PlayStation 4 - Xbox 720 - Wii 2

In alt.games.video.xbox Buckaroo Banzai <blisteringlogic@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't that be WII II?

Wii-Wii? (sorry, couldn't resist.)

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

On Aug 1, 3:06*pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> In alt.games.video.xbox Buckaroo Banzai <blisteringlo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't that be WII II?
>
> Wii-Wii? (sorry, couldn't resist.)

Nintendo Urethra.

Heard it here first.

On Aug 1, 3:06*pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> In alt.games.video.xbox Buckaroo Banzai <blisteringlo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't that be WII II?
>
> Wii-Wii? (sorry, couldn't resist.)

Nintendo Urethra.

"Jay" <THDJasonT@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:64670fe3-3a6f-45ad-9790-7e0f5e61475c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 3:06 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> In alt.games.video.xbox Buckaroo Banzai <blisteringlo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't that be WII II?
>
> Wii-Wii? (sorry, couldn't resist.)

Nintendo Urethra.

Heard it here first.




shouldn't it be called 'number 2 ' ?



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In article
<86821fee-e92d-429d-b7e2-76a1ea779ef1@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Jordan <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Is it ever too early? You can bet the big companies are already
> thinking and talking about it internally.
>
> > With the expense and success of this crop of systems--which have been out
> > two to three
> > years--it could be closer to eight years before we see the PlayStation
> > 4, Xbox 720 and Nintendo "Us"--or whatever they end up being called.
>
> That's entirely possible. The Wii has already out-sold the Gamecube in
> 1/2 the time so I expect they'll want to keep it going as long as
> possible. The question is, will their customer base stick around that
> long?

Sales of software should continue to accelerate so most publishers
aren't ready to jump, now that they're at the point of leveraging their
tools investments.

But as consumers, we'd benefit from new consoles even in a couple of
years. They should at a minimum have 2 GB of RAM and full 1080p
rendering with AA, not the hodge podge of nonstandard resolutions and
hit and miss filtering we have now.

By the end of 2009, the consoles should hit the 2009 price point and as
long as the economy doesn't tank, sales would accelerate.

On Aug 3, 4:28*pm, poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:
> In article
> <86821fee-e92d-429d-b7e2-76a1ea779...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> *Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Is it ever too early? You can bet the big companies are already
> > thinking and talking about it internally.
>
> > > With the expense and success of this crop of systems--which have beenout
> > > two to three
> > > years--it could be closer to eight years before we see the PlayStation
> > > 4, Xbox 720 and Nintendo "Us"--or whatever they end up being called.
>
> > That's entirely possible. The Wii has already out-sold the Gamecube in
> > 1/2 the time so I expect they'll want to keep it going as long as
> > possible. The question is, will their customer base stick around that
> > long?
>
> Sales of software should continue to accelerate so most publishers
> aren't ready to jump, now that they're at the point of leveraging their
> tools investments.
>
> But as consumers, we'd benefit from new consoles even in a couple of
> years. *They should at a minimum have 2 GB of RAM and full 1080p
> rendering with AA, not the hodge podge of nonstandard resolutions and
> hit and miss filtering we have now.
>
> By the end of 2009, the consoles should hit the 2009 price point and as
> long as the economy doesn't tank, sales would accelerate.

As a consumer, I don't want to have to get a new set of consoles every
4 or even 5 years, especially this time around. Why? Because of the
simple fact that games are taking even longer to make, and with the
endless series of delays, we're seeing fewer games per
year......meaning that not only will I get a smaller return on my
investment, but also developers won't be getting the over-arching
experience needed to make development more efficient and cost-
effective, so that they can focus on more advances and getting more
out of the hardware (as opposed to reinventing the wheel with each new
game). 8 years or more out? Probably too long. But I wouldn't mind
having the current generation around for another 4 or 5 years, instead
of having to start from scratch in the fall of 2010. Hell, for both
MS and Sony, it makes sense to stretch it out. For Sony, the cost of
blu-ray manufacturing should start dropping over the next few years,
allowing them to cut costs further, while Microsoft has just recently
(hopefully) figured out a workaround for the RROD design issue, and
will want to take advantage of their position as market leaders for a
while to recoup losses. Plus, MS probably doesn't want to just rush
into a new console like last time, and screw up again on the hardware
side.

"Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon452@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e2e2afe-728f-4187-8e77-73972b4a8f91@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 3, 4:28 pm, poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:
> In article
> <86821fee-e92d-429d-b7e2-76a1ea779...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jordan <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Is it ever too early? You can bet the big companies are already
> > thinking and talking about it internally.
>
> > > With the expense and success of this crop of systems--which have been
> > > out
> > > two to three
> > > years--it could be closer to eight years before we see the PlayStation
> > > 4, Xbox 720 and Nintendo "Us"--or whatever they end up being called.
>
> > That's entirely possible. The Wii has already out-sold the Gamecube in
> > 1/2 the time so I expect they'll want to keep it going as long as
> > possible. The question is, will their customer base stick around that
> > long?
>
> Sales of software should continue to accelerate so most publishers
> aren't ready to jump, now that they're at the point of leveraging their
> tools investments.
>
> But as consumers, we'd benefit from new consoles even in a couple of
> years. They should at a minimum have 2 GB of RAM and full 1080p
> rendering with AA, not the hodge podge of nonstandard resolutions and
> hit and miss filtering we have now.
>
> By the end of 2009, the consoles should hit the 2009 price point and as
> long as the economy doesn't tank, sales would accelerate.

As a consumer, I don't want to have to get a new set of consoles every
4 or even 5 years, especially this time around. Why? Because of the
simple fact that games are taking even longer to make, and with the
endless series of delays, we're seeing fewer games per
year......meaning that not only will I get a smaller return on my
investment, but also developers won't be getting the over-arching
experience needed to make development more efficient and cost-
effective, so that they can focus on more advances and getting more
out of the hardware (as opposed to reinventing the wheel with each new
game). 8 years or more out? Probably too long. But I wouldn't mind
having the current generation around for another 4 or 5 years, instead
of having to start from scratch in the fall of 2010. Hell, for both
MS and Sony, it makes sense to stretch it out. For Sony, the cost of
blu-ray manufacturing should start dropping over the next few years,
allowing them to cut costs further, while Microsoft has just recently
(hopefully) figured out a workaround for the RROD design issue, and
will want to take advantage of their position as market leaders for a
while to recoup losses. Plus, MS probably doesn't want to just rush
into a new console like last time, and screw up again on the hardware
side.


=============================================

and in all honesty, what could a new console conceivably add in features
within the next few years to make it a must buy on launch day? we're
already high-def, 5.1+, motion controlled, and online. with current-gen
games like Force Unleashed adding dynamic deformation with plenty of CPU
cycles to spare, there's not much I can think of next generation consoles
being able to offer should it only be another 3 or 4 years til we see them.
maybe rock solid 1080p/60fps? complete elimination of loading screens? I'd
rather developers start taking better advantage of the vast amounts of
hardware resources currently available to them. and for Microsoft to find a
better solution for RRoDs, which are the Achille's heel of an otherwise
pretty stellar piece of hardware.

"Wolfing" <wolfing1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fc6faf5-cad1-479d-a9d9-8dfc184e011a@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote:
> On Jul 29, 11:18 pm, NV55 <nvidian...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > PlayStation 4 And More
> > Chris Morris 07.29.08, 6:00 AM ET
>
> > Before we get started, let's get one thing straight: It's insanely
> > early to start thinking about the next generation of videogame
> > systems.
>
> No it's not. In case this guy hasn't been paying attention, the 360
> has been out for almost 3 years now, and the PS3 and Wii have been out
> for almost two years. The console life of the last Xbox was only about
> 4 years and the last Playstation was only about 6 years. So assuming a
> median of 5-year console lives (about par-for-the-course from the
> past), we are likely only a little more than a couple of years away
> from seeing the first new next-gen system. That's HARDLY "insanely
> early." "Insanely early" would be right after they came out, not years
> later.
>
> In fact, I suspect that this is probably what spawned all the
> "Microsoft is adding a blu-ray drive to the 360" rumors. MS is almost
> certainly already designing their Xbox 720, and are probably shopping
> around to companies for a blu-ray drive for it.
>
> -Eric

I think I agree. What made the PS2 last so long was basically no
competition (the Xbox could have been, but wasn't) so they just took
their sweet time. Now, with 3 players, chances are they are working
hard on the next iteration. My bet is Nintendo will come first, a new
system with high definition, but 100% compatible with the Wii (not
hard to do since it's pretty much a Gamecube with a cool controller).
Then Microsoft, and finally Sony. I don't think the name for the Xbox
will be Xbox 720 as someone mentioned (might confuse people into
thinking the resolution is 720p)

I'm been saying that the next Nintendo system would end up being a Wii HD.
Maybe slightly better controllers. I know there's a new Add-On for the Wii
controllers for better motion, so the new Wii HD will have that built in for
example. Nintendo is all about keeping it cheap and selling the systems for
a profit right off the bat, which is a good Idea since the Wii seems to be
more of the Wii Sports player. It's just not selling many 3rd party games.
The number of games sold per wii sold is pretty poor, unlike the 360.

In microsoft.public.xbox khee mao <asdf@asdf.asdf> wrote:
> and in all honesty, what could a new console conceivably add in features
> within the next few years to make it a must buy on launch day? we're
> already high-def, 5.1+, motion controlled, and online. with current-gen
> games like Force Unleashed adding dynamic deformation with plenty of CPU
> cycles to spare, there's not much I can think of next generation consoles
> being able to offer should it only be another 3 or 4 years til we see them.
> maybe rock solid 1080p/60fps? complete elimination of loading screens? I'd
> rather developers start taking better advantage of the vast amounts of
> hardware resources currently available to them. and for Microsoft to find a
> better solution for RRoDs, which are the Achille's heel of an otherwise
> pretty stellar piece of hardware.

That's the big question. "What's next?" At least last-gen, we could all
point to HD as being the next big step in console gaming. Well, it's
here.

Maybe we could go with 3d, with better online integration?

Though that would still beg the question - would the games be better?

I find it rather telling that some of this generation's best games aren't
HD extravenganzas. Sure, you got your Halo3, your GTA4, but then you've
also got Puzzle Fighter, and Champion Edition PacMan.

The download model for the smaller games seems to work well in my
opinion. I could almost see someone shoving the equivelent of a Wii's
worth of hardware into a satellite/cable DVR, and letting people download
games from the PPV channels. That would be a strong competitor for
Nintendo. Especially if you start getting some of the big casual game
labels from the PC to sign up, such as WildGames or PopCap.


--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:3bWdneBcYPYVHQrVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@posted.rawba ndwidth...
> In microsoft.public.xbox khee mao <asdf@asdf.asdf> wrote:
>> and in all honesty, what could a new console conceivably add in features
>> within the next few years to make it a must buy on launch day? we're
>> already high-def, 5.1+, motion controlled, and online. with current-gen
>> games like Force Unleashed adding dynamic deformation with plenty of CPU
>> cycles to spare, there's not much I can think of next generation consoles
>> being able to offer should it only be another 3 or 4 years til we see
>> them.
>> maybe rock solid 1080p/60fps? complete elimination of loading screens?
>> I'd
>> rather developers start taking better advantage of the vast amounts of
>> hardware resources currently available to them. and for Microsoft to
>> find a
>> better solution for RRoDs, which are the Achille's heel of an otherwise
>> pretty stellar piece of hardware.
>
> That's the big question. "What's next?" At least last-gen, we could all
> point to HD as being the next big step in console gaming. Well, it's
> here.
>
> Maybe we could go with 3d, with better online integration?
>
> Though that would still beg the question - would the games be better?
>
> I find it rather telling that some of this generation's best games aren't
> HD extravenganzas. Sure, you got your Halo3, your GTA4, but then you've
> also got Puzzle Fighter, and Champion Edition PacMan.
>
> The download model for the smaller games seems to work well in my
> opinion. I could almost see someone shoving the equivelent of a Wii's
> worth of hardware into a satellite/cable DVR, and letting people download
> games from the PPV channels. That would be a strong competitor for
> Nintendo. Especially if you start getting some of the big casual game
> labels from the PC to sign up, such as WildGames or PopCap.
>
I think the games will just get better looking, and speeder. All running in
true 1080P with every feature possible. Even more of a whole type of Home
Media System. Games, Movies, and more. Hell on LIVE MS expected like 200
pieces of content and it's over 17,000 now. Maybe built in DVR capabilities.
Just because there's HD this generation doesn't mean it can't be improved.
Hell there was HD on the original Xbox. Hell even from the Atari 2600 to
Atari 5200, or NES, and SNES, they were all getting better and better
graphic's wise and the SDTV's didn't get any better. The same old 480
interlaced lines of resolution. You should still see huge leaps in HD
Graphic's Quality. If you hooked up a Xbox 720 or whatever from a 360 to a
SDTV, you might not really see any improvement at all in graphic's, but on a
HDTV, you would. It's going to get to the point sometime in the future
where your playing a game and the people in it look completely REAL. As real
as just watching someone in a Movie or on a news, just now your controlling
that person in real time. The short amount of time having gone from my
Original PONG console when I was a kid, to what we have these days is
amazing. Not only that, but that the prices are really CHEAP.