I personally hope Human Head do it, they did a pretty good job on the first one. If they were not given the project to finish we would still be looking at screenshots like Duke Nukem Forever.

Zenimax is like a hidden company nobody has heard of, but they know what they own. I had never heard of Nenimax until id was sold to them.

Bethesda used to make awesome FPS games.
I don't quite get why games fans always seem to assume games companies can only make one genre of games. Bethesda - must be 1st person sandbox rpg. id must be FPS.
Many games companies have successfully made games in many genres, even companies that were previously only known for a single genre. Lucasarts was mostly know for 2d adventure games, didn't stop them releasing some kick ass 3d space sims and FPS games.
I always meant to try Prey... sounded interesting.

Just what I was thinking. But it's equally possible that Bethesda intends to have it developed by a third party, like Brink. Or that id will expand, as they said they would, and start work on this sooner.

Prey is a good game and well worth playing. Although Portal did serve to prove just how little of its full potential it actually exploited. It also has some Vista issues, if I remember correctly.

Those issues seem to have been resolved with the latest patch as I run it fine on 7 64bit. I think the original problem was with OpenGL as Quake 4 also suffered from problems. Windows has since learned to play nice.

I still think it's a shame that MS didn't use OpenGL instead of Direct X. But at least Direct X doesn't fail as hard by comparison as it used to.

Yes, as even Microsoft has been favouring OpenAL instead of its own DirectSound, and one after another deprecated all Direct X frameworks but Direct 3D (and possibly DirectInput, I'm not quite sure), there really isn't much use left for the DirectX suite. An open networking framework in the spirit of OpenGL (graphics), OpenAL (audio), and OpenCL (general calculations, such as physics, using the GPU if possible) would be preferable, but I'm at least glad that DirectPlay is long gone so that developers won't be tempted to use that and thus effectively disabling any multi-platform multi-player capabilities the game could have (see Baldur's Gate for one example).
By the way, is OpenGL even allowed to be used (at least as a choice for the user) for games wanting the "games for windows" labelling? I've been under the impression that it wasn't.

Put it this way: I can't think of one GFW game that features OpenGL support. But I doubt MS openly state to the public that they refuse games the GFW label on the grounds that they support the OpenGL.
As you point out, Direct X as a suite is fast becoming obsolete. Maybe MS plan a switch to OpenGL as the final stage of that process. It's not like open source or the advantages thereof are alien to them after all.
But all this is just speculation really.

Eh, nevermind... I researched myself, and [url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173456(VS.85).aspx]found this[/url]:
1.7 Direct3D Support
Requirement
If the game uses Direct3D, then the minimum version supported must be Direct3D 9, and Direct3D must be the default.
Overall, I think the GFW label is quite good, as it easily filters out older technologies that may not work on newer systems (16-bit apps and non-multicore-awareness, for example), and makes sure that the game will continue to work for quite a while (well, that has yet to be proven, seeing how Win7 is only the second version for which the label is used, but it seems that the requirements are quite future-proof).

I skimmed through it and it does seem to be more beneficial than I thought it would be. Microsoft seem keen to assist an increase in compatibility with current and future versions of their OS. Which can only be good for the industry and hopefully reduce the perception that PC gaming is too much hassle. Which is usually brought about by incompatibilities.
Not actually requiring Direct 3D at all interesting. Maybe they're just leaving the GFW standard open to 2D titles, or maybe they're simply not ruling out OpenGL support. Either way, the lack of Direct 3D requirement is unexpected.

The way I see it, they either believe that any 3D Windows game will use Direct 3D (which isn't entirely without basis after all). Or they are, as you suggest, removing any such requirement. To make way for something else perhaps? It wouldn't be such a hassle for them to switch to OpenGL, after all.

Wait a second... Zenimax bought ID software. Zenimax is NOT Bethesda, its the parent company. So Tod Howard and his Bethesda crew are NOT making Prey 2. Nobody knows who will. The game will probably be allot like the first.

Like you say, we don't know who is making it. You can't rule Bethesda out (especially as a producer) at this point. Especially given Brink or even Wet for that matter.

Fwiw, Zenimax is a shell company. It is pretty much Bethesda's publishing arm.
Howard's on both boards and they're both based out of Rockville and use the same offices. The company is essentially a legal fiction designed to get Altman on the board. He was highly suspect after being indicted for misc. nastiness at his old company BCCI. He beat the criminal rap, but was banned from banking for life on a civil one. Long story short - he was basically un-hireable and zenimax is more or less a way to get around that involving stock transfers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International#The_forced_closure_of_BCCI
Still, I mostly agree. I kind of doubt "Prey" will suddenly be a free-roaming RPG. I sincerely doubt Bethesda will develop it. Like other posters have suggested, it uses ID's engine, so I think if it's developed in-house, it'll be them.