I totally agree that this generation has peaked.

I think the only reason no company has announced the next generation is because the Wii is still making tons of money, and MS and Sony are finally starting to get some returns on their losses (although neither will probably make back what they invested).

Since Nintendo is the only company that can really afford to move on, I think they will do so just to get a headstart on their competition. I think it's almost certain that it would be HD, and that it would be compatible with the Wii (so they could build on the current install base). I expect Nintendo to release their next console in the fall of 2011.

I think Natal and Move will flop. Well, maybe not flop, but not do as well as MS / Sony were hoping. I expect Natal to do better than Move because it should be cheaper and because MS will spend much more on marketing. I expect MS and Sony to release their next consoles in the fall of 2012.

I don't expect any new console to launch with a price higher than $399 (hopefully Sony have learned their lesson).

I expect Sony to launch the PSP2 shortly after Nintendo releases the 3DS. Actually I originally expected Sony to release it before the 3DS, but since there have been no leaks to suggest that, I changed my prediction.

i dont think so, unless u see the wii as a outdated system.

if the wii pulled it, sony can manage to update skus, to add new features and stilll have power to display HD.

it already have motion controls and 3d support.

I have no idea what you mean lol, care to explain?

@leo-j: I'm afraid you're mistaken in regards to a consoles peak and the effect price will have on the PS3's peak. 

(1) Wii is currently at $199 and is selling worse than it did in 2008 at $249

(2) The difference between past generations and this one means that the $199 price point, the peak in software sales and the time it has taken to get to the $199 price point has to be considered. Sony are seeing their software peak RIGHT NOW, for the PS2, $199 was the magic price point, for PS3 it will be/and is $299. It's all based on cycles and momentum and currently the PS3 has a lot of momentum and is in it's prime, unfortunately, Sony didn't plan the pricing cycle right.

(3) Historically consoles have sold most of the LTD sales after they've hit the $199 price point, however for the PS3, as I mentioned in (2) this will come late in it's life cycle and therefore more consoles will actually be sold before it hits $199.

It's all about cycles, you are too fixated on the figures of past generations, and more importantly, you have to remember that the PS3 IS NOT the PS2, it's still in third position, it's most likely going to lose the overall hardware race, the HD system race (although this is debatable) and also the motion control race. Besides that, Sony are only now making profit on the PS3 hardware, do you think they're going to want to cut the price any time soon? The PS3 will most definitely by past it by the time you expect it to peak and the consumer will have moved onto bigger and better things.

Well if Natal and Move fail to move consoles then your right.

Though a crazy what if situation would be if MS were to say, drop the console to $100 but still no make no announcements of a XBox 3. I think a $100 price point with constant support could do pretty damn good for any console. The PS2 might be cheap but has no support.

u are saying that ps3 will feel outdated when next nintendo/microsoft , and that may not be case,  sony took precautions to avoid that, PS3 now have motion controls and 3d support, built exchangable HDD, HDMI, Wifi all built in, ps3 main weakness its lack ps2 emulation, and i am pretty sure sony will announce, it all depends if they can find the software to keep the console healthy, they did an awesome job 2009-2010, if they can keep it i assure it will continue selling.

games still will be 720p/1080p and i assure nintendo won't do anything radical next gen it may be even weaker than the ps3.

wii it's selling worse because lack software,  i don't mean quantity or software sales, i mean quality AAA titles, this year they have galaxy 2 and metroid.

and wii was feeling pressure of the new slim at 249$, and they weren't going to meet their yearly target, and wii did get a huge bump after the price cut.

No one said Wii is not selling great and I never said PS3 has reached its peak. However, what I had question with is your reason on why PS3 hasn't reached its peak.

This is what you said "because like every console in the past, a $199 price point usually brings about the console's true peak.." If that would be the case for PS3, it would certainly be the case for Wii. Is there any console in the past peaked at the launch price? If Wii is the exception of the rule, there is a chance for PS3 to be the exception as well.

As for The Source's prediction onHW peak, it's certainly possible. Even if Wii holds steady at 20.5 mil a year, PS3/360 needs to have a 16% increase from last FY in order to match the HW number from FY 3/2009. While it's not impossible, it would require a lot of good moves to make it happen.

People have to remember that price cuts are used in most cases to maintain current sales.
360 sales will obviously get a boost from it's coming price cut but eventually it will return to its current sales. The same goes for the PS3. We are 6 months since then and sales are on the way down. This time next year when it has been 18 months from it's last price cut sales will be a lot lower. That is just how it is. In the next 2 years we will be nearly 8 years into this gen. We will be hearing long before then rumours about the next gen.
So i 100% agree with you source. The big numbers are over. We will get spikes with good periods after price cuts but ultimatly they will be used to just try and keep the numbers at their current levels. 140m consoles have already been sold this gen. That is a vast amount. People still expect PS3 to sell amounts similar to PS2. In 6 months time the PS3 will be entering it's 5th year on sale. It will not be posting numbers anywhere near the PS2's numbers. So i agree.

By revenue were definitely past the peak in terms of revenue generated overall: This is an oversimplification...but total max money by system is something like this I think.

Wii Peak = $250 * 26,000,000 + $50 * 204,000,000

PS3 Peak = $350 * 13,000,000 + $60 * 116,000,000

X360 = $220 * 11,200,000 + $60 * 115,000,000

I don't defend shovelware, I absolutely abhor it.

As for you, I don't really get what you are saying. You are arguing several different topics that are kind of unrelated to what I told you earlier. In any case, let's see what you said here.

First off, I'm a little suspicious as to what you are implying in your second 'stanza'. Tell me something I don't already know. Veiled underneath that is the assumed mantra that only "Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems". I'll tell you what, give me a 3rd party that tried more than twice who intended to produce a quality game on the Wii rather than nickel and dime customers or who is actually consistent in general. Only one you will probably find is Capcom, and even they are shaky.

Second, "if they published on any other platform".We already know Nintendo is not dying and going 3rd party. In fact, they have been quoted as saying that when their hardware goes, the games go with them. As for your assertion, you are stating that irregardless of the Wiis success, the games would sell anywhere; pretty much negating any type of impact the Wii had on the market. The appearance, interface, marketing, control schemes- means nothing. The values and focus on every  one of their first party titles would have remained intact and sold just as well anywhere else, but the Wii just got the lucky straw. Sorry, I don't buy that either.

Third, once again tell me something I don't know. You might as well blame Nintendo for not making the hardware strong enough right? Yea, bull-shit. If I could quote Dave Chapelle, I would say "they should've never gave those devs money". At the expensive of moneyhats and ridiculous dev entitlement, suddenly they demand moneyhats in order to deliver games which, in my opinion, aren't that great. Once they have it in their minds that the companies (MS/Ninty?Sony) actually need them, they take advantage, and see, that is the whole problem.

Although it has worked for Sony and Microsoft to have all the 3rd party support (PS3 would've been dead instantly without it) the fact that they don't have Nintendo-sized first-party teams makes 3rd parties too important. Without the fear of being at risk of being one-upped by another 3rd party, they have nothing to strive for, making run of the mill trash. That is why respected publishers like Bethseda have the gall to publish complete garbage like Wheelspin. 3rd parties assumed Nintendo would fail this gen,made a complete committment to HD/hi-res, and stuck with it. When it somewhat backfired by the Wii taking 'first-place' in the console wars, they did whatever it took to make their lapse in judgment (making Wii games) a non-factor. That includes killing that very Wii market with substandard titles and incessant PR bravado. By saying to their investors "See we don't need Wii, we made the right choice" they have a place to sleep at night.

HD development is just the natural progression of things. What exactly would you expect Nintendo to do next generation, make something weaker than the 360 but stronger than the Wii? That wouldn't make any sense. The price of circa-2009 parts wouldn't be high enough to justify going with something circa-2005. These Nintendo apologists are fake; people who own PS3s and 360s also acknowledge that the present issue of graphics overshadowing everything in development is a serious problem, but no go ahead, let the 'apologists' be the only ones to complain. No one ever said Wii owners didn't want good looking graphics, but that has been interpreted to assume they will accept games that look like they were from 1996, which is false.

The icing on the proverbial cake, is when you state as if it is fact that the route they chose to go with hardware proves Nintendo made a mistake. If that was the case, we wouldn't have a need for Move or Natal, or dozens of companies going under. Despite the sick obsession with tech and graphics, they are just games. Not art, not movies, not epic, just games. Resolutions cannot hide the ones that suck either.

Now, I know you are probably a big Nintendo fan, BUT if you have a problem with their methods, don't tip-toe around the issue, just say it.

I wouldn't have to ever 'defend' Nintendo if only there wasn't such utter bullshit and misinformation constantly brewed around that company by the gaming industry and its insecure twitch-fingered pawns. My 360 library matches my Wii one, but I never have to venture into Microsoft discussion to argue with people over that.

TheSource, good thread, I'm done.

Wont argue with the rest since It seems about right.
I also agree with the bold one but:

You are saying that PS3 would be instantly dead without 3rd party support. I agree. But since you didnt mention the XBox360 it seems that you are saying Xbox360 wouldnt be instantly dead without 3rd party support. I disagree.

First party support of PS3 is stronger. Way stronger. Without 3rd party Xbox would have literally almost nothing. If both consoles wouldnt have 3rd party support. Then there is definetly a huge advantage for PS3.

Especially Xbox360 would be literally worthless without 3rd party since they have the weakest first party of all. Same thing cant be said about Sony. Ofcourse both would be dead without it. Just Nintendo has showed it can live without anybody else. But between both HD Consoles its completly out of question who has the stronger and bigger first party.

BTW Sony has afaik a similar sized first party then Nintendo. I even remember that I have read quite often Sony has the biggest First Party since they bough the most devs. But I am not sure about that.