Pachter: Next generation consoles not before 2013

In a recent industry newsletter, Michael Pachter, gaming research analyst for Wedbush Morgan Securities has stated that the next generation of consoles will not arrive before 2013, if at all.

"We do not expect a 'new' console in 2010. We do not expect the 'next' generation to begin before 2013, if at all."

The only console that is expected to be released before 2013 is the long-rumored high definition Wii which will likely upgrade the Wii's hardware to current console technology.

Pachter continued to say that it is unlikely that publishers will release any new consoles before 2013 because there is still profit to be made from the current hardware. "We remain convinced that the publishers will resist the introduction of any video game hardware technology that requires a refresh of software, as the publishers have as yet to capitalize on the immense investments made in being competitive in the current cycle."

"We therefore think it is likely that the 'next' generation will begin after 2013, meaning that software sales are likely to grow by a compounded annual rate of 6–10 percent for another five years."

"Because R&D costs are likely to flatten out with the benefits of a learning curve, we expect earnings leverage as the publishers are able to exploit R&D investments. In brief, we think that investors have it wrong so far this cycle, and think that investment in video game publishers will bear fruit for many years."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft confirms final Windows 7 system requirements

Next Story

E3 2009: List of attendees

44 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

+1 for wii hd ...
i think that by being cheap, it might also be flexible to change.... if it was cheap to be made in the first place, it should be able to be cheaply changed later on too

Yea right, Microsoft will release a new console prematurely so they can cash in on everybody who doesn't want to wait. What ever happened to the good old days when everything was released together and competed directly. Damn you Dreamcast, you ruined everything!

xXDestroyerGRXx said,
We won't exist in 2012 people

Well, assuming you are talking about the Mayan calendar thing, it ends a week before the end of 2012, so we will exist for nearly all of 2012.

By 2013 they will ok very outdated because over the next couple of years console hardware will stay the same but the PC will continue to develop, the PC is the ultimate gaming platform.

ARTICLE
..., if at all.

HUH?? Well, this article just lost all possible credibility... The next generation very well may not occur before 2013, but I do imagine that AT SOME POINT it will... That has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen on here in a while (And that's saying something). LOL

Hahaha! I'm glad someone else saw that one. :D

It's a statement like "We won't see an improved economy again until around 2011, if at all". It's moronic beyond reason, lol.

I think they are way off base, just llike Pachter missed the ball on PS3 winning back the thrown and he admitted he was wrong on GT Bonus Round.

Next console will be out by end of 2010 or 2011. There's too much at stake for Microsoft to wait until 2013. THat's just nuts.

As for developers not doing new games? What the hell? They've been releasing PS2/DS/PSP/Wii AND PS3/Xbox 360 versions at the same time. So I don't see why they couldn't do next gen versions for let's say new Xbox and then downscale to Xbox 360, ESPECIALLY if Microsoft continues with compatible development tools for new Xbox to have good ability to downscale for Xbox 360. And that's what they'll do for sure.

I'm totally expecting them to release a new dev tools for next gen that will have a "switch" to downscale or easily recompile the same game for Xbox 360 only with some exceptions.

If you are thinking "next generation"..I agree, it will be awhile. If you are thinking "hardware refresh"..I think XBox will likely get one next year.

i for one, will never use onlive, i like physical media. or steam. not where i cant even install and actually feel like i own the game

ok, if consoles, go to cloud computing, that would be awesome, if it were to happen. I am not sure if Sony, etc, wants that to happen.

I am a PC gamer, I am happy with my mouse and keyboard, for most games. But games like XMen Legends 2, is hard to play with mouse and keyboard, too many keys to keep track of. And it appears I cant use my USB joysticks (Microsoft and LogiTech).

the day of the console is numbered in my opinion. The future of gaming will be in the cloud. All you will need is a high speed internet connection and you'll be able to play any game you desire.

http://www.onlive.com/

Nah, they arn't. In stone age countries line mine (Australia) a console will still be the most accessable form of gaming for years to come. Sure we have that "Broadband plan" but to be honest I expect that to fall on it's arse (just like most of the other major projects here...)

daz411 said,
the day of the console is numbered in my opinion. The future of gaming will be in the cloud. All you will need is a high speed internet connection and you'll be able to play any game you desire.

http://www.onlive.com/


I can't wait I hate consoles. They are ruining PC gaming.

daz411 said,
the day of the console is numbered in my opinion. The future of gaming will be in the cloud. All you will need is a high speed internet connection and you'll be able to play any game you desire.

http://www.onlive.com/


No its not, there isnt the infrastructure available for this to become mainstream, especially when i can only download a few Gb before my internet gets capped by 75%, a lot of ISPs have data limits and playing for just a few hours a day you will hit the cap in no time if you are streaming HD video.

Not to mention i dont want to pay a monthly fee just to play the games ive bought. If you lose your internet then all those games youve bought are useless, at least with a console once you buy the disc its yours to play as and when you choose wether you have an internet conenction or not.

daz411 said,
The future of gaming will be in the cloud. All you will need is a high speed internet connection and you'll be able to play any game you desire.http://www.onlive.com/

I hear this claim-hype every 3-4 years. In order to run personalized content in high definition (1080px60Hz) you must have not only dedicated CPU/GPU running somewhere for you, but amazingly wide data channel which will eat electricity.

As good as Nintendo is doing with the Wii, no way in hell can they sustain their market share till 2013. They need to release something new by Christmas 2011 AFAIC.

VRam said,
As good as Nintendo is doing with the Wii, no way in hell can they sustain their market share till 2013. They need to release something new by Christmas 2011 AFAIC.

I don't think so VRam, all they need to do is release some really good 1st party games to hold everyone.

The Wii IMO has the lowest amount of desirable games of all 3 consoles. This is experience talking here as I own one lol.

Ez8 said,
I don't think so VRam, all they need to do is release some really good 1st party games to hold everyone.

The Wii IMO has the lowest amount of desirable games of all 3 consoles. This is experience talking here as I own one lol.


I own one as well. Nintendo appears to be running out of 1st party creativity. Do you notice they started releasing Gamecube games with Wii controls added (Mario Tennis)? Its extremely hard to maintain a console on your own. Most 3rd party stuff on the Wii is garbage, which doesn't help things. Alot of respectable developers don't like the Wii because its simply weak hardware-wise compared to the PS3/360. It looks inferior now, imagine it 4yrs from now. The Wii's controllers are another thing holding it back. They really limit what of games you can have and their complexity.

What Nintendo needs is a power console that is easy to develop for (WITH NORMAL CONTROLLERS!) to attract all the publishers they've alienated over the years.

software and hardware growth ebbs and flows. when new technologies are developed that are dramatically faster, a game console is made using those components. those technologies stay relatively constant for a period of time, and then the cycle repeats, hence these "generations" of gaming consoles. seeing as the ps3 and 360 were launched in 2006-2007, 6 years after the ps2/xbox1, it only makes sense that 2013 would be the target year.

i could like to see an intel core i7 powered ps3, though. that would be SICK.

Ummm the Cell process or is more powerful than the i7. I'd like to have a PC that was powered by the Cell processor.


The CELL processor that is in the PS3 (and 4.0Ghz versions with more memory in IBM QS20 blade servers) are rated somewhere around the 200 - 250gigaflops mark at full pelt depending upon spec. The new intel i7 on the other hand tips in just over the 50gigaflops mark with all cores maxed out.

http://www.opiniopedia.com/viewnode.asp?scitech:20090108-1

I would actually prefer gaming to just be on consoles and for one reason...less cheating. The one thing I hate about PC multiplayer games is the rabid cheating. I like the mouse and keyboard for certain games (FPS and MMO's) but its so much harder to cheat on a console. Plus I'd rather buy a new console every 5-10 years than a new PC ever 2-3 years and consoles are cheaper than a decent gaming PC.

The negatives for consoles is if there is a MOD made for a game MS or Sony will most likely charge for it while a lot of PC MODS are free....plus the F2P games that are only on the PC. Thats the only fault I see for consoles.

Hellcat_M said,
Ummm the Cell process or is more powerful than the i7. I'd like to have a PC that was powered by the Cell processor.

Nice reliable source you got there.

Also, raw power is useless if it can't be fully utilized because of poor design.

Hellcat_M said,
Ummm the Cell process or is more powerful than the i7. I'd like to have a PC that was powered by the Cell processor.


The CELL processor that is in the PS3 (and 4.0Ghz versions with more memory in IBM QS20 blade servers) are rated somewhere around the 200 - 250gigaflops mark at full pelt depending upon spec. The new intel i7 on the other hand tips in just over the 50gigaflops mark with all cores maxed out.

going by that logic, the radeon 4850 goes up to 1200gigaflops...

these are fast machines, but they arent universal... they are very specific

This is why I wish consoles didn't exist: they're f***ing everything up!

If hardware progresses at the same pace, by 2013 an 800$ PC will have enough processing power to emulate an Xbox360, PS3 and Wii at the SAME TIME, and yet they'll be stuck playing ports of console games with bad graphics that have barely changed since 2007. In 2013 a video game made with PC capabilities in mind will make you wanna throw that old, slow PS3 out the window. But I doubt hardware will keep getting better like it does now. No gamers will buy new hardware if none of the games require more processing power, and everything will become stagnant.

It's always going to be the same on closed systems. Also good graphics on its own doesn't equal good gameplay. Also a gaming PC with superiour power and graphics is a whole lot more expensive than a console, doubt if they'll be console price by 2013.

It's a sad truth, but the way it is. I place as much blame on Intel, though. The GMA is a sad piece of technology that's been holding back PC graphics' lowest common denominator for far too long. I sorely hope Larrabee will be comparable with ATI and nVidia's offerings.

Lol, PC's don't have games that look like Killzone 2 or MGS4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure PS3's graphics surpass that of a PC.

Crysis doesn't look brilliant, it has it's goods and it's bads. Killzone 2 has a better atmosphere and better MoCap animations. It's debatable though.

andrew are you serious... Have you never played crysis? Far Cry 2? plenty of PC games have amazing graphics tat surpass those of consoles, even games on both platforms tat can be played on higher settings on the pc.

No offense but tat was a really stupid comment.

andrewbares said,
Lol, PC's don't have games that look like Killzone 2 or MGS4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure PS3's graphics surpass that of a PC.

Crysis doesn't look brilliant, it has it's goods and it's bads. Killzone 2 has a better atmosphere and better MoCap animations. It's debatable though.


i want what hes smoking.

andrew you're pretty ignorant. if Killzone 2 or MGS4 was made with the crysis engine you'll soil yourself. And Intel GMA graphics really did kill it for PC gaming, I mean, a blazingly fast Intel Core2duo paired with integrated graphics? C'mon Intel this is 2009 not 1999! (and thank Nvidia for making great mobile versions of their videocards and chipsets e.g. Macbook (this is not about Mac VS PS!))

andrewbares said,
Lol, PC's don't have games that look like Killzone 2 or MGS4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure PS3's graphics surpass that of a PC.

Crysis doesn't look brilliant, it has it's goods and it's bads. Killzone 2 has a better atmosphere and better MoCap animations. It's debatable though.


you need a new pair of glasses.

m.keeley said,
It's always going to be the same on closed systems. Also good graphics on its own doesn't equal good gameplay. Also a gaming PC with superiour power and graphics is a whole lot more expensive than a console, doubt if they'll be console price by 2013.

yes, gaming PC do cost more, but also can do so much more.

andrewbares said,
Lol, PC's don't have games that look like Killzone 2 or MGS4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure PS3's graphics surpass that of a PC.

Crysis doesn't look brilliant, it has it's goods and it's bads. Killzone 2 has a better atmosphere and better MoCap animations. It's debatable though.

Remember how Kojima said he had pushed the PS3 to the maximum with MSG4 and yet he was still disappointed with the graphics? It's going to be a very rough four years for PS3 developers trying to optimize games.

Most opinions on graphics stem from publisher-induced hype, something PC games don't really get compared to the PS3.

Most definitely later than earlier.

Everyone was arguing about the costs for Sony/MS/Nintendo under DL's article, but one thing people forgot about was developers development costs. Quite a few studios shut down, games got scrapped, others posted large losses (even EA) over the last few months.

Right now development costs are still sky high, I'm pretty certain devs would not be keen to move onto new hardware/SDK/development kits early this generation, especially during a recession.

Without the devs you have "no" software, without software your platform is gimped.

Still if, say, MS brought out a new console tomorrow there's zero chance of the games companies not supporting it. They might not be keen but couldn't afford not to.

m.keeley said,
Still if, say, MS brought out a new console tomorrow there's zero chance of the games companies not supporting it. They might not be keen but couldn't afford not to.

Why?

The PSP has an install base of over 50 million, yet because it wasn't very cost effective, no developers went there. Considering they've still got to cater for the 360, PS3, Wii, DS and PSP (now), I'd find it hard to believe most developers would show much support.