The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[3dcgi]

Look at pc today. The new gpus are very power efficient and destroy what the consoles currently can do by several orders of magnitude. Does it matter? Do you or others even care? Does it mean people are rushing to play on pc? Nope, few seem to care. So while yes it does mean that a future console gpu could be more substantial will it even matter anymore? I'll argue that the console of the future will be what the pc is today, basiscally a niche gaming device for those few that can see the graphical difference. The rest won't care and will happily game on devices they already own like tablets.

Going further, the console of 2021 I believe will not be a console at all, it will be a pc. Look at Win8 today, strip away the Win7 legacy desktop part and add kinect+voice+gamepad support and you basically have a game console. It's a fully 10 foot device. Yeah there is more software support needed, etc, but that's what I think will eventually happen where the idea of a console is gone, and instead (believe it or not) mid model plug and play pc's running Windows will replace them. No more need to spend money on custom console designs, total waste of time. A future windows pc will be the future Microsoft "consoles" as it were, the line will be totally blured and they will be one and the same. So for sku's you will basically have phone, tablet and pc. Phones have various form factors and designs but are all meant to fit in your pocket and be mobile. Tablets will have verious form factors and designs but are meant to fit in your hands and be mobile. Pc's will be the same with various form factors like desktops, utrabooks and tv boxes but ultimately meant to provide the best experience but not mobile. Three sku's, one sdk, one development environment. Devs and publishers will be thrilled because they are facing mounting/astronomical dev costs and this helps deal with that. Consumers will still get choice, for many their phone ot tablet will be good enough. For those niche few that want a better experience (the equivalent of the pc gamer today) they can go with a tv box with it's better gpu hardware. In that setup a dedicated "console" sku is pointless in my mind. It will also let Microsoft focus on one dev environment that works on all skus, which will also be a boon to everyone.

I think general customer apathy to better graphics is partly leading to this scenario, but so are developer costs which need to be consolidated somehow, and the above in my mind takes care of that. Core gamer dev budgets are growing far faster than the core gamer audience so it just can't continue like that anymore, something has to give. Microsoft to me is in the process of moving in this direction which I feel is brilliant, brilliant enough that I'm bullish on them and bought a stupid amount of Microsoft stock at around $23 because I think people are completely missing what they are doing probably because they are all blinded by Apple stock. Which for investment purposes to me is awesome because by the time the masses figure it all out I'll have already made a fortune on the stock

People aren't rushing to play on the PC because it's more complicated than a console. If people don't buy the next gen consoles you might be correct, but the PC comparison is different. Console makers are at a dangerous point in that they could turn the consoles into PCs. I think this would be a mistake and they need to ensure consoles retain their simplicity.

The MSFT stock comment is weird as the increase from $23 had nothing to do with your thesis. The stock market doesn't think that far ahead. Also, AAPL had double the return of MSFT over that time.

 

[joker454]

Which game was designed for a PC with 20x the performance of a console? None. And there probably never will be because there aren't enough people with high end PCs to justify including features just for them. To many console owners the PC is irrelevant as a gaming platform.

Crytek and Dice's engines are built to scale to todays and tomorrows hardware, hence why they always get demoed on the most current gpu hardware available at the time often sli'd. Games that make heavy use of Physx for cloth or whatever typically need current gpu's sli'd as well to run at full pace. A game like Crysys 2 may not look 20x better, but it looks substantially better than the console version yet console people don't see it that way, that's what I'm getting at. I mean how often do you read how Ps3 games, basically 2004/2005 era hardware look better than current pc games? I read that all that time on forums. Even if a game isn't using the full power of the pc, say it's using 1/4 the power, that's still massively more horepower than consoles yet it amounts to no appreciable visual gain. In the past 10x more gpu grunt was instantly visible but today it's not.

To your point of the pc being irrelevant as a gaming platform to console owners, that's true but it's become that way because they no longer see it as a visual upgrade at all. That's because 10x to 20x more gpu power is not coming across as impressive or even all that different. By that same token I'll argue that in the future the tablet generation may very well view consoles as irrelevant for the exact same reasons.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Being scalable isn't the same as being built for that performance.

What's the tablet generation? Anyone who has been alive for the past 2 years? I love my tablet, but I don't see it as a potential platform replacement for a console (not that I use it as a gaming platform much at all, its a browser/reader) without the ability to pass a lot of hurdles (price needs to come down, performance needs to go way up, needs way better storage, connectivity, battery life or ship with a dock and it needs to ship with a controller and have headset support).

 

[joker454]

People aren't rushing to play on the PC because it's more complicated than a console. If people don't buy the next gen consoles you might be correct, but the PC comparison is different. Console makers are at a dangerous point in that they could turn the consoles into PCs. I think this would be a mistake and they need to ensure consoles retain their simplicity.

I mention pc just to point out that even with far more gpu power it's not enough to get visually noticed. I know the usual argument is pc's are inneficient, pc's aren't specifically targetted, etc, but even if you assume 50% efficiency you still have an order of magnitude more gpu grunt that is not amounting to an appreciable visual gain. Look back at sprite based games of yesteryear, where once you had hardware that could manipulate enough sprites with enough colors that was basically it, there was no where else to go and it all came down to art style after that. Other mediums have seen a similar effect like where music compression got good enough to where better music formats didn't matter, video format getting good enough to where people don't see the difference anymore, etc. I figure there must be a similar line with 3d to where you can hit a certrain performance spec that will satisfy most people. I'm not arguing that rendering won't keep getting better of course, but maybe we are getting to a point where 10x gpu gain is just meh, and it will take 100x gpu gain for the median of users to really take notice of improved visuals.

Consoles becoming pc's can be done while keeping simplicity, they just need a good base. Win8 looks like a good base, it's inheritely lean since it must run on tablets and low power devices, and it's built to work with touch/motion controls from the get go so it's ui must be kept simple. Plus I'd argue that having one platform across all devices will make it easier since it's just one codebase to support. Ok that's not 100% true....but you know what I mean, one basic design/methodology to support.

The MSFT stock comment is weird as the increase from $23 had nothing to do with your thesis. The stock market doesn't think that far ahead. Also, AAPL had double the return of MSFT over that time.

Yeah it's more involved than that, I see them as getting involved in many more markets, getting more revenue streams and finally seeing a growth path. It's a long term play, I don't plan to sell for a few years.

 

[joker454]

What's the tablet generation? Anyone who has been alive for the past 2 years? I love my tablet, but I don't see it as a potential platform replacement for a console (not that I use it as a gaming platform much at all, its a browser/reader) without the ability to pass a lot of hurdles (price needs to come down, performance needs to go way up, needs way better storage, connectivity, battery life or ship with a dock and it needs to ship with a controller and have headset support).

Tablets are selling much more than consoles are, so at some point they will become direct competitors to consoles for the simple reason that once they offer good enough gaming visuals it will make users ask the question of "Do I really need a console?". Right now you have console owners buying tablets as spare gadgets, etc, but eventually the situation will flip flop and it will be the tablet that may be the first device they buy and the console becomes the device that must prove itself to be worth spending another $400. That's what I mean by tablet generation. Today to a gamer the console is the must buy and tablets are toys, I think that will eventually change and tablets will become the must buys and consoles will become the alternate purchase. It's already happening with portable gaming consoles to where people have a tablet/phone first now then decide if adding a portable gaming console is worth the extra money. I'm thinking many years in the future here, I don't expect next gen consoles to be affected by any of this, I'm thinking the gen after that.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Tablets have been around for 2 years and you're predicting they will take over the world. I remain skeptical. I think they are more of a niche device than a replacement for everything. And I think we are a long time away (longer for tablets) from performance not mattering.

 

[Arwin]

It's a fine image to be had, mobile mainstream gaming, but I can't believe the rest of the family would be that happy if you picked up and walked off with the device that provides TV on demand, music and film streaming, and all the other services that consoles provide. To my mind a fixed device and a mobile device that allows you to carry the experience with you will always be a better option.

Of course you could always upgrade your TV to a smarter version but that is more cost.

I mostly agree with this. I think there will simply be more of everything. I see the tablet as a pc - a fast evolving platform that can do a lot of PC like stuff, with a limited shelf-life and high replacement rate for cutting edge. You will have very similar issues as their scope expands. I am saying this as someone who has just bought his first iPad btw, and I am very much in love with it, but I can already see the limitations: we basically have a next-gen every year, and the first iPad is already miles away from the third one
just two years later. There is overlap with everything and I predict it will take a significant piece of the market, but not everything, and I think the five year cycle for consoles, handheld or no, will keep them competitive for a good while yet. There's a lot of room for interoperability btw that could be very interesting.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

One big difference then and now is that now people don't even see the difference that a pc with a 20x gpu advantage is making on games.

I think you overstate and oversimplify the PC comparison. Consoles aren't just bought for the sake of the graphics. Even though BF3 looks better on PC, the choice to spend £400 getting a PC to play it is weighed against the downsides of a non-user-friendly interface (especially for the rest of the family), a lack of exclusives, a lack of a universal gaming network, etc. And why buy a £400 PC now when that money can go towards a new console when it's released in a year or two (or three, or four)? Now if the PC games were a generation ahead in all games, looking as far ahead of this gen as this gen looks over last gen, and not just a couple of standout title that one might not care to play, then you'd have more reason to cross over. But they typically don't. And even if they did, Joe Gamer doesn't know that. The positioning of PC as a user-friendly gaming or home entertainment system is non existent. There aren't any TV trailers for Gears PC or "FIFA, now available on Windows PC". So Joe Gamer doesn't even think of PC as an option for a platform to game on. If MS backed the Windows PC as heavily as they do XB, then we'd have a fairer comparison of how people do or don't care about graphics. As it is, you have one variable amongst many regards graphical prowess, which doesn't reflect consumer interest in more power.

I can confidently say that a generational advance in gaming as we are used to will see enthusiastic adoption. I can also confidently say that the same game looking much better than this gen will still appeal even when the IQ is a bit shabby and the framerate a bit off and the lighting simplified on lesser hardware, because the difference then isn't enough. That's where the tablets fit in IMO (with a docking bay adding extra oomph at home). They won't offer the best graphics, but they can equal consoles in every other way adding portable convenience. But if the tablets never get beyond PS360 level performance, and the consoles get a generational advance, than the console space should be reasonably healthy for another generation (until they become PCs of some form).

 

[orangpelupa]

about console gamer dont see the graphic upgrade of the pc version,

it happens in the peoples i meet too. Like when i show them BF3 in medium setting in MP (because i want high fps) then i show them "i wish my pc able to run BF3 in this max setting" then showing them the better visual at max setting with my pc low fps, they usually just say something like "whats the difference" or "i like the previous, its more smooth (refer to the fps)"

they just cant see the difference,
as for PS3 gamers they usually mention Uncharted series and GT5 as their game with best graphic and i really cant argue with that.
I have tried by telling them there are bad textures here and there, also pointing about the very sharp shadow in GT5, but they look confused and cant see the problem at things that im pointing at. It looks good for them.

/edited for clarity

 

[joker454]

Tablets have been around for 2 years and you're predicting they will take over the world. I remain skeptical. I think they are more of a niche device than a replacement for everything. And I think we are a long time away (longer for tablets) from performance not mattering.

Well tablets or a pc box that is purpose built to replace consoles, so basically the landscape will become phones, tablets and pc's (desktop, ultrabook, tv box). I also feel some will be built into tv's eventually. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

I think you overstate and oversimplify the PC comparison. Consoles aren't just bought for the sake of the graphics. Even though BF3 looks better on PC, the choice to spend £400 getting a PC to play it is weighed against the downsides of a non-user-friendly interface (especially for the rest of the family), a lack of exclusives, a lack of a universal gaming network, etc.

There's more exlusives on pc than on console of course but that's beside the point I agree on interface and universal network as XBLive is miles head of pc, but that universality and ui consistency is coming to a tv box near you, as will it to a tablet near you. So that argument in the not too future will be out the window.

And why buy a £400 PC now when that money can go towards a new console when it's released in a year or two (or three, or four)?

I'd flip that on you in the future, where people may be saying why should I buy another console when a new tablet will be out next year? Or a new phone? Or a new tv box? I think the stuff you are saying today will still be said in the future, just flipped around like that once the simplicity/ui consistency comes to said tablets and tv boxes, which it is all coming.

Now if the PC games were a generation ahead in all games, looking as far ahead of this gen as this gen looks over last gen, and not just a couple of standout title that one might not care to play, then you'd have more reason to cross over. But they typically don't. And even if they did, Joe Gamer doesn't know that.

You conveniently made my point To me almost every game on pc looks significantly better than console. Yeah there are exceptions like Fable 3 which looks and runs appaling on pc, but most games by and large look far better....to me. Now to you, joe gamer, etc they don't. That's exactly what I'm getting at that people aren't seeing the improvements anymore. All they see is perhaps frame rate and texture res, all the remaining 50 bullet points of improvements that one can bring up on the pc versions, you know the ones that munch hundreds of cuda cores to execute, go largely unnoticed. That's why I'm saying the "good enough" line is getting really close and/or we may be needing 100x more gpu power now to get typical console folk to see a big difference.

The positioning of PC as a user-friendly gaming or home entertainment system is non existent. There aren't any TV trailers for Gears PC or "FIFA, now available on Windows PC". So Joe Gamer doesn't even think of PC as an option for a platform to game on. If MS backed the Windows PC as heavily as they do XB, then we'd have a fairer comparison of how people do or don't care about graphics. As it is, you have one variable amongst many regards graphical prowess, which doesn't reflect consumer interest in more power.

Yeah I totally agree on that....today. But you can see this is all coming right? Their entire sku line will all benefit from the same marketting in the future because they will all be one and the same. They are taking a lot of flak for that at the moment, but I think it's the right move. Once they have all the pieces together they will have to start emphasizing how XBLive is available on all their devices to start with and go from there. It's a software issue in the end that once resolved will need the marketting behind it to let people know what's up. But ultimately even if people don't know I still think a purpose built Windows pc is what consoles will be anyways, I don't think it will be a console in the traditional sense.

I can confidently say that a generational advance in gaming as we are used to will see enthusiastic adoption. I can also confidently say that the same game looking much better than this gen will still appeal even when the IQ is a bit shabby and the framerate a bit off and the lighting simplified on lesser hardware, because the difference then isn't enough. That's where the tablets fit in IMO (with a docking bay adding extra oomph at home). They won't offer the best graphics, but they can equal consoles in every other way adding portable convenience. But if the tablets never get beyond PS360 level performance, and the consoles get a generational advance, than the console space should be reasonably healthy for another generation (until they become PCs of some form).

Yeah they have one more gen in them in my mind, after that I really start to question it. It's not like a think dedicated boxes will go away, but I think the idea of a console will go away and replaced by a purpose built pc as by then the ui and online experience will all be in place. Plus I do think existing devices like tablets and even ultrabooks will get good enough in that regard and start to be a more major player on tv media/gaming. What's interesting to me is who will be the first to build this all into tv's, so you buy your tv and the XBLive network or Apple network are all there ready to go, use and play with right out of the box.

about console gamer dont see the graphic upgrade of the pc version,

it happens in the peoples i meet too. Like when i show them BF3 in medium setting in MP (because i want high fps) then i show them "i wish my pc able to run BF3 in this max setting" then showing them the better visual at max setting with my pc low fps, they usually just say something like "whats the difference" or "i like the previous, its more smooth (refer to the fps)"

they just cant see the difference,
as for PS3 gamers they usually mention Uncharted series and GT5 as their game with best graphic and i really cant argue with that.
I have tried by telling them there are bad textures here and there, also pointing about the very sharp shadow in GT5, but they look confused and cant see the problem at things that im pointing at. It looks good for them.

Yup pretty much sums up what I'm seeing as well. It first struck me as shocking back in 2006 when I was doing dvd and bluray comparisons only to be stunned at how few people actually saw a difference between the two, and how few even cared. Now I'm starting to see the same thing happen with games, first reading about it on forums and not completely believing it to be possible and then starting to experience it first hand from family, relatives, etc. Yeah it blew me away as well, but there it is. If the "good enough" line is close to being reached then that's the end of line for dedicated consoles as we know them.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd flip that on you in the future, where people may be saying why should I buy another console when a new tablet will be out next year?

Um...that's my argument too! I'm saying consoles will be replaced. But the argument in favour of graphics now for next-gen is that the PC is not offering a substantial enough upgrade, and with diminishing returns, the idea of a closed-box just for games doesn't make sense. Which you agree with. The only difference is...

You conveniently made my point To me almost every game on pc looks significantly better than console.

'Better' is a subjective term, at least in terms of degrees. And in my case, I've never see the best PC graphics (like Joe Gamer, because the PC marketing departments don't put PC gaming in the spotlight). I expect the CODs and FIFAs of this world to look similar on PC to their console counterparts except at higher IQ and framerate, because I expect them to be made to the lowest common denominator yadayada. Madden on PC is going to look pretty close to the same game on XB360, and nothing like the EA concept CGI from 2005. A new generation of console will see a proper graphical upgrade towards that sort of EA optimism. PC may well be able to do that now, but it isn't on the whole because it's running console-limited engines. And as the PC gets better, the time until the next-gen launches decreases, hence no worth in switching to PC yet. Hence you're posit that if gamers cared about graphics they'd buy PC doesn't stand IMO. The PC isn't offering a next-gen graphics experience as much as a current-gen++ - same sorts of models and environments and lighting techniques only cranked up a notch. Next-gen gamers will want a new graphical experience as will come with new hardware.

 

[-tkf-]

I'd flip that on you in the future, where people may be saying why should I buy another console when a new tablet will be out next year? Or a new phone? Or a new tv box? I think the stuff you are saying today will still be said in the future, just flipped around like that once the simplicity/ui consistency comes to said tablets and tv boxes, which it is all coming..

I am a bit lost here, how should tablets compete with Consoles when we are having "problems" making consoles powerfull enough because of heat and power use?

And right now i think the "TV" boxes are so fragmented that it will end up being a tablet like power we will see from those, the tv box games will come from iOS and Android markets.

 

[wco81]

One reason console gamers aren't migrating to PCs may be that most PC sales are of laptops. World is trading raw power for convenience of portable form factors.

Tablets are a continuation of this trend.

If tablets are niche, what does that make consoles? Already annual volumes are greater than consoles. There will be over 100 million iPads out in the world by the end of this year, reaching that milestone in less than 3 years, each unit at ASP higher than consoles, which have to be heavily subsidized to be moved.

Tablets won't replace consoles wholesale but at the margins, there will be tablet users who'll skip consoles for whatever reason. That will affect the growth rate of console sales and ultimately, the size of the console market.

 

[tuna]

Yup pretty much sums up what I'm seeing as well. It first struck me as shocking back in 2006 when I was doing dvd and bluray comparisons only to be stunned at how few people actually saw a difference between the two, and how few even cared. Now I'm starting to see the same thing happen with games, first reading about it on forums and not completely believing it to be possible and then starting to experience it first hand from family, relatives, etc. Yeah it blew me away as well, but there it is. If the "good enough" line is close to being reached then that's the end of line for dedicated consoles as we know them.

How many people did not see a difference between DVD and Blu-ray? Also, the original poster claimed that the people he talked to refereed higher frame rates over more complex graphics, not that performance does not matter.

Also, there seems to be a reasoning in this thread that the things that consoles guarantee (a consistent input method, generic platform performance, similar output devices) does not matter for the consumer. I think this is wrong even if the average consumer can not articulate the benefits that this brings them.

 

[AlphaWolf]

One reason console gamers aren't migrating to PCs may be that most PC sales are of laptops. World is trading raw power for convenience of portable form factors.

Tablets are a continuation of this trend.

If tablets are niche, what does that make consoles? Already annual volumes are greater than consoles. There will be over 100 million iPads out in the world by the end of this year, reaching that milestone in less than 3 years, each unit at ASP higher than consoles, which have to be heavily subsidized to be moved.

Tablets won't replace consoles wholesale but at the margins, there will be tablet users who'll skip consoles for whatever reason. That will affect the growth rate of console sales and ultimately, the size of the console market.

Tablets are more replacing PC usage than console usage. Obviously there's crossover there as consoles do many of things a PC does, but I think as a games platform tablets have a long way to go to be able to offer the experience. As little as I think of Onlive I think it's closer than tablets are to offering a competitive console experience.

 

[joker454]

How many people did not see a difference between DVD and Blu-ray? Also, the original poster claimed that the people he talked to refereed higher frame rates over more complex graphics, not that performance does not matter.

The majority did not see the difference when I was doing my a/b tests with various people back in the day. Now to be fair tv's are bigger now, at the time I was doing those test on a 50" tv and now it would be a 65", so that would help some see a difference. But even some of those that did spot a difference just didn't care much. Most were much more intersted at the time in the tv that hung on the wall, irregardless of the picture quality coming from it.

Yeah higher frame rates and texture resolution are two things I think masses can spot, I had also made that point once in a different thread. Pc still visually gives the edge there since all games can run at 60fps and with 16x af. What I suspect is when people see games on pc they are prolly seeing them on a lower spec gpu and hence it's probably still at 30fps, and the 16xaf while huge to me isn't enough for many to notice because the texture resolution by and large is still low and that stands out more to them that a clear ground or wall texture for example. That goes completely counter to what people frequently say on this very forum mind you, where the issue of poor texture filtering on console is brought up quite regularly. Yet when they see 16x af on pc it's then deemed to be not much of an upgrade. To me that says that texture resolution is really what they are looking for as far as bang for the performance buck, and not af on which 4x with selective 8x is probably more than enough.

Also, there seems to be a reasoning in this thread that the things that consoles guarantee (a consistent input method, generic platform performance, similar output devices) does not matter for the consumer. I think this is wrong even if the average consumer can not articulate the benefits that this brings them.

Oh yes that is hugely important! I'm not trying to say the pc can supplant consoles as it is now, there is zero chance of that as the pc doesn't provide a good overall experience. I'm merely using the pc's visuals as the example where people see a game running on a pc and don't see a big visual difference. I think the good user experience will come in a future pc based tv box and via tablets from Microsoft and hopefully Apple. I'm pretty confident tha Apple will make a play now that Steve Jobs isn't at the helm anymore, and they will provide much needed competition in this space to Microsoft who in my mind will be there for sure.

I am a bit lost here, how should tablets compete with Consoles when we are having "problems" making consoles powerfull enough because of heat and power use?

Because even though consoles and their larger form factor does allow for more heat tolerance and hence higher spec, the amount of higher spec needed for people to notice the difference will be utterly huge. In other words when you get to a point that a tablet provides good enough graphics, then a competing console even if it offers 10x more gpu grunt than said tablet may not be enough for people to see enough visual difference to where they decide it's worth parting with another $400 to buy one.

And right now i think the "TV" boxes are so fragmented that it will end up being a tablet like power we will see from those, the tv box games will come from iOS and Android markets.

For this you'll need to think much further ahead. Yeah the tv box market now is total ass. That just means it's ripe for someone to step it and clober it all with the right user experience and software solution. This fight I believe in the future will be fought with a combination of products all sporting the same look and feel, namely built in tv functionality, tv box and tablet that all look similar, run similar, and are all connected.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Getting all the TV manufacturers to agree on a built in standard and stick with it long enough to make it pervasive enough to get software support. That's a big hurdle.

 

[Tahir2]

Would love to see ARM tablets and consoles.
At least developers would be happy with ease of porting code and familiarity with design.

But we all know that ARM CPU's doesn't scale high enough in performance just yet and are still missing necessary features to make them a true alternative.

 

[Barbarian]

A couple of thoughts:
1) The sad fact is almost no one makes PC exclusives anymore. This means the reason you can play PC games today is because of the existence of consoles and the 10x larger revenue publishers can make there while the PC porting costs are negligible. Wishing for gamers to migrate to PC is like shooting your own foot.
2) Tablets are superior to consoles in several ways and hence the true danger to console's existence.
a) Tablets are the ultimate expression of closed hardware - targeting an iPad for example, the specs are well known, but they also include the display device so a developer can know EXACTLY how the end product will look.
b) Tablets refresh faster - hardware revisions come out every year or two, giving opportunity for faster growth (through replacement, new colors etc)
c) The development costs are a lot lower - especially attractive to indie devs and startups - and we all know that's where all the innovation happens
d) Price of games is way lower, allowing for impulse purchases, digital sales and year-round sales (moving away from Christmas sales is hugely important IMHO)
e) With 3G/4G data plans and subscription models, there is a chance tablets will be impossible to compete with price wise.
f) Console's graphics improvement will inevitably offer diminishing returns and a lower power tablet will be able to achieve similar final impression at fraction of the power (especially considering the ability to carefully calibrate the final image on tablets)

 

[Gubbi]

A couple of thoughts:
2) Tablets are superior to consoles in several ways and hence the true danger to console's existence.

They are also inferior in several ways.

a) Tablets are the ultimate expression of closed hardware - targeting an iPad for example, the specs are well known, but they also include the display device so a developer can know EXACTLY how the end product will look.
b) Tablets refresh faster - hardware revisions come out every year or two, giving opportunity for faster growth (through replacement, new colors etc)

These contradict each other. With fast hardware revisions the developers ends up supporting multiple hardware configurations. Tablets will be worse than PCs in this regard, because on top of different hardware you're going to be targetting iOS, Android and Win 8 as a developer.

Apple is the de facto standard right now. But if Android or Windows 8 sees any traction, the problem will be worse than PC because you need to support three different software stacks as well as target multiple hardware configurations.

c) The development costs are a lot lower - especially attractive to indie devs and startups - and we all know that's where all the innovation happens

Development costs are lower because the games are small. The bigger games leverage content from the consoles.

Cheers