[quote name='Corvin']I don't think anyone demands any such thing. I think the problem is that since the previous consoles took losses by building super machines, to come out now with a machine barely better than last gen(which is very plausible if they don't take losses) and expect people to pay $300-$400 for it, it just won't fly. They are stuck in this model because of their own doing, not because gamers "demanded" it.
Of course by extending this generation beyond 5 years is going to help alleviate that "problem" on their end.
I also think this is why Nintendo is being cagey with their price. The WiiU barely looks better than a PS3 or 360, so $300 is a hard sell. Of course the gimmicky controller and first party titles will help push some over that hump.[/QUOTE]
And that's why there is a lot of push from both sides, publishers like Ubisoft and Epic want new systems for new IP launches to drive day 1 sales. Some (more vocal) fans want new systems sooner rather than later (5 years or less) even though there is no reason for it (except they expect biggest and best, since they can do that with their PC's as long as they put $2000-3000 into it, in the same amount of time to keep it on that cutting edge)
The hardware manufacturers can't pump out new systems every few years due to the millions in R&D behind them and would prefer to ride out the hardware cycles as long as possible due to not making a profit on the system from day 1 (with the exception of Nintendo)
So right now you're seeing a massive collision of opinions on what should be done, the vocal minority of gamers want a new system now since consoles aren't keeping up with PC's (and never will) some publishers want to launch new IP, but are too scared to do it without a new system launch to secure sales (with makes no damn sense, when you already have a built in base already there for the new games, but then again that's Ubisoft's president talking) or they want to launch a new gfx engine to make money on and sell that and need new systems to drive that product (the only reason why Epic keeps banging that drum over and over, yes Mr. Capps and Mr. Bleszinski, we totally understand where you're coming from...) there was no real reason for hardware cycles to be 5 years unless you launched an underpowered piece of hardware. (Nintendo take a bow)
But who does that all benefit, the regular player, no, not really, we've already put our money down for games and systems, and most of us would like to have 10 years to enjoy our product (even though the way things are going 7-8 years seems more likely for a realistic hardware cycle) and keep playing games on it.
I keep hearing/reading people (again vocal minority) about needing this bleeding edge tech in the new systems, like its going to be some golden age of gaming nirvana if they could only get new hardware. Which is crap, all signs right now point to nicer looking, faster playing (60fps) games that we've all been playing for the past 6 years. But not the generational leap that they keep expecting, and honestly if tomorrow they could play lifelike gfx on a new machine where does that leave game maker and console manufactures, where do you go from there, it HAS to be NEW experiences, otherwise what's the point if you can't go any further graphically...
To see all of these pundits rattling chains and saying all of these things, this is something that is just ignorant, self indulgent and selfish due to what I've already pointed out, no one has any interest in these things, only they care about their own self-interests which in turn leads to them indulging in these comments.
The games are becoming to expensive to make these uncanny valley games everyone dreams of (which frankly some games being released on the current hardware are coming pretty close), but what is the next step, that's where gaming needs to go, not the same paradigm that we've been seeing for 25+ years. Nintendo thought it had the formula with the Wii and motion gaming and we've seen how successful that wasn't.
PC gaming is back on the rise thanks to DRM being available that people can stomach (Steam), but the experiences being the same and graphics only mostly being slightly enhanced playing on PC isn't the answer either.
The new system Wii U doesn't do much different to push gaming, I suspect that unless someone finds something that pushes us towards that holodeck type exp. that Star Trek promised or the implant thing that Sony prognosticated with the PS9 (in the fake commercial) that gaming will either have to scale back or find something else to survive.
I'm not saying I have the answer for any of this, I'm just sitting back and watching this unfold from all sides and with the prevailing attitudes being either leave it at status quo or bigger, badder, better. Who's to say which is right.
But one thing is correct KingBroly hit it on the head, to expect, nay demand that Sony and MS take a hit so we can have these future proofed systems is silly. Especially when some of those same people then start to complain and whine about wanting something new and better when they where told to begin with that these future proofed systems will last 10 years.
Until then I just keep sitting back and waiting to see what's coming next. But even the seasoned pros at Nintendo still haven't seemed to have found the answer either on what to do, so who knows...
.
. It's meaningless jargon as it describes a co-op experience that we've known for a long time -- furthermore the term can represent just about anything. It's only being tossed around by Nintendo PR because it is all they have at this point. Had they beat the iPad to the punch, they'd instead be focusing on tablet and touch. They're going to have to work harder if they want the WIIU tablet to appear as novel a gameplay controller/experience as motion control was back in 2006.