To be fair, Nintendo isn't trying to "be first" to the next generation, from what I can tell they're trying to break the generational cycle, intentionally falling out of step with Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft and Sony released their last console cutting edge while Nintendo released the Wii, a slight step back from what MS and Sony released. Now, with the WiiU, they've advanced to just ahead of what MS and Sony have right now, but it still isn't what they could produce if they were going cutting edge. They're probably banking on MS and Sony releasing their next consoles to be the same best of the best they can get ahold of when the time is right.
1. Retro depends on the individual and the age of the person.Well, SNES and Megadrive are considered as retro consoles by most, and they were sold in the nineties (in Europe, at least).
Dreamcast, GameCube, PS2 and XBOX are still modern consoles. But they will probably fall in the "retro realm" when the next generation of consoles will be released.
As F_Slim said, computer (software and hardware) ages faster than lot of thing.
(But when looking at the 80's clothing, some things don't age fast enough)
2. Soon, there'll be no such thing as a 'Console Generation' anymore. Wii 1 didn't help with Gen Categorizing...and Wii 2 will end the so called, 'Console Generation'.
http://community.eu.playstation.com/t5/CONSOLERAMA/The-Death-Of-The-quot-Console-Generation-quot/td-p/12776416
1. It plays its role, but saying a SNES is a retro console is accepted by the vast majority without regards of their age. PS1, N64, etc. are not that well defined, they're borderline of going retro, at the moment, they're mostly "old".
2. What I call a "generation of consoles" is a bunch of consoles that were released within a short amount of time (before it was quite a few years, lastly it's been reduced to ~3 years) like those three : Wii - 2006, PS3 - 2006/2007 , Xbox 360 - 2005. I don't know what it means for you, but it seems different.
So Wii II, PS4 and Xbox 2160 (EDIT: 2080 wasn't a 360 multiple, sorry) will be out within 3 years and be in the same generation
IMHO and only IMHO...Not really, because there's still that factor of DVD medium and playback being more advance technology due to it being larger in capacity.
Nintendo's following the same exact development cycle and philsophy they always have. That's to say a roughly 5 year console cycle, and hardware being sold at or over cost as of launch.
Compared to what? By the standards of computer technology they were not "cutting edge" at product launch. The GPU is the only component on the systems such a claim could be made with and it was not "cutting edge" at product launch.
Neither the PS3 or XBox 360 is GPU limited, and I've seen no basis for the Wii U GPU being "just ahead" of their compromised first generation DirectX 9.0 GPUs. Add that Nintendo has made a point to keep their Out of Order bits intact, and this simply doesn't hold water.
Compared to the Wii. I thought that was obvious, sorry.
when you think about it though sony and m$ are about 1-2yrs late historically for this generation...
do you believe sony would move away from cell? they seem to have invested alot in it.
I don't know about PS4 but Durango (XBox successor) is a pretty custom design, even if it's licensing x86 core IP. Will be interesting to see if its alleged Jaguar cores have any custom instructions like Xenon did.
I agree with this, however I still think that there are few games that look as good as the Dreamcast over VGA. Sure, Shadow of the Colussus and God of War at 480p look good, but there's a clean, vibrant look to DC games that is unsurpassed IMO.
