http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/tech/gaming-gadgets/ps4-e3-ces/index.html

Read it and start weeping. It seems the PS3 is intended to have a 10 year lifespan. No announcement of a new device this CES.

While it could change later, this may have a significant impact on the next TES game. Particularly if Microsoft follows suit and just works on addons for the current hardware.

If you wish to discuss future Elder Scrolls games please use http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1330470-official-beyond-skyrim-tes-vi-5/.

I don't know much about Console Technology, but I would have though that if Sony or Microsoft were to release a console within the next year or so, the technology required to make it significantly better than the last generation consoles would be very expensive.

Technology is getting better all the time, increasing power and shrinking size. But the expectation for better technology is also growing.
I think it'd be a great risk for either company to risk a new console that isn't a vast improvment on the PS3 or 360 without something extra to attract a profit.

Iirc, they also said that if the competition (microsoft maybe even nintendo) would bring a new console, that they wouldn't stay behind and release a new console as well.

I doubt that the wii2 is enough to force a new console cycle, but a new xbox just might.

I strongly doubt they'll wait 5 years...

Don't hurt my feelings, as long as my PS3 does it's job I'm happy----although I could use more memory 80GB can get used up FAST.

Edit: This is why i'm looking at the 360:
1: My sister and her husband own one so I can play with them online (no longer will I be solo and allyless).
2: I can buy a 4gb 360 core unit and buy a 500gb external HDD---a lot of good can come from that.
3: Halo.

This is why consoles are so bad for gamers:

Their limited hardware stunts software innovation.
The stunted software innovation limits the demand for new hardware.

A really bad cycle...

This is a bad thing? The PS3 is a powerful piece of hardware and game companies are only now getting comfortable developing for it. Honestly I can't think of one good reason why they would want to make a new console. It just makes sense to wait five years or so for new technology to take advantage of. Otherwise they'll just be releasing a somewhat faster console that probably won't be used to it's fullest potential for another five years anyway.

All they said is that they aren't unveiling the PS4 at E3. The 10 year life cycle really means little considering the PS3 was released 6 years into the PS2's 10+ year life cycle. Console generations can overlap, one's not just going to abruptly end as everyone immediately flocks to the new platform. I never expected Sony to actually unveil the PS4 at E3, as they'll likely want to focus on promoting the Vita and reaping the rewards of the PS4, but I will be shocked if a PS4 isn't announced by the end of 2013. By then, this would have just gone on too long.

Should we really be applauding them for finally figuring out how to do something that PC developers figured out a decade ago?

If this is the case then I'm all for it. Developers have done great things with the PS3 and proved that it's a very capable platform, there's no need to release a new console yet.

To be honest, I'd still be playing my PS2 if developers were still making games for it.

I agree....The first thing I heard when the PS3 came out was after a month, people where already asking for a PS4. One time I got into an argument with a person at Game Xchange cause a customer wanted a PS4. I asked "What's out there that's more powerful then Blue-Ray?" he said "It's out there..."
Pffffft Nice f{bleeping} excuse.

I don't see why this is a surprise. Sure, there were rumors about Sony possibly unveiling it, but we've known pretty much from the release of all of the current-gen systems that the 360 and PS3 would pretty much be on a 10 year life span. I don't know why either company would decide to change that.

The only reason would be to get one over on the other... to release a more powerful machine capable of better more powerful games

To put things in perspective, a new console generation would just be incredibly costly and a large gamble for either Sony or Microsoft, at this time. I think what both are doing is waiting to see what moves the other may make. However, it's also true that current hardware is very outdated and the current console generation is already going beyond the norm of previous generations in focused length. I fear for how the financial toll of another console generation may severely "hold back" (The "r-word" is censored? It's not a bad word...) game development, but I also fear for how greatly current-gen console technology is falling behind... at this rate, outdoing either console in the PC gaming department shouldn't be the least bit difficult and I'd take that as a sign of "uh-oh".

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place... a new generation being released in the midst of a global economic failure to highly restricting game development and platform development budgets or watching outdated 2005/2006 technology fall further behind and question why I'm even bothering with such a relatively weak platform, anymore, for anything beyond the exclusives. There's no way they're going to wait another 5 years to unveil a PS4, though... just no. It may not be this year, but they can't go until 2016/2017 before saying something. They have something in the works, already, I'm sure.

only problem with more powerful games is. The more memory it takes to make a game look more and act more realistic the less and less memory we'll have for solo gameplay. Games now-a-days can already be beat in a matter of one or two days. This is why I like Skyrim, graphics are good and the playfield feels bigger then it did in Oblivion or Morrowind.

What? Games now-a-days can be beat so shortly because they're short and companies know they can still sell such short games for much profit, so they do. It has nothing to do with "less and less memory we'll have for solo gameplay". That doesn't really make much sense. We upgrade hardware, we get more RAM, we have more RAM to all around improve everything, but the length and content amount of a game don't really have much to do with RAM. Development costs and consumer standards are responsible for that.

More reason to get a PC, I guess. The hardware was dated when it arrived, in 5 years it will be like playing on a PS2. Unless optimization and compression tech explodes in the next year or two. Id be pissed if I were a console exclusive player.

I'm okay with this, honestly. I have a PS3 and of course am going to get the PS4, but I'm not looking forward to spending the money...
Also, the Vita will keep me entertained.

The PS3 has always been on a 10-year-plan. I'm not sure what's so shocking.

True, but the PSone and PlayStation 2 were as well, yet their successors launched well before those ten years were up. It's generally assumed that the console would be supported for ten years, not that it'd be their primary system for an entire decade.

This.

And with how fast computer technology becomes outdated it seems to be expected that companies will release newer consoles sooner to at least try and keep up. At the very least I'd have to assume that whoever releases their next gen console first will have an advantage over the other as they will get the first flock of customers

Thh I'm surprised the PS2 still gets new games like fifa 12 released for it

Here's some exsamples.
Soul Calibur IV: This had great graphics and gameplay but svcked in the story in the single player mode because Namco made the game more online then for single player. In the end you get only a few stages and WHAM the games over. Compare that to SC III-SC III is by far the best SC game followed by SC II and I.
I guess my point is the pattern I'm seeing with game companies. The more technology they get to make games, their're just going to use that to make game geared to playing more online and with other players and I hate that---it's a waste. I don't want to play online, I don't want to play with other people (namely because no-one acts like a team), I don't want to pay $XXX.00 on a new system just to play games that my old system can play and I damn sure don't want to pay monthly fees just so I can play online. If game companies are just going to use powerful technology just to make MMO's or some other online crap----I'd it's best that we keep with what we have. It does the job it's design for.

That has nothing to do with the technology, though. Inclusion of an online mode doesn't automatically sap all the memory of platform. If you're not playing it, it's not even running and the system's RAM not even tracking it. What you're referring to is an unfortunate consequence of the profit multiplatform games have brought this generation (in other words, consumer standards), not some inherent incapability of hardware to have two separate possible game modes or content. If something isn't being utilized or rendered, a system doesn't dedicate RAM towards rendering it.

Nice good thing it has that.