Next Gen -- No Thanks

Over the past month or two there have been a lot of rumors and rumblings about the long-delayed “next gen” round of consoles. Lately talk has swirled of a 2012 holiday-season launch for a new Windows-driven Microsoft console. And, to be honest, it kind of makes sense. Now that the Wii has opened up the race, certainly competition cannot be far behind. I assume even gun-shy Sony will eventually get into the act.

As far as I’m concerned, this is all very disappointing news.

I realize now, only too late, that I don’t actually want a new console generation at all. In fact, I can’t think of a single thing that the current console generation should do that it currently can’t. I actually don’t really want any more graphical whizbangery — Battlefield 3 has shown me that the current gen can look too close to real as it is. Online integration is as fully featured as I need it to be. I could probably move to console-only media consumption and be happy enough, particularly once Microsoft's Live update adds even more functionality. My systems already integrate just fine with my computer and other home media. And the games for these systems are getting really, really good. Last thing I want is to go back to 3 years of developers trying to figure out how to make the tech work.

You know what, Microsoft. Keep your Xbox 3 — somehow I keep forgetting that the 360 is actually only the second MS console — I don’t want it.

I imagine being a man dying of starvation and being handed a slightly burned grilled-cheese sandwich. What kind of fiery core of desire would that spark? How the imagination of that taste would stir even as I was lifting the blackened bread and molten cheese to my mouth. I would revel in ecstasy as the charred bread scratched my soft palette, and the bubbling dairy singed my taste buds.

I can even imagine somewhere many years later half-heartedly enjoying a similar sandwich, now a thing of mediocrity, and being offered a tender, perfectly-cooked steak. “Yes, please,” I would say, already reaching hungrily for this clear upgrade. And, sure, obvious metaphor is obvious, but now in this modern age I’m already eating steak. I can no more easily imagine something better than this grade-A cut of Xbox-loin or Sony-rump-roast than I can figure out what my shadow looks like in the fourth dimension.

Hey, I know you’re eating steak, but here’s some steak with cool new salt! No thanks, bud. I’m good.

There is, of course, a hazard in throwing down this kind of gauntlet before the announcement of an announcement has even begun to form. Given that my resolve to pass on Uncharted 3 lasted for a good solid zero days, the likelihood that I will be tempted down the line is probably better than average.

That said, I have to occasionally be reminded that Nintendo has a successor to the Wii in the works. Even though I read a dozen articles on the machine when it was announced, I couldn’t tell you anything about what I read except I vaguely recall that there was a touch pad or a motion sensor or something. Maybe there are a lot of people quietly (very quietly) getting excited for this console, but what I know is that they aren’t writing much about their excitement.

“Well,” you might say, “there’s no new information to talk about, so why would anyone be writing about the …” what the hell was it called again? The Wii U or something. Sure I could have looked that up, but the point is that I would have had to look it up. Also, since when has not having anything new to say ever stopped an overenthusiastic internet from writing about stuff? Maybe there will be buzz down the line, but right now there’s more buzz in the passenger side speaker of my Camry than there is about the Nintendo Whatever That Thing Is Called.

And for that matter, the chatter for a new MS console seems almost perfunctory. I’d guess this may be the first some of you are hearing about it. Like Arbor Day, it was one of those things that we all knew was going to come around again at some point, and presumably someone was going to let us know, but really it’s not something we get particularly worked up about. I don’t remember the same kind of disengagement when whispers of a new Playstation or Xbox began to bubble some eight or so years ago.

A lot can change in a year. Or even two. What I’m hoping is that when the specifics start to come to light, I’ll get it. “Aha,” I hope to say. “It delivers medically prescribed pleasure-photons directly into my retinal-joy-receptors. Yeah, I get it.”

What I’m afraid of, though, is that all the perennial titles really digging into their prime now will be all but discontinued — except for FIFA, because FIFA releases on everything — and we’ll have a year of wondering when something we’ve heard of before will actually be released for this new brick of wires sitting in my living room. The idea of paying $500 for the pleasure of three months with nothing but six or seven launch titles to play makes me curl my lip in disgust.

Console launch mania is so 1995.

Maybe Microsonydo can convince me otherwise with some clever marketing, or even better some actually good ideas. I have my doubts.

Comments

Was there a market for games that simulated the dynamics of pedestrian crowds in an urban setting before Assassin's Creed? You never know what devs will do with the toys a new console cycle gives them until they've got their grubby little mitts on them.

Why I would like a new console generation in the next couple years:
-60fps
-1080p
-Games that look like Battlefield 3 and can handle single system co-op
-Games like Battlefield 3 that can handle 64 player matches on console
-PC games will start looking more awesomer.
-I want it to make me breakfast

I know not everyone is in the same boat, but I dropped a lot of cash on my entertainment setup and I want to use it to its potential!

That's just crazy talk.

Next-gen can't come soon enough.

Get a second job or ebay a kidney you freakin commies.

While I understand the sentiment of the article, I would have to say that in the next year or two, it really is time for a new iteration/generation/whatever, at least for Microsoft and obviously Nintendo. When the 360 released 6 years ago, its specs were comparable to just a mid-level gaming PC (or lower). These days, its specs are a joke. Like someone metioned, the phone found in many people's pocket today has significantly better specs. I would concede that MS doesn't really need a Xbox 3 per se, just a Xbox 2.5 with reasonable present-day specs - dual or triple core CPU, 4 GB of RAM (dirt cheap), a good GPU, a blu-ray drive, at least 100 GB of hard drive storage (by default), and real backward compatibility with the 360, not that emulation sh*t that only worked for a handful of last-gen titles.

Truth be told, I don't plan on buying a console from this next generation, whenever it happens. I play on PC 90% of the time, but I agree with the others that point out that a lot of PC games (that are cross-platform) are being somewhat hindered by the lack of processing power and memory found in the 360 and PS3.

I can’t think of a single thing that the current console generation should do that it currently can’t. I actually don’t really want any more graphical whizbangery — Battlefield 3 has shown me that the current gen can look too close to real as it is.

This implies that you've played BF3 on console, but I've seen you several times in the BF3 channel on the GWJ ventrilo server (while I was in a different channel playing Dungeon Defenders), unless someone else was using the name "Elysium." Since there would be no reason for you to be on ventrilo while playing on a console, I'm guessing you either bought (and played) the game for both PC and console ... or you based your comment simply on watching videos of console gameplay.

Sorry for the nitpick, but those two sentences of the article resulted in a "does not compute" moment as I read them.

I think PC gamers want a new generation of consoles more than the unwashed console masses. All this talk of anchors and stuff.

I don't want a next gen yet. Especially if I lose saves, gamertags and especially the ability to play games I own now. I've already bought games digitally. If those aren't BC then I can't see buying into what will sure be a mostly download generation.

The only reason I can see being interested in a rev of the hardware is AI. I imagine that it's possible that production costs could remain flat in terms of graphics. We're dealing with so much middleware and specialized tools for things like tree generation that I have to believe the dev costs will flatten a bit. So then what is there left to do? Nail the AI. If something revolutionary is on the minds of devs or super-sophisticated AI then I'm interested. If all it means is I spend $500 to play the PC version of Battlefield 3 on a console? No thanks.

I welcome it if it's done right, which of course is a big if. My xbox live account needs to transfer in it's entirety and arcade games that I've purchased need to be accessible on the new system. "Buy it again" won't be acceptable.

Games like BF3 and Skyrim, as much as I enjoy them, are undoubtedly held back by hardware limitations. In the case of BF3, these limitations affect the PC product as well. DICE has repeatedly said that player counts on the 360 are limited and it's left many on the console side dissatisfied.

I likely won't be able or want to purchase the new shiny at launch but I'll still have my 360 to fall back on until I'm fully able to make the transition.

So i guess as a PC only player (have never ever owned any sort of console) want i selfishly want is
1. next gen sooner rather than later because that will stop low texture/poor ports
or
2. no next gen because that will keep the PC as the technically better (for now) machine and drive people back to the pc market
?? hmm

Anyway now (and extending to next year) would be a bad time financially to launch a new console in europe or north america.

I get the sense that the console makers are all kind of lost in the weeds now, and they're doing the only thing they know how to do when things start going south: make a new console.

In the middle of a global recession.

The current consoles do kind of suck, technologically. The XBox 360 is surpassed by modern netbooks. The PS3 may fare a little better. And as for the Wii... yeah, I bet my *phone* can push more polygons.

I don't like consoles. We got a Wii because everybody got a Wii, and we used it a bit because of the Wii things it did. I bought a 360 because I realized some games I wanted to play would never get PC ports. But honestly, compared to my PC, the 360 felt old when it was new. The Wii felt like a joke.

Technologically, these consoles really should try sucking less. Their suckitude weighs down PC games, as developers target the least common denominator consoles. My PC sits twiddling its thumbs on these games. So much potential wasted.

The problem is that I really don't think there's a market for a new "generation" of consoles. I doubt Elysium is alone in his curmudgeonry: consoles are f'n expensive. To reach parity with a PC from a few years ago, we'd be talking 500 bones. 500 bones! And for what concrete benefit? A brand new system that has no games on it yet? That will surely have its own glitches and failures?

What I wish console makers would do is have incremental platform improvements. You see this in the vaguest sorts of ways already, but usually the only winners are things like noise level and form factor; they don't jack up the horsepower. I want them to rev up the horsepower.

But, you say, isn't that hard to do? Well consider: iOS. It has annual, incremental hardware releases, but they maintain backward compatibility (for a while). Why not do the same with consoles (only with a longer hardware cycle and longer backwards compatibility)? Give developers the option to use more power. Give them a way to degrade on the older hardware.

Hell, you could even sell "upgrades" to turn your XBox 720 (I) into an XBox 720 (II).

It's a hard problem but not an impossible one. And yes, it would ultimately mean system specs on packages (assuming for some reason the next generation of consoles would support a packaged game to begin with). Boohoo. Color code that crap - consumers aren't *completely* stupid.

Hey, going to go scriligious here. I'm just fine with consoles the way they are. The only acceptable next gen hardware is something like OnLive with the tech perfected. That kind of delivery, to me, is the clear end point as far as how games are played right now. Remember that the qulifying condition is "with the tech pefected." That's still some ways off. For now, PS3 and 360 do just fine.

Thirteenth wrote:

Hey, going to go scriligious here.

That's the thing, it's not any form of sacrilege going by many of the replies.

As much as people love to have something better, I think the next bunch of consoles is going to be a very hard sell for the companies involved, especially if they follow the same formula as historical releases. I'm not sure MS/Sony/Nintendo have much to gain, but they've got a lot to lose as more and more avenues open up for gaming that were immature or didn't exist five or six years ago. They need to defend their market to stay where they are, yet I think there will be a bit of pushback if they try to do what MS did last time and abandon their 'old' current consoles.

Interesting times, etc.

I'm actually interested in the Wii U as it's essentially an iPad device tied to a console hardware. I'm leery of the fact that it's a resistive instead of a capacitive display, but I'm so sold on iPad gaming that I just want that kind of interface on my controller if I can have it.

No more awkward inventory UI crap. No more compromised PowerWheel (or whatever) interface. Take your console game into bed with you! Okay, maybe the wife won't like that last one, but I can always promise to be properly frisky on demand.

As for graphics, I've always thought that Nintendo games were some of the best designed, graphically speaking, because they underplayed whatever tech they had in favor of artistic vision. Most Mario and Zelda games (particularly Wind Waker) age remarkably well because of this. MS and Sony based developers could do with less technological wankery and more artistry.

Ratchet and Clank is an excellent example of a game firmly within the constraints of its hardware.

I wholeheartedly agree. When the 360 released, I tried to stay back on my old Xbox 1. Why did I need to upgrade, this thing works great!?!?!

As time passed, my more eager friends blindly upgraded for the new hotness however. If I wanted to play online with them and join in the experience, I was forced to follow suit. Thus after a year of holding out, I too succumbed to the pressure of getting the latest generation.

Per the OP and the many responses, this console does everything I need. It is a great media machine, has an excellent library, and has been mostly reliable in both hardware as well as service (talking about the 360, not the Wii that my kids lost interest in and only play GC games on now).

The upcoming Wii U has no interest at all to me, mostly because of additional cost for little benefit. I haven't bought anything Sony this generation, so that's likely out going forward. An Xbox 720 is a natural progression, but can we wait another two or three years please?

I need time for my gaming investments to properly rot into the ground and not come about just because some board members want high quarterly earnings again.

One of the big downsides for the 360 currently is that the base game storage is a DVD, which is limiting, compared to blu-ray/downloads (which need a hard drive). I wonder if MS could get developers to hold on a while by just tweaking their royalties a bit from what's supposed to be per-disc now, to per-whole-title, and perhaps encourage installs to a hard drive. It's interesting to see what penny-pinching (RAM size, no hard drive as standard) and pushing the boat out (blu-ray) at the start of the generation has helped or hindered now.

Looking purely at hardware, I have mixed feelings about a new console generation. As a PC gamer, it's clear a lot of ports/cross-platform games are going to keep cropping up with the same flaws until they start being developed for new consoles. On the other hand, so long as this "anchor" effect lasts, gaming PCs are going to keep getting even cheaper, and that's awesome. I'm not sure if PC gaming is really going to benefit from trading that fiscal accessibility for more shiny.

And I too really fear the effect on developers. Not just of an unfamiliar system, but of one that calls for even bigger budgets/teams if you want to reach for the ceiling of its graphical capabilities. But like jlaakso says, there just needs to continue to be a change in actual behavior - tech isn't going to just stop advancing.

If MS doesn't build a decent machine with good specs and features, the PC is always an alternative for me. I'm not sure why launching a new console would have a major affect of any gamer with so much variety and choice out there.

As for developers, the console upgrade cycle is so much slower than on the PC, I don't even see how that could enter in the argument. It makes no sense. When the PC was the leading sku, the arms race between Intel/AMD (nVidia/ATI) was bad for consumers. It lead to an abysmal price to performance ratio, lots of bugs, and it drove a lot of disgruntled gamers to Xbox Live.

We have a wonderful consumer advantage right now. I want to continue to see the PC, Xbox, and PlayStation fight for market dominance. Competition, variety, and technology will bring us some amazing games. Keep them coming I say, and keep making them better.

If video games are too expensive and too much blockbuster-y fun for some, there is always nice walks in the park and classic movies on TV. I suggest a nice cup of tea to ease those sore muscles.

I barely play my 360 anymore (though I've really enjoyed the console over the years) and the Wii is never played unless my daughter wants to try one of those titles. I can't remember the last time we played a DS or PSP game either. I'm still an avid supporter of the games I currently own, and would support a refreshed version of the existing hardware, but I would not have plans to purchase a next gen console over the next few years. My next chunk of gaming money is going to a PC upgrade and I'll be quite happy with that.

Aside from the Wii U, I'm not terribly excited for a new console generation unless someone brings something new to the table aside from improved shinies. Maybe it's because I upgraded my PC a couple years ago and bought the 3DS on launch? In a way, I'm already living in the next generation and got the consumer gadget lust out of my system for a while.

I agree we don't really know much about the Wii U, but I think that will change once GDC, PAX East, and E3 strike. But in reality, I know I'll get one but I don't think it's bringing as much new to the table as the Wii or DS did at launch. Like the 3DS, it's evolutionary, not revolutionary and that's ok.

I'm not sure exactly what I want to see but I think it's public knowledge at this point that the consoles are starved for RAM and storage space. If the new machines are to stay relevant, this should be number 1 priority since PCs are switching to 64-bit and 4+ GB of RAM is becoming the norm in a very short time span.

I also want to see improved handling of the online features. Features like cloud storage should become the standard. Storage is cheap. If Valve can service 30 million users who aren't paying a subscription fee, there's no reason MS can't do the same at least for the Gold users.

I'd also like it if publishers finally figured out how to handle DLC in a way that is palatable to end users while reimbursing the developers for the "extra effort".

Lastly, it'd be great if the new consoles are an improvement over the current generation without causing both consumers and developers to break the bank in order to utilize them to the fullest. Maybe then we could finally stop talking about the twin bogeymen of piracy and used game sales.

EDIT: Oh, and allow power users the ability to upgrade the hardware on their own without voiding warranty. If I want to put a 500 GB SSD in my Xstation360U I should be allowed to. Besides, they're all showing their PC colors more than ever. There's no point in trying to hide that fact. So let us throw more storage and RAM into them, even if that means *gasp* adding system requirements boxes *shock*. Adopt an Apple style approach if you have to.

Re: the "annual incremental upgrades a la iOS devices!" crowd:

I'm not a business expert, but I have to imagine that splitting the user base every year-- which is essentially what you're advocating, albeit with a large degree of backwards compatibility between iterations-- is a lot more acceptable when you're trying to sell a 0.99 app than a $60 game, especially when you factor in the difference in development budget between them.

Re: the "let the users upgrade their consoles themselves!" crowd:

We have that. It's called the PC. If what you want from a console is a PC, just buy a PC. It's what most of the folks on this forum do already, and it's a perfectly cromulent way to go.

hbi2k wrote:

Re: the "annual incremental upgrades a la iOS devices!" crowd:

I'm not a business expert, but I have to imagine that splitting the user base every year-- which is essentially what you're advocating, albeit with a large degree of backwards compatibility between iterations-- is a lot more acceptable when you're trying to sell a 0.99 app than a $60 game, especially when you factor in the difference in development budget between them.

Re: the "let the users upgrade their consoles themselves!" crowd:

We have that. It's called the PC. If what you want from a console is a PC, just buy a PC. It's what most of the folks on this forum do already, and it's a perfectly cromulent way to go.

+1

Also, for the sake of history, there was actually a console that let users upgrade their own RAM: the Nintendo 64. Even with the upgrade being packaged with and a requirement for a new Zelda game (Majora's Mask) it didn't really catch on with the majority of the console's user base, and only a small number of games utilized the upgraded memory.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Re: the "annual incremental upgrades a la iOS devices!" crowd:

I'm not a business expert, but I have to imagine that splitting the user base every year-- which is essentially what you're advocating, albeit with a large degree of backwards compatibility between iterations-- is a lot more acceptable when you're trying to sell a 0.99 app than a $60 game, especially when you factor in the difference in development budget between them.

Re: the "let the users upgrade their consoles themselves!" crowd:

We have that. It's called the PC. If what you want from a console is a PC, just buy a PC. It's what most of the folks on this forum do already, and it's a perfectly cromulent way to go.

+1

Also, for the sake of history, there was actually a console that let users upgrade their own RAM: the Nintendo 64. Even with the upgrade being packaged with and a requirement for a new Zelda game (Majora's Mask) it didn't really catch on with the majority of the console's user base, and only a small number of games utilized the upgraded memory.

Hey it was a pack in with the system's most annoying platformer of all. DK64! It was also required to do just about anything in Perfect Dark, making it worth it all.

Here's a question, when people were buying their current-gen consoles, what was the selling point for you?
Was it the specs? The ability to do hi-def, shiny graphics, etc.
Was it the features, the new all singing all dancing dashboard
Was it the blu-ray player on the PS3
Was it just because it was where the games you wanted to play were.
Peer pressure? Playing online on the same platform as friends who got it first.

For me the buy point was Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time. For Wii, the buy point was Super Mario Galaxy.

Scratched wrote:

Was it just because it was where the games you wanted to play were.

This and only this. I bought my Wii for whatever Nintendo made for it. I bought my 360 because it was cheaper than buying a PC for The Orange Box and Bioshock. I actually bought my HD TV because I had a 360, not the other way around.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Scratched wrote:

Was it just because it was where the games you wanted to play were.

This and only this. I bought my Wii for whatever Nintendo made for it. I bought my 360 because it was cheaper than buying a PC for The Orange Box and Bioshock. I actually bought my HD TV because I had a 360, not the other way around.

Me too!

And I always buy consoles for the games, but I did not buy my original 360. You guys did! I won it during a donation drive.

I had an Xbox, and that was enough. But the 360 won me over in a big way once I had it. And that expereince has only gotten better with each passing year as MS has added more features. I will now buy the Xbox 720 for the overall gaming and media experience.

I don't think games differentiate between the PS3 and 360 much at all. Will the PS4 haver a chance to create a gaming and media experience I want? I have my doubts, but we'll see what they all do.

I will buy the Wii U because Zelda and Mario will always be great games.

I'm really ready for another console generation. Not because I want the graphics to be better, but because I want them to consolidate upon the gains they made in the current generation. Art assets are just perfect where they are, no need to drastically increase the budget for art, but framerates aren't as universally solid as I would like. Most games run in 720p or lower. There's several technologies that would be very inexpensive at this point to include in a console that can't be added until the next generation.

I don't want drastically amazing graphics, I want incremental improvements and solid redesigns with backward compatibility so that they can take the games they do now and run them with nearly 0 load times at 60fps at 1080P in 3d...

I think that this generation isn't going to be like the $400-600 range last generation was. I think with the advances in technology, we're looking at the $300-400 price range to reign this time. Especially with the Xbox. There has been a ton of hints out there about how they're looking to create a console using AMD/ATI's fusion technology so that they can build what will be nearly a single-chip console. And Sony, pretty much every console they've released has been on a 6-7 year gap from the prior console. If the Vita had been on time and not delayed by the Tsunami, then it would have been a solid 6 years in every case. I can't imagine them waiting past 2013 to release their next console.

With the economies of scale of a console and the razor thin margins they normally run, they could put a mid-range PC in a console and sell it for $300, and it would still completely blow away the PS3 and 360.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Scratched wrote:

Was it just because it was where the games you wanted to play were.

This and only this. I bought my Wii for whatever Nintendo made for it. I bought my 360 because it was cheaper than buying a PC for The Orange Box and Bioshock. I actually bought my HD TV because I had a 360, not the other way around.

Me too!

And I always buy consoles for the games, but I did not buy my original 360. You guys did! I won it during a donation drive.

I had an Xbox, and that was enough. But the 360 won me over in a big way once I had it. And that expereince has only gotten better with each passing year as MS has added more features. I will now buy the Xbox 720 for the overall gaming and media experience.

I don't think games differentiate between the PS3 and 360 much at all. Will the PS4 haver a chance to create a gaming and media experience I want? I have my doubts, but we'll see what they all do.

I will buy the Wii U because Zelda and Mario will always be great games.

Scratched wrote:

Here's a question, when people were buying their current-gen consoles, what was the selling point for you?

Bluray player was one point, the other was that Resistance, Insomniac's next game, was coming out for it. I had a sense that FF13 would come out on it as well, even though that took awhile. I figured that of all the home consoles, it would get the most of the RPGs that I enjoy playing.

Also, I had cancelled my preorder for the PS2 because I didn't have quite enough money and had regretted ever since due to the long interval before I could get one... I wanted to make sure I didn't have that particular regret with the PS3.

The reasons I'm getting the Vita on launch is that NIS is already releasing games for it and there's been several re-releases I want announced for it. Also, the PSP has gotten more RPGs than any system since the PS2, so the Vita will likely follow suit.

mrtomaytohead wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Re: the "annual incremental upgrades a la iOS devices!" crowd:

I'm not a business expert, but I have to imagine that splitting the user base every year-- which is essentially what you're advocating, albeit with a large degree of backwards compatibility between iterations-- is a lot more acceptable when you're trying to sell a 0.99 app than a $60 game, especially when you factor in the difference in development budget between them.

Re: the "let the users upgrade their consoles themselves!" crowd:

We have that. It's called the PC. If what you want from a console is a PC, just buy a PC. It's what most of the folks on this forum do already, and it's a perfectly cromulent way to go.

+1

Also, for the sake of history, there was actually a console that let users upgrade their own RAM: the Nintendo 64. Even with the upgrade being packaged with and a requirement for a new Zelda game (Majora's Mask) it didn't really catch on with the majority of the console's user base, and only a small number of games utilized the upgraded memory.

Hey it was a pack in with the system's most annoying platformer of all. DK64! It was also required to do just about anything in Perfect Dark, making it worth it all.

It was also pretty late in the life of the N64, which I think also contributed to the percentage of N64 users who bought it.

Scratched wrote:

Here's a question, when people were buying their current-gen consoles, what was the selling point for you?
Was it the specs? The ability to do hi-def, shiny graphics, etc.
Was it the features, the new all singing all dancing dashboard
Was it the blu-ray player on the PS3
Was it just because it was where the games you wanted to play were.
Peer pressure? Playing online on the same platform as friends who got it first.

I picked up the 360 when I had no internet access, which effectively eliminated any possibility of PC gaming due to my inability to update drivers or download patches. (Though sadly even consoles are no longer immune to this).

My primary reason was the game catalog, I played on the 360 and PS2 until it reached a point where I wanted to play enough of the available games on next gen consoles. The games also had a greater degree of complexity involving enemy AI, game size etc than those offered on the xbox and PS2.

Graphics are they are now are enough to tide me over. But I would like to see higher player counts, larger "friends" lists, better and larger party chat capability, and more digital distribution capability. A modular design would also be appreciated so that elements that are outdated the fastest can be swapped out.

Ultimately the specs and capabilities of the next generation of consoles, as well as pricing and budgetary constrictions, will be the determining factor for whether or not I jump ship to PC, double dip, or remain console only.

hbi2k wrote:

We have that. It's called the PC. If what you want from a console is a PC, just buy a PC. It's what most of the folks on this forum do already, and it's a perfectly cromulent way to go.

"cromulent"

COME ON!