I think it all depends on how they approach the next generation. It should be obvious at this point that the rules that governed previous generations no longer apply. Love the Wii and DS or not, things are not the same anymore because of these 2. The rise of $1 games also plays heavily into the landscape now.
If it becomes a battle of muscle and throwing money around, Sony is going to lose that one every time to Microsoft. They simply don't have the cash and in fact a lot of things are pointing to Sony being in a lot of financial trouble these past 8 years. A look at their stocks over a 10 year period really shows how much trouble they're in.
The reason Nintendo is eluding MS's crushing boot is because they're comparatively tiny and agile. They do 1 thing: games. Sony isn't so lucky since there's so many toes dipped into so many different pies in that company. Sony is also notorious in business circles for being poorly managed. MS is known for this, also, but Sony doesn't have MS Office or Windows on 90% of PCs out there to bail them out. Nintendo has survived on creative innovation and a fiscally conservative approach (remember, Nintendo made the most money out of the 3 companies's game/console divisions in the PS2/GC/XB generation).
Microsoft will keep being Microsoft. They'll throw piles of cash around to get what they want. It doesn't matter if they come in dead last or first, their goal is influence and they'll spend what ever it takes to achieve that.
Nintendo will keep being Nintendo. They'll innovate and come up with crazy ideas and brilliant games like they have since the NES. Like MS, it doesn't matter if they're first or last, they make profit from day 1 and sell insane amounts of software. It's worth saying again: the GameCube made more money for Nintendo than the PS2 did for Sony. It's why "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM" never ceases to be hilarious.
Sony presents the most interesting questions for where to go next. Dualshock is a 15 year old archaic controller, they haven't put any muscle behind their wiimote ripoff, and another battle of attrition with MS will leave them in worse financial shape than they're already in. They're definitely the most vulnerable of the 3 companies.
MS now has kinect as a differentiating factor. It's the dudebro shooterbox with voice and gesture commands now. They can keep their 360 controller setup next system with kinect built in. That opens a lot of doors for all kinds of games, since the controller is still right there. Voice commands and head tracking will do a lot to add depth and complexity simply to a game experience (as anyone who has played squad based PC games like ARMA or OFP can tell you).
The problem with Sony at this point is, up until the Vita, they haven't done anything trailblazing or unique. They have no real identity of their own besides MO POWA. Same old tired assed controller with a metric fuckton of 3rd party games. 3rd party games don't mean shit anymore, they're all multiplat. It was just one of the HD twins until about 2 years ago when kinect came out. Where do their consoles go from here? Another shameless ripoff of someone else's ideas? How does that establish a unique identity?
Vita is promising, not for graphics but because it shows they're thinking about different ways to interact. Their 1st party stuff is doing great also. What they need next gen is to ditch that tired assed 1900s controller and leverage their 1st party studios to showcase a new control scheme. I really hope vita is a good sign of things to come for them--they're doing exactly what they need to do. The big question is if this will also apply to consoles. 3rd parties don't mean anything anymore, they're all multiplat nowadays to combat the cost hike.
They HAVE to differentiate themselves in a meaningful way. A PSTab or PSinect just isn't going to cut it, neither is a 15 year old controller design. PStab would get shredded by Nintendo's superior 1st party clout and PSinect would get shredded by MS's superior money sombrero.
So in the end, who knows?
