphical capabilities, it wasn't until Nintendo created the Wii that we started wanting more than just pretty graphics. What really seperated the PS2 from the Xbox and the GameCube? After awhile they all had online features, and the later it was released the better it looked.

This is the only generation I can think of that hasn't been about which of the 3 has the best graphics thanks to the Wii. It's become a split debate between which has the best games mostly, with graphics being an after-thought between the two HD consoles.

Next generation will probably be just like the last. More powerful hardware, more control/controller options, more online, etc.

Every other console has been sold on the basis of it's graphical capabilites, they've been touted by the media based on their polygon output, but they were not DEFINIED by this. They are defined by their games, which are made possible by end-user-relevant improvements. I speak of the introduction of the D-Pad, the FX Chip & 3D processing, the thumb control stick, online gaming, and motion controls. Usually, there is at least one console in a generation that emphasizes some new feature that makes it distinguishably better than its predecessor. That's what justifies a new generation.

This mentality didn't start with Wii. Wii just reaffirmed it in everyone's minds.

@Khan: I disagree with your prediction about Nintendo. I think they've put too much emphasis on this idea of constant innovation. I'm not sure where exactly they go after motion controls, and I'm sure there will be serious graphical overhauls, but I still think function will be key.

I agree. That is what Sega did. They had a hardware lead with the Genesis and lost it because they jumped to the Saturn too early.

Nintendo must've said a million and a half times that their console has something for everybody. This notion that it was somehow directed only at casuals probably stems from vehemently anti-Nintendo crowd who, for whatever reason, just can't bear to see Nintendo be successful, and feel it's their mission to slander the company at every chance they get.

As for Sony, weren;t there like four versions of the PS3 at the begining?

It's sad isn't; I remember when the only systems we had competing where Nintendo and Sony, with Sega as the third contender. Even though there was a war of consoles, at least we didn't have whiny, elitist tweens saying that there Xbox is way better than Nintendo, and that they should just go away; well newsflash 360 owners, Super Mario made video games, Legend of Zelda revolutionize games, and Goldeneye made mulitplayer games popular, and they all share one thing: they are all made by or for Nintendo. So all those "original" games for the 360 owe some thanks to Nintendo for making games popular.

Well I'm pretty sure an analyst once said Sony will make a PS3. I think he was right. :)