I know there has been plenty of talk going around about the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox 720 but today I came across an image that looked a bit believable:





Now to me it looks like something some guy whipped up in photoshop in about ten minutes, but then again I don't know much about computers.

If this happens to be real and we may be receiving an all new generation of gaming would you go out and buy one? Has gaming already advanced to its full potential and there is no need for a PS4 for quite some time? Is the world going to end in 2012 so there is no need for a PS4 by then? What are your thoughts on the possibly new next gen consoles?

I'm not an expert, but I don't believe glass=fully functional computer. And even if it did, I doubt it would be so smart to build a several hundred dollar piece of hardware out of such a fragile material.

yeah it looks cool, but the glass is not needed. If it was just the round thingy it would be a bit more believable.

I seriously doubt the next generation Playstation will be smaller than the current generation Playstation. Most of those touch sensitive buttons also make very little sense. Why would you need a button to access your music on the front of the system? Plus the whole plexiglass thing is kind of silly. What's it supposed to be a digital clock or something?

I kind of get the feeling that the next generation is going to see some major changes in how media is distributed. I don't think they will ditch the disc format entirely at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a greater emphasis put on downloadable games and content. I have a feeling that most games will be available for download and hard copies will only be made available for those who don't have an internet connection and for rental purposes (unless they go the same route as online video rentals). Hard drives will be mandatory and likely bigger this time around, but that's not a major expense these days, so it likely won't drive up system costs.

I think both Microsoft and Sony are going to scale back the hardware this time in favo of putting out a more cost effective system at launch. They'll still be more powerful than current gen tech, but won't represent as big of a leap.

Newer systems will probably support the higher end codecs and file formats so consumers can finally get full 1080p digital downloads with 7.1 surround sound without using up 50GB of space. Internet, music, and movies will be standard on all systems.

Beyond that, I predict it will be business as usual. More games will run in full 1080p, and graphics will be marginally better than the current generation, but otherwise we'll still get an onslaught of sequels, PC ports, and FPSs.

I don't think I would expect any new systems for quite some time. I don't think they'll really bother until they manage to create something more immersive than the motion control systems that are already coming out. I think a big deciding factor will be whether or not home televisions start to get the whole 3D thing right.

3D on home theater systems is farther off than the next generation of gaming systems. And honestly, I seriously doubt anyone other than Nintendo and maybe Apple will really push the motion controls in the next gen. The current market, even on the Wii, heavily favors traditional control mechanics over motion controls. People prefer a traditional cotroller (buttons, pads, sticks, and switches) for most game types and developers prefer to program for one.

isukun
People prefer a traditional cotroller (buttons, pads, sticks, and switches) for most game types and developers prefer to program for one.

Not really, just gamers prefer it. This is why Nintendo sells so well.

Walrus

Glass doesn't even conduct electricity.

I don't see a next gen console coming out in the next 5 years or more.

They've yet to push the 360 to it's limits, and a few games have only scratched the surface of the ps3's capabilities.

Not really, just gamers prefer it. This is why Nintendo sells so well.

Actually, while the system sells well, when it comes to the games on the system, people have a tendency to gravitate towards the games with more traditional control schemes and when given a choice between the two, most people will try out the motion controls once or twice before reverting back to the more comfortable classic control methods.

If you check the top sellers for the Wii, you'll find a mix of party games that were either packed in with the system, paired with perifferals, or released 2 or more years ago, two or three fitness games, and the other half of the top sellers are games which have a primarily traditional control scheme and include the vast majority of the more recent popular games on the system. The novelty of Nintendo's gimmick has passed. While the casual crowd either loses interest or is content with the one or two games they bought the system for, it's the gamers who keep coming back to buy new games.

This is also why Sony and Microsoft aren't exactly clammoring to get their motion control devices to the market. They've been talking the talk ever since the PS3 hit the market and they still have very little to show for it and virtually no third party interest. It's a little late at this point to be trying to force the technology on third parties when they know the games won't sell. That market's been pretty well covered by Nintendo and even over there it's getting pretty dry.

They've yet to push the 360 to it's limits, and a few games have only scratched the surface of the ps3's capabilities.

Actually, a number of developers have said that the 360 has pretty much hit its peak in terms of performance. Because of the relatively familiar programming environment, many developers went in knowing what to expect and where to look to get the performance they were looking for. The PC maket has already far supassed the console market in terms of performance and graphics, and you don't even need a high end processor or graphics card. That's usually a good indication that the major manufacturers are going to start pushing the next big thing before the current gen gets stale. After all, competition from a vastly superior PC market was one of the major factors behind the video game crash.

Now, with nobody stepping forward with news of a new system, I think it's pretty safe to say we won't be seeing anything for the next couple of years, but there will definitely be a launch sooner than 2015. The system manufactuers need something to revitalize the market, so I doubt they'll be sitting on their hands for the next five years.

isukun
If you check the top sellers for the Wii, you'll find a mix of party games that were either packed in with the system, paired with perifferals, or released 2 or more years ago, two or three fitness games, and the other half of the top sellers are games which have a primarily traditional control scheme and include the vast majority of the more recent popular games on the system.

I like how you say that the motion control fad has passed, while citing that half of the top selling games for the system are motion controlled.


Personally, I think motion controls will stay, but if anything they're likely to be more in tune with what the PS3 is already capable of with their controllers: something primarily used to enhance traditional gameplay, and really mostly used as an additional input. I think that really just speaks to how complex games have gotten lately. The best example I can think of is in Ratchett and Clank where there is a weapon that produces a maneuverable tornado. The left and right stick are already dedicated to movement and camera control, respectively, so the movement of the device is controlled by the motion control in the PS3 remote.

At this point I'll agree that a lot of the motion control games on the Wii are pretty bad, but I still think that consumers want to have the option. This is the same argument that was held against the Nintendo DS when it came out: even today a lot of games shoe-horn terrible touch-screen controls into games that don't need them because someone on the production line feels like they should. Despite what some gamers seem to want, I honestly don't think that motion controls are ever going to "die". Even though they aren't doing everything we were promised they would, they're not failing.

isukun
people have a tendency to gravitate towards the games with more traditional control schemes

I stopped playing console systems after the Dreamcast had its day. One of the things that shits me about consoles now is that whenever I try to play one the ridiculous control-pads are so annoying with all their extra buttons and toggles and things. At least on a PC I can easily configure stuff for left hand gaming (I'm a righty normally, but left handed on the computer...).

I don't find control-pads easy or intuitive. And THAT'S part of the reason this motion stuff is coming on-stream gradually; what you can do with control-pads is limited by how many buttons there are and the button layout, and not all games really lend themselves to being controlled in the same way... And users new to the systems (which there will always be and which the systems need), need an easier and more intuitive way to interact with them.

...Who knows if it's being done right or well or not. I've no idea. But I can certainly see the need for it.

If motion controls die, it'll be a LONG time from now, given that Xbox and PS3 have yet to even release their me-too motion peripherals. I question Project Natal, but I'm optimistic about it. And I think Sony's wand things will be pretty good.

It's easy to write off motion controls after playing a crappy party game, but there are a lot of cases where motion controls work... traditional gamers just don't like to admit it. Motion controls greatly enhance aiming in games like Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, and The Conduit. They help you have fluid and intuitive control in games like Flower, Mario Kart Wii, and Wii Sports Resort.

I'm FAR from writing off motion controls. Like Ozone, I started to experience the frustrations of controls getting too complicated (Splinter Cell was a big factor). But I also think over-complication of games themselves is causing this. That's why I've been enjoying games that focus on simple and solid concepts, with controls that you can figure out without an instruction booklet.

I like how you say that the motion control fad has passed, while citing that half of the top selling games for the system are motion controlled.

Yeah, the half from 2007 and back, that was my point. If the motion control fad was still going strong, why aren't those games selling now? When I say top selling games, I'm referring to sales since launch, not just within the last few weeks.

I don't disagree that motion controls will stick around in a more limited fashion, the hardware manufacturers are going to want to offer as robust a control scheme as possible both for different playing styles and for developers who want to actually take some initiative and do something more experimental. I just don't see them going quite to the extents that Nintendo went to this generation to attempt to eliminate the possibility of more traditional control methods.

I don't find control-pads easy or intuitive.

You're in the minority these days, and quite frankly, controllers haven't changed signifigantly since the 32-bit era and the original dual analog. Most people find that style of control very intuitive and certainly more comfortable than waving your arms around. The current generation's been using computers pretty much since birth and they really don't have much difficulty making the transition over to analog sticks and buttons.

isukun
I don't disagree that motion controls will stick around in a more limited fashion, the hardware manufacturers are going to want to offer as robust a control scheme as possible both for different playing styles and for developers who want to actually take some initiative and do something more experimental. I just don't see them going quite to the extents that Nintendo went to this generation to attempt to eliminate the possibility of more traditional control methods.

To be honest, I'm seeing a future where consoles will be asked to pull "double duty" as motion-control-centric devices primarily for casual play, with the occasional hardcore game designed for the system.

So, uh... the same as we've got now, I guess.

Anyway, thinking about it that way, I'm imagining something like the Natal becoming the standard for one simple fact: no controllers. The problem with the Wii is that, to optimize your experience with some games, you need 4 classic controllers, in addition to the 4 wii remotes, and maybe 4 nunchuks you already own for the motion-based game. With something like Natal you get one sensor, and any additional controls could conceivably be done with a single standard controller. The controller itself could be designed with just a light or two on that would let the Natal keep track of its position in space, performing largely the function that the motion sensor in a PS3 remote does, reducing the cost of controllers.



The problem is that the "casual" crowd who buys the Wii because they think the motion controls are fun are the types who don't buy a lot of games. It's the same people who can play Bejeweled every day and have no real interest in Puzzle Quest or, Hell, even other casual games like Peggle.

I'll give an example: My stepmom really likes Raving Rabbids 2. It's a decent exercise, the little whatsits are cute, and she can, for the most part, keep up with all the games. However, she has no real interest in the other games in the series or in other Wii games. She just likes the game she has, and if she's still having fun with it, why buy more?


Of course, this presents a big problem for game companies, and potentially for us, as gamers. Nintendo is the only company in this generation with any potential to gain from a setup like this, since they're the only ones producing a console that provides any profit for the company. If someone buys a Wii and never plays anything other than Wii Sports, that's still $50 in Nintendo's pocket. Not ideal, but not a loss. Whenever the other two consoles start getting close to making a profit, they just bring the price down, pushing themselves further into debt with every console sold. The need people to buy videogames.

Of course, this might lead to what I mentioned earlier: that simply it's going to be a long time before anyone releases a new system. If the motion-control thing sticks around with the kind of audience it has now, but extended the PS3 and 360, we might simply get to a point where the cost of the console is lowered enough that Sony and Microsoft can just leave the console they have now out in the market and live off of the console sales through motion control to the casual audience like Nintendo is able to. Why release an entirely new system when, in this console generation, something that is only slightly stronger than last-gen tech is substantially more profitable because of one feature?




Gah, sorry, that was kind of rambling. Don't take it too harshly if not a lot of that makes sense. Anyway, to get back to the original point of this discussion: I don't think we're going to see new consoles any time soon, but I think we will start to see the other two consoles packaged with motion control out the gate... and probably Wiis packaged with the Motionplus as well.

If someone buys a Wii and never plays anything other than Wii Sports, that's still $50 in Nintendo's pocket. Not ideal, but not a loss.

Except Nintendo can't afford to stick to that business model and they know it, hence the more recent efforts they have been putting in to draw in the hardcore audiences again (new Metroid, new SMB, new Zelda). The big problem with targeting the casual crowd is that eventually you saturate the market and system sales die down. The Wii is already losing momentum. Sales peaked during last year's holiday season and they have nowhere to go but down from here. The 360, whose hardware has been profitable for a while now, is hitting the same hurdle. The PS3 may have another year in it before it catches up to the 360 and it's sales also start to diminish. You can't base your whole approach on system sales if there aren't any people left to sell the system to. If anything, that approach would force the manufacturers to rush new systems to the market just so they have something to sell.

Motion controls won't prolong the lifespan of these systems.

it does look somewhat believable, but the PS3 won't be outdone for several more years. Sony already said this was a 10 year system. It's going to take 9 years for every developer to figure out how to use its potential tho...

You kind of have to take statements like that with a grain of salt. The PS2 is still one the market and still gets new games, making it a "10 year system". That quote doesn't mean Sony won't release a new system if they have to.

Anyway, thinking about it that way, I'm imagining something like the Natal becoming the standard for one simple fact: no controllers. The problem with the Wii is that, to optimize your experience with some games, you need 4 classic controllers, in addition to the 4 wii remotes, and maybe 4 nunchuks you already own for the motion-based game. With something like Natal you get one sensor, and any additional controls could conceivably be done with a single standard controller. The controller itself could be designed with just a light or two on that would let the Natal keep track of its position in space, performing largely the function that the motion sensor in a PS3 remote does, reducing the cost of controllers.

My apprehension with the Natal is the lack of buttons. I don't doubt that they'll get it to work and have some great things for it. And I think it'll even make a pretty big splash. But I feel like its application toward the kinds of games we like most won't work without some kind of peripheral to give us buttons (unless we just end up having an Xbox360 controller in our hands afterall).

Resident Evil 4 ran really will with a Wiimote/Nunchuck, and I'm wondering how you do that with just your arms, or maybe one arm and a controller in your left hand.

isukun
Motion controls won't prolong the lifespan of these systems.

I kind of wonder about that. Motion controls may not directly result in a longer lifespan of the 360 and PS3, but I think the fact that they're adding them to current systems instead of saving them for the next Xbox and PS4 means that they see a reasonable amount of life left in the current systems.

I'm fine with these consoles sticking around longer. I could stay in this generation for quite some time.... though if next year Nintendo released a more powerful Wii with the better motion controls built in and a hard drive, I'd probably get it.

Hawk
I'm fine with these consoles sticking around longer. I could stay in this generation for quite some time.... though if next year Nintendo released a more powerful Wii with the better motion controls built in and a hard drive, I'd probably get it.

I'm like a lot of people: I can't tell the difference between a high-performance PC and a PS3. To guys who know the difference it's huge, but to me they're practically identical. I think we can all see the differences in quality between the PS3 and the PS2, but I think we're reaching a level of quality in graphics that's sort of as good as most people like me can perceive.

I'll give an example: for the new game Bayonetta, people are counting the PS3 version of the game as inferior because the graphics aren't as smooth. For people who play and review games for a living, the difference is huge. But to me, I've seen video of both versions right next to each other, and I honestly couldn't tell the difference.

The Wii has some obvious deficiencies in comparison to the other two systems. Nintendo could wholly justify coming out with a new, HD system next year. Obviously it's not worth the effort right now, but in a few years' time when the other systems do what sets the Wii apart, in addition to the stronger graphics and other features... well, you see what I mean. But at this point, to me, even if the next system is twice as powerful as the current systems, I honestly doubt I would be able to tell the difference.

I can't tell the difference between a high-performance PC and a PS3.

I have a feeling that isn't because people can't tell the difference, but because you're using the wrong point of reference. You can't really use the multiplatform games to judge how powerful PCs are, today. The games are designed from the ground up to be playable on the consoles and the PC, which means your differences are going to be limited. Most games that fall into that category may hav some slight differences in terms of texture quality, lighting, effects, and resolution, but are all going to be built on the same basic geometry, making the differences minor at best. Some of the games using the PhysX engine have some more concrete differences with additional physics based geometry like cloth, breaking surfaces, smoke and volumetric fog that deforms around characters, more realistic pyrotechnics and whatnot. I can definitely say the atmosphere of Arkham Asylum was much better on the PC than on the consoles and the differences would take a blind man not to see. The same was true of Mirror's Edge.

If you want to see where the state of computer graphics capabilities really are, though, you need to look at the games that simply can't be done on the consoles, but can be done on the PC. There is definitely still a long way to go before people stop noticing improvements in graphics. Even the less indoctrinated casual gamers can still tell the difference between real life and a game that tries to simulate it. There is a ton that can be done with rigging and modeling to make more naturalistic motions and animations. Lighting, particle effects, and rendering still have a long way to go, as well. We've barely begun to scratch the surface on simulating physics in games. Cloth, hair, fluids, gasses, particles, and so on could be far more advanced than they are today. AI still has a pretty long way to go before it offers a challenge anywhere near that of a human opponent.

Hell, even early on in this generation people were crying fowl over prerendered target footage. Even the casual gamers were able to tell the difference. There is obviously room for noticeable improvement.

That's the kind of look I expect my consoles to have for this decade but with more floating rings and holograms.

that wud be amazin i want 1 lol

Things to expect in next gen consoles:
Possibly 3D compatible across the board (PS3 will be the only one this gen)
Motion control out of the box, possibly (most likely) with an advanced camera
Some sort of disc based media

While downloading games is certainly on the rise, the increase in the data quantity of individual big budget titles vastly outpaces internet transfer speeds. Going to Best Buy (or wherever) and buying a bluray disc is still the fastest way to get 50 gigs into my home. Plus, backwards compatibility.

I think, really, next gen will just be, aside from the obvious and significant graphical upgrade, a more elegant amalgamation of existing add-on features.

While downloading games is certainly on the rise, the increase in the data quantity of individual big budget titles vastly outpaces internet transfer speeds.

Not really. A lot of your big budget games don't even get close to maxing out a dual layer Blu-Ray disc and if anything this generation has proven that people are willing to download games that normally would come on DVDs. The PC market seems to be heading in that direction with a lot of the major publishers making their games available through online digital distribution and stores which used to sell PC games pulling them from shelves and making them only available online. Bandwidth limitations don't really play into that decision. It isn't like people are streaming their games from an online source and it isn't an impossibility for newer systems to just stay online 24/7 or handle downloads in the background. We already have systems playing around with the idea of exclusively downloadable content and they seem to be doing pretty well. For developers and manufacturers thee is a lot to gain from making the switch and really nothing to lose. It just seems like a no brainer to me.

Plus, backwards compatibility.

This generation has also proven that conventional backwards compatability is a thing of the past. All three of the major manufacturers have dumped it in their most recent systems. We'll see some software emulation for downloadable games like we are seeing now, but unless the manufacturers decide to use the same hardware from this generation in the next generation, I think we can say goodbye to the days when you could put your old games in your new system and they would still work. Besides, there is more money to be made by making everyone purchase their old games again.

Aren't less than 50% of home consoles online? People are buying these things, but a good portion of them are not connecting them to the internet. Physical media is still a necessity, and though downloading games is on the rise with PC gamers, they only represent about 30% of all videogame players. Physical media will remain next gen. And yeah, most games are not filling that 50 gig limit, some are coming close. Next gen, with more complex graphics, AI, etc.etc., game size is going to increase. On PSN and XBL, the largest titles we see are either older generation games or relatively small titles. You'd have to be naive as hell to think an abandonment of physical media is on the way. Even among PC gamers, I believe the majority still buy their games through physical media.

The Wii successor will most likely be backwards compatible, as Nintendo consoles often tend to be (home consoles excluded, other than... yeah, the Wii). As successful as it is, they'll probably piggyback on its popularity with something like the Wii HD or the Wii 2 or whatever, and to minimize consumer confusion among casual fans... backwards compatibility.

Since we're probably not going to see an alternative storage disc, and bluray storage capacity is increasing, the PS4 and the next XBOX will probably use it as well. It's not unforeseeable that the PS4 will be backwards compatible if they stick to the cell architecture they invested so much into. I'm still not ruling out software based BC for PS2 games sometime down the road.

Aren't less than 50% of home consoles online?

They were above 60% in 2007 and the last couple of years supposedly saw pretty hefty increases in online gaming. I don't see any exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was above 75% at this point. Not that it makes a huge difference, it's more about where they can make more money, not how many people adopt it. If their profit margin is twice as high with an online exclusive model, then even at 60%, they still have no reason not to make the switch. What it really boils down to is licensing and distribution costs.

Next gen, with more complex graphics, AI, etc.etc., game size is going to increase.

Not significantly. It isn't the in game graphics which push the limits of our storage space, nor is it the AI. 3D geometry, animation routines, and game code actually don't take up that much space, even if you make them more complex. The amount of processing power needed to render something has very little to do with how much space a program takes up. And quite frankly, as graphics get better, there will be less need for pre-rendered cutscenes, which are the real space hogs on current systems. Notice how all of your games pushing 50 gigs tend to have large amounts of pre-rendered video or uncompressed audio. In the current generaion the video may still be necessary, but most gamers either can't tell the difference when it comes to uncompressed audio or simply don't care. A big jump in graphical quality may actually lead to a decrease in space needed if it's a big enough jump. In game cut scenes are easier than pre-rendered.

Even among PC gamers, I believe the majority still buy their games through physical media.

Actually, with the increase in people playing online and social networking games, I wouldn't count on that.

Now this doesn't mean that physical media will disappear right away, but I have a feeling it will be marginalized in the next generation and publishers and/or manufacturers will offer incentives to buy online rather than buy a disc. Installations will become mandatory. Disc copies will become rarer and possibly half way through the next generation they will start releasing consoles without a disc drive at all to drop costs. It will suck for places like Gamestop, but everybody else in the industry stands to benefit from it.

The Wii successor will most likely be backwards compatible, as Nintendo consoles often tend to be

The Wii is the only home console that ever was and their handhelds are no longer backwards compatible with the new versions of the DS. The only reason the Wii is even backwards compatible is because the design of the Wii lent itself to booting the GC OS without having to make too many changes. I doubt that will still be the case with their next system.

As successful as it is, they'll probably piggyback on its popularity with something like the Wii HD or the Wii 2 or whatever, and to minimize consumer confusion among casual fans... backwards compatibility.

And I think it's more likely they'll follow the same trend they did with every other system they released and simply pull the plug on the old system as soon as the new one hits shelves. This is especially more profitable for them when they're the leader in the market since it forces people to make the switch. This generation has proven that a slow transition between the old and the new isn't necessarily a good thing. The only company that did that is still trailing behind the other two. Plus Nintendo has nothing to gain from a slower transition if they are appealing to the casuals who already don't buy games for the system. Nintendo has been changing their focus in the last year because they finally realize they can't rely on software sales to the casual crowds.

MGS4 pushed the 50 gig limit, all the cutscenes used the in-game engine. It was the uncompressed audio that did it. Graphic complexity does affect necessary storage space when you have stuff like high detail textures--which is what HD gaming will inevitably entail.

What are you talking about with the Wii? PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1, old PS3s could play PS2 games as well. PS2 was backwards compatible with the PS1. The Wii is not the first backwards compatible system.

And yeah, sure there's a rise in downloads and whatnot, but don't discount the popularity of low-resource iPhone, XBL, and PSN games in skewing that data. Most big budget titles are not purchased through download.

In fact, 90% of games are purchased physically:
http://www.destructoid.com/let-s-get-physical-media-90-percent-of-game-sales-160377.phtml

As for gamers playing online, a little out of date, but as of March of last year, the XBOX had the most registered online users, at 50%:
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/19104/NPD-Xbox-360-Is-the-Console-Online-Gaming-Leader/

Imagine less for the PS3, imagine even less for the Wii. If the majority of gamers are online next gen, there will still be a sizeable (30%? 40%?) portion that are not. I can't imagine the reduction in overhead from not dropping physical media could make up for losing that marketshare.

MGS4 pushed the 50 gig limit, all the cutscenes used the in-game engine. It was the uncompressed audio that did it. Graphic complexity does affect necessary storage space when you have stuff like high detail textures--which is what HD gaming will inevitably entail.

And as I said in the previous post, most gamers don't give a crap about uncompressed audio. How many games have insisted on using it since? Yes, higher resolution textures will add to file sizes, but as textures are all compressed these days, they don't add significantly the way uncompressed audio and high definition video do.

PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1, old PS3s could play PS2 games as well.

PS1 BC software was already made and working on the system from launch. Since they've been selling the games online to work with the software emulation, it wouldn't make much sense to remove something which literally costs them nothing to include, but keeps the market open for future online sales. PS2 BC was dropped becasue that wasn't the case. Since including it REQUIRED them to include the old hardware and they OBVIOUSLY don't see that as cost effective anymore, I see no reason they would repeat that mistake next generation. Microsoft came to the same conclusion, which is why we haven't seen any updates to their BC software in the past few years. It isn't even cost effective for them to find a software solution.

The Wii is not the first backwards compatible system.

I never said it was. I was responding to your comment about NINTENDO consoles. Nintendo home consoles don't tend to be backward compatible since only one home console they have ever made has that feature.

And yeah, sure there's a rise in downloads and whatnot, but don't discount the popularity of low-resource iPhone, XBL, and PSN games in skewing that data.

An don't make the mistake of assuming all of those games are low budget. Many of the popular ones can rival store bought games in terms of production values.

In fact, 90% of games are purchased physically:

You're focusing on the wrong number in that article. The number of games sold does no indicate how many people are WILLING to buy games online. It also doesn't take into account that most popular titles for the console systems simply are not available online, making that 90% figure completely worthless.

As for gamers playing online, a little out of date, but as of March of last year, the XBOX had the most registered online users, at 50%:

Once again, wrong number. I don't really care how many gamers play games online, I care about how many gamers get online with their consoles. The article is specifically focusing on people who PLAY GAMES online, not people who are capable of getting online with their system. I don't have a gold membership and I don't play any games on the Wii or PS3 online, hence I would not be counted as an online gamer by that survey, yet I still have Castle Crashers and most of the DLC for Rock Band. Here's a better article for you, one that actually refers to online accounts and not online gamers:

http://xbox.joystiq.com/2009/01/06/xbox-360-install-base-surges-to-28-million/

It focuses on the 360, but shows how 60% of 360 owners at the end of 2008 were registered on Xbox Live. That number includes the silver accounts which can't play games online, but have access to DLC and other online features of the system. Now, there is no reason to believe that number would stagnate or go down over the next year as online gaming saw a 61% increase in market share.

Just thought i'd tell you guys that I saw this picture in the official playstation magazing (Uk) and it's not real. I'll see if I can find the artical. I don't really think that there's really any need for a ps4 anytime soon though. I mean, it would be cool to have a really sexy new design or something, but in terms of features, untill we really advance our technology, it would just be pointless developing a playstation.
Off-topic: First post on these forums! Looking forward to visiting some more, really enjoying all the comics. Maybe see you later...