Well Sony has a 10 year plan for the PS3 so we aren't getting a new playstation anytime soon. Microsoft seems keen on wanting to give us a new console by 2013-2014. Even then I don't think we are at all close to a new Fallout games release.

CPUs for the next XBOX are already being manufactured and distributed in devkits.

Honestly, I think a lot of this "we want to get X years out of our current console" from both sides is a smokescreen designed to gain some kind of edge in getting to market first.

It's a tough call, for me anyways.
On one hand I think "well the 360 has had it's time in the sun, but it's fast becoming obsolete", and on the other hand I see a game like RAGE come along and I'm left in awe.
There's no doubt that they could easily push the consoles we have for another 2-3yrs, wasn't it like 1 1/2 yrs ago when they came out with the slim version of the 360? It kinda doesn't make sense to develop a rehash of a console, spending a lot of money doing so, all to be made obsolete by a next gen system just a few yrs later.

Either way, I wouldn't want F4 to be on next gen. Far too many unknowns, and BGS already have enough problems when developing games on "stable" platforms.

I read somewhere that the Xbox 360's life span will overlap with their next console. Probably similar to how the ps2 did it.

http://media1.gameinformer.com/imagefeed/featured/sony/thelastofus/hubcontent/Joel-points-out-bridge.jpg

The PS3 also has The Last of Us which shows how much potential the graphical powers of the PS3 has. A problem from all of that is that not every development team properly uses the full capabilities of both consoles. It would also be a better idea to wait before releasing the next-gen consoles. Just so Microsoft and Sony are able to add enough powerful hardware to make their consoles last much longer graphically.

Why would they want that? They make good money by selling new consoles every few years.

The problem with adding a load of hardware to consoles is that it makes it hard to sell them at a profit. The 60GB launch PS3 is a prime example of this. It was loaded with tech (probably as "future-proof" as any console ever), Sony was selling them at $600 (which was too much for many) and they were losing money on each unit.

So what ended up happening? Sony started stripping features out of it so they could lower the price and sell them at a profit.

As far as making a console that will be cutting-edge graphically for most of its lifespan, that just won't happen. The tech evolves too fast. Even if Sony or MS were to add the most bleeding edge GPU chipset to their next consoles, they'd have to charge a fortune for them.

As long as they make a better storyline and a game that is worth playing after you have done everything, New Vegas just got boring after a while and the main quest was only good before you started it.

There is no other spin-off, but then again Fallout 4 and it's title haven't even been announced so it might just be a spin off title again.
I give it 1-2 years, so that's 3 year since New vegas.

Take "with Bethesda" out of that sentence and I completely agree.

But why?

The hypothetical joint effort could satisfy both fanbases. At least the closest thing to the Obsidian involvement, because I see zero chance for them developing F4 on their own with Bethesda holding the rights.

Also, sorry for not mentioning it earlier, but I love your Arya Stark profile. Winter is Coming, eh?

Because I have absolutely no use for them or faith in them to ever prove useful? Skyrim is the final proof that the one and only thing Bethesda care about is "shiny" over "quality".

Add to that "do whatever you want" over "do something meaningfull".

Yeah. Hmmm, which company would I prefer? One which includes people who actually understand the series or one who obviously do not (see ex. Fallout 3)? A company which caters to cRPG or table-top gamers or one which caters to fans of Second Life? Hmmm. Very hard decision.

I doub it. Especially because thyre busy. But realy yall who talk about world designing being something that bethesda as mastered arent taking in acount basic logic(which is something that obsidian did well in new vegas)and prefer random locations to well thought out ones. Rockstar thogh? Those guys can do a fun to explore AND well thought gameworld.

Put them together and you got them both

I doub't Bethesda knows how though.

Hey Nance didn't you like FONV?

Edit: shiny & quality => Bethesda & Obsidian

Yes, I like FONV.
But I still have my huge list of issues with it. Thankfully I've been able to mod some of those issues out.

If you have to choose between a F4 from Beth or from Beth & Obsi?

Ps on pc you lucky bastard... i'm still a 360 svcker

They can take the Obsidian out and I would be much happier.

Ha! a F3 fan he? i thought FNV was better.

In some ways NV was better, but the quests were for the most part were all pretty crappy.

Me was crappy happy about it

I think you mean "happy crappy".