Well, this guy is stupid enough to think that the less powerful a console is the sooner it is likely to be replaced, so I'm not going to trust him too much

I never said that you said Sony invented them. Rather, I left my entire quote tree in to show that I was referencing back to the issue arisen to Sony's copying of Nintendo's ideas. But I'll go ahead and break this down again, then:

Control stick: I did reference systems going back to the 70s using these, the 1982 instance you cite is the first case of thumb ones. But it doesn't change the point that by 1986, joysticks were being relegated to accessories, rather than the controller a system came with. Skip forward 10 more years. Yes, Sony released a flight stick the month the N64 came out. (Let's ignore all the other joystick devices that had come out as accessories for those 10 years I skipped.) This is the first time in 10 years that it could be assumed that everyone had one of these joystick-esque devices again. And this served one purpose initially: to show how much easier one would make movement in a 3D field. N64 launched with Mario 64, a game which many people feel got 3D right. And it was this stick that made it work so fluidly, even if it was digital. People saw this, and took notice. It showed Sony the value of these sticks, enough to the point where they added 2 of them. I do think, had Nintendo not revived this as a standard controller part, the Dual Analog (or Dual Shock) would not have come to be. Remember, too, that Sony's working agreement with Nintendo on the SNES CD let them see some internal things at Nintendo, including the desire to have said joystick device.

Rumble pack: *shrugs* Okay, fine, it had a 2-day release lead in Japan. Why is it, then, that the rumble feature was not ported outside of Japan until the later Dual Shock? The easy answer: Nintendo's announcement of the rumble came first. Sony has shown in recent history that when they hear something they like, they're not afraid to try to copy it. (See: Sixaxis.) As per Wikipedia, the single motor in the DA is said to be faulty, and rumored to even be able to damage the Playstation system, though admittingly, I don't see how that (the damage) could happen. Coupling this with a lack of supported games outside of Japan led to the scrapping of the feature upon moving the controller out of Japan. I fail to believe that if Sony were truely working on this independantly, they would allow such a faulty product out. That is, unless they were trying to beat Nintendo to the punch, with their rumble campaign. (I still even have the old SF64 promo video around somewhere...)

Motion: I will concede the 2600 controller; I was not aware of its existance. Having no games that support it makes it one of the biggest failures I've ever seen, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. As for the DDR note, yes, the concept is still pushing button sensors. But if you think you're going to do that with only the movement of a standard controller on a traditional DDR pad, you're crazy. What it really was, was indirect motion controlling. It wasn't tracking your movement as you did it, rather, that you moved to hit the sensor at the right point. Sure, the home version can be played with a controller, but it sucks. With Move in development with the Eye, well... all we have is speculation on that, so I can't say either way which entered development first. All we know for certain is which was announced and released first.

Finally, you mention about emulating a controller. The winning system of a generation is always emulated, sometimes with modifications. The NES entered a market with no prior winner (crash of 83), so they needed something completely different. SNES, Genesis, and TG-16 used the NES base, and some added a few more buttons. Next gen, the original Saturn and PS1 controllers (both saw later revisions) modeled the SNES controller. (I've no idea what caused Nintendo's mutated N64 controller though.) The later modified PS1 controller was copied by the XBox, PS2, and to a lesser extent, Gamecube (via the C-stick) and Dreamcast. PS2 was copied by PS3 and 360, with Wii mixing things up. And already, before the generation ends, we see the Wii controller being emulated. I've already covered the modifications to the PS1 controller from the N64 components, so I won't repeat that.

And the disk format, well... Nintendo was stubborn, and I could see why back at the N64 launch. CDs are slow and more prone to break or be unusuable with rough people. But cartridges had a different problem: cost and ease of replication. This prohibitively high cost is what cost Nintendo most of their 3rd party support in that era- games that didn't sell to the ordered printrun cost several dollars per unsold copy, and running an extra 5-10K copies of a cart wasn't feasable, further limiting profitability. I think that even Nintendo felt a sting on a few games late in the 64's life, and joined in on the cheap disks, though with their own caveat. But it was too late to mend some broken bridges, and this leads us to some of where we are today.

Wasn't Sony also disruptive with the PSone and PS2 in your opinion?

Anyway, just imagine the Wii2 is just an HD and 3D update of the Wii with much better graphics of course. If this is the case then I wouldn't know why I had to buy a Wii2 (except for the exclusives, of course) instead of a cheaper PS3 (then).

not true. it won because nintendo had not support from third party, because it own mistakes with them, censorship, and not wanting to jump cds. sony was able to get all big games, from GTA4, FF and own gran turismo. by the time ps2 was released they were already playstation exclusives

PSP actually was shown in japan in 2003, psp lost because lacked it expanded casual gaming that nintendo managed to get with games like cooking mama, brain trainning. PSP by no means a failure its first portable to eat alot of nintendo portable marketshare, it selling a respectable amount of consoles. and it should pass more than 70m before it retirement.

PS3 lost because it was overengineered 800$ machine, (sold at 600$) and late to the market and nintendo was able to replicate it success of the DS with the wii, with wii sports and wii fit, and it helped push games like mario kart and mario galaxy that are their core market. with microsoft practically takinga all exclusity  from playstation. like paying 50m to rockstar to make GTA4 multiplatform and get timed exclusive DLC.

We can't really say what Sony would or would not have done if Nintendo didn't come out with their N64 stick.  It's obvious they were interested in analog technology, so I would imagine that an analog stick would have been a natural evolution to that.  And it was a genius move to add the second stick (as well as ergonomic handles), something other's have "copied", as well.  And do you have proof that Sony was allowed to see the N64 controller before 1991, when Nintendo announced they would work with Philips, instead?  This was 4 years before the public got to see it. 

I'm sure Sony didn't release the Dual Analog in America with rumble because of a design that turned out to be faulty and lack of support in for rumble titles in America.  Of course, Sony had many of the design issues sorted out shortly after, as they had the Dual Shock ready for release in Japan just 7 months later. 

I don't see the point of saying that DDR couldn't be done with a normal controller, and then saying that on the home consoles it can be played on a normal controller.  It kinda contradicts itself.  True, it's not the same experience, but it still follows the same principle of hitting buttons at the right time.  So, it still isn't motion control.  I gave you PPP, though.    The speculation point is very important.  Because we truly have no idea what is going on at these gaming giants offices and research centers.  The sad thing is that speculation leads to these "wars".  Sony guys will speculate (and sometimes can prove) that Sony already had these things on the back burner, but hadn't released them, yet.  While Nintendo guys will speculate that Sony copies Nintendo, whether its true or not.  Whether the time of release is within a few months of each other or if Sony is able to get it out early, but just doesn't have the same kind of support for it, yet.

I really don't mind a controller being emulated at all.  My only problem is when people accuse one company of copying, and yet, ignore when there fave company does the same thing.  Also, you could say that Nintendo drew some inspiration from the Vectrex controller for the original NES controller.  Sans that analog stick, of course.

Really, though, my main point is that even if someone wishes to think that Sony only copies, it still can't be denied that it was Sony who pushed gaming to this new extreme.  And it was them who made analog sticks and rumble a standard, not Nintendo.  Having the first console to push past 100 mil will usually do that to you.  62 mil (NES) was the highest before that.  That gen, of course, brought the D-pad and Start & Select into becoming a standard.

Well, PS3 can support 3D now and with the new motion sensor things. It should have longer life span. But SONY should just release a new console while supporting PS3. Both PSP and PS3 have online function and auto-updates in common, not to mention about online ID like PSN ID. Supporting the old format should be too hard.

I'm not attributing the early launches of PS1/PS2 as being the sole reasons they triumphed over Nintendo's platforms (while PS3/PSP utterly failed in the same respect), though I'd say there's no doubt that lead helped (or lack of lead hurt).  I'm just pointing out the pattern...

obs: sorry about my terrible english

The long run isn´t about hardware anymore... people here don´t see the big picture:

1)Sony is more interested right now at PSN and integration to TV´s and Mobile world..

2)PS3 can be more and more abused with innovations.

3)X360 still strong and screamming, a new platform next 2 or 3 years could make too expensive for new games at all next things to be upgraded, so, Knectic could create momentum for at least 3 or 4 years..

4)Wii HD... yeap..., so waht? Nintendo will continue SMASHING Sony and MS... Nintendo is umbeatable next years and so on..

5)SONY still learning from LIVE and still building a worldwide service for TV, Rent, Social and gamming, I believe PS3 will be embedded and some TV´s in 2 or 3 years from 2011..

6)SONY is making safe moves... everybody believes a next PS will brake it down... I believe this is not completely wrong... but what should be nest PS? more ram, new video card and more cores, :)

Honestly, looking at timelines I think it's likely Wii 2 will launch first (Wii fell in Japan in 2008 and hasn't really regained much ground since, and Nintendo always looks to their home market when planning launch cycles) and it may come as soon as Q4 2011.  In terms of hardware spec, Wii 2 will likely be just a normal generational upgrade, meaning there won't be as much pressure on Sony & Microsoft to push to their next cycles right away.  This will also likely benefit 3rd parties, as they'll now have 3 consoles to launch games across and share costs/risk with rather than just 2, though it might also result in the 3rd placer getting squeezed out GameCube-style as the gen goes on and Wii 2 gains ground.  Like with 3DS vs PSP, you can probably also expect Wii 2 spec to be a decent increase over PS3/360 capability, and probably with a focus on developer ease of use.

Microsoft's timeline I think depends entirely on how Kinect fares though.  They're in no hurry to rush the cycle, they've clearly shifted priority to profitability and MS PR has even espoused their own "10 year cycle" for 360.  Xbox 3 will probably launch alongside PS4, the only way I can see it launching earlier is if Kinect utterly bombs and the current 360 market basically dries up next year, in which case a Q4 2012 launch might be possible.  But that looks pretty unlikely imo.

While I’m considering doing a longer post about it, most of the market leading consoles had a lot of clear advantages that led to their success in the market. One of the most clear patters that has persisted throughout the short history of the market is that the most powerful console has never been the market leading console even though people appreciate advanced technology and have upgraded to the next generation of consoles specifically to get it. I suspect that the reason for this pattern is that the more powerful console has a tendency to be one of the last consoles to release and is often at a higher price (either a higher launch price, or a higher price when it launches) and the disadvantage of releasing later and/or having a higher price is greater than the advantage of having more processing power.