During this year's E3, one thing I was wondering is if Microsoft would reveal it's new console or not. This wasn't because of what MS did with the Xbox, but just because it's been closing in on it's 5th year of the 360. Even if MS didn't kill the Xbox so soon I would still have had the same expectations. Thankfully, they didn't show off a new console, but they did reveal new hardware in the form of Natal. Natal(MS's motion controller) could actually mean a much longer generation, with MS promising full support for it. I figured MS would kill off the 360 soon due to growing suspicion that it has "peaked" in terms of power and problems with it's DVD9. Looking at the success of the wii(which is a gen behind the 360 in terms of power), I could easily see microsoft sticking around A LOT longer(like 3 years longer) just promoting the 360's motion controller and creating a gaming library with it.

Now the only reason it was such a big deal that MS not launch a console, is because if MS did such a thing it'd force Sony and Nintendo to come out with their new console faster. While everyone has been guessing the lifespans using time(a new console every 5-6 years), we haven't considered the things that actually matter. One of them being, just how much all of this is gonna cost.

Sony launched the PS3 with blu ray before it became established as THE hd format to get. Not only did it make the PS3 expensive, but so many people basically put blu ray in a place that if it failed, it'd drag the PS3 underground with it. Much of this was because if blu ray was not successful, that made the price of the PS3 at the time(600 dollars) that much more intolerable. Now, 2 years later, blu ray has won the format war, the PS3 sits at 22 million worldwide(faster than the 360), and the PS3's price has dropped by $200. Not only that, but the games have finally came after Sony was crucified by the gaming media for not matching the 360's lineup after it's 1 year head start. This added to all the firmware updates the PS3 has recieved, you could almost look at the PS3's first year as a beta test, and the PS3 second year as it's real launch. If the 3 giants launched a console next year we could only expect a nightmare of issues, lack of games, and barely any new features included at launch. Which is pure Fail.

Now enough about you, you selfish piece of shit. What about the developers? Development cost is already incredibly expensive, forcing many companies to merge with other small companies or be eaten alive by industry behemoths like EA and Activision where they will be forced to make generic FPS shooters every single day in sweat shops for the rest of their lives. That means no more of those creative and original games you love to almost finish. I guess a solution for this is for all those small companies to be bought out as first parties to Sony, MS, and Nintendo. They'll fund the games so it's ok right? Really now? This means games will cost more. Are you willing to pay $70 dollars for a game? No, not the special edition of the game, just the game. Enjoy your used copy of Gran Turismo 6: prolouge on sale for $59.99.

The last point is simple. The world's economy is too fucked up to ask people to buy another console. Point blank. We're poor. The end.

Wait no, not the end. Another point I wanna make is that the same way DLC means sequals don't have to be made so often, firmware updates mean the same thing for consoles. You don't need to make a new console every 5 years when you can add most of these new features in the current gen. Ok now I'm done furrealz.

I'm perfectly fine with the hardware I have thank you very much.

END