This generation's been going on so long

[D.D.D.]

True. But if they really are going to do 4K, which is pretty likely - match their next TV/DVD line up, they need to have some beefy specs to pull off 4K.

[isiolia]

Judging by the Wii U's spec, it's pretty hard to improve upon current consoles and retain a reasonable entry point. Sony are absolutely bonkers they might adopt the razor blade model for their next Playstation, but they're already losing tons of capital so it wouldn't make any business sense. The PS3 proved the futility of Sony's engineering ideology.

The Wii U isn't exactly a good example of improving on something like the PS3 or 360 though.

Primarily due to the GamePad. While Nintendo is keeping costs down some by integrating a resistive touchscreen and all, the thing still will cost a fair bit more to build than the average controller.

Beyond that, however, it has no processing power of its own. The machine has to render the screen separately and pipe that video to the GamePad(s), eating into what it could potentially be throwing up on the main screen.

Plus, it's Nintendo. They've been doing the whole gimmick instead of cutting edge tech since the DS, and have proclaimed the philosophy of building with now-cheap tech since the Game Boy.
Current successes aside, the Vita absolutely trounces the 3DS in terms of technical capability, at the same launch price. I doubt Sony will trot something out again that they expect consumers to shell out $600 for, but I'd expect MS and Sony's next offerings to walk all over the Wii U in terms of technical capability.

[Pulsar_t]

http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/30/eas-gib ... ears-time/

I guess we will know soon enough!

[Robonaut]

The PS3 proved the futility of Sony's engineering ideology.

How so?

[isiolia]

The PS3 proved the futility of Sony's engineering ideology.

How so?

I don't entirely agree with the sentiment, but to me it'd mostly be a matter of the end results.

Sony put together a system that's far more complex than its competitors, greatly increasing their expense to develop and manufacture it. Additionally, it's a more difficult system to optimize software for.
If doing that resulted in a system that dominated the market due to clear superiority then it might be seen as a worthwhile investment. Apparently, that was what Sony felt would happen, as it's the justification they used for the initial price tag.
What we've seen instead is a system that has demonstrated similar capabilities to much-cheaper-to-build 360, and has yet to rise past third place for global market share (it is fairly close at this point, but still).

The PS3 did succeed in winning the HD format war for Blu-Ray, so, there is that. Otherwise, Sony would likely have been better served by a simpler console.

[Gunstar Green]

The PS3 did succeed in winning the HD format war for Blu-Ray, so, there is that. Otherwise, Sony would likely have been better served by a simpler console.

And really that was their main goal anyway. Winning that was a much bigger priority for Sony than the console war.

[Robonaut]

The PS3 did succeed in winning the HD format war for Blu-Ray, so, there is that. Otherwise, Sony would likely have been better served by a simpler console.

And really that was their main goal anyway. Winning that was a much bigger priority for Sony than the console war.

Agreed.