1. Irrespective of the amount sony invest in their next gen console...a failed console is stil a failed console. We cant look at playstation as a seperate entity from its parent company. Sony cant afford another failed platform. Especially not in the gaming industry, where they look to be strong. Sure having a lower investment would minimize loses, but the damage done by a failed platform is huge. (whether they actually do fail or not is a matter of opinion of course.) And imo a beefed up ps3 with nothing new/innovative will not be a great success.

2. How feasible is that realistically? Lets say Wii U becomes the platform of choice for 3rd party developers...you saying sony now has to add a tablet controller? Similarly if kinect 2.0 takes off with the casuals...and gets good support, sony then needs to copy them? Two main problems here: 1. costs - if sony were to release all these things with the console the consoles price will be through the roof! 2. copying competitors does not ensure the same success. Look at wii/ move.

3. Think ive already given my opinion on the "investing" issue :)

4. MS are in a better situation though imo...they have the biggest gaming region in their pockets...and a run away smash hit in kinect. If they add a few wow factors to kinect 2.0, add the existing install base of live, and the general core following MS also has....they seem set.

You seem to associate investments with innovation...i do not. Sony can and should come up with something different something amazing if they want to stay relavant in the industry...this does not need a heavy investment but rather some insight and creativity followed up with a seamless implementation and a worthy marketing campaign. Also please keep in mind by innovation im not talking about graphical innovation etc. Im literally talking about anything significantly different that makes them better than the rest. Im sure sony is hoping for same....

This way of thinking is short sighted and naive.

I absolutely cant see how running the samaritan demo is going to guarentee sony success? Is it not clear that selling games only to the "core" audience is not viable?? Not to mention having a game with good/amazing graphics means jack shit when you dont have the gameplay etc. to go with it.

Im pretty sure sony is not aiming so low.

In my opinion Sony is caught between a rock and a hard place and, unless they can take a radically different approach in the next generation, the PS4 will likely be the worst selling Playstation home console to date. I don’t think developers are looking to take on the high development costs, consumers are willing to pay a premium for these games or the system, or Sony can afford to take on the hardware losses of a high performance gaming console; at the same time, I don’t think Sony can pull a rabbit out of their hat and offer a new user interface that is innovative enough to stand apart from the competition using a low performance console.

I agree HappySqurriel....sony seems to be in a lose lose situation. I hope they do pull a rabbit out the hat, the industry needs a change up... preferably not kinect

A controller for men not that same design i been using since i was 11(or whenever the ps1 came out), deep black voice "i got man hands".

I agree heavily with this the market now is far different then back in 2006, the same way Apple aim for everyone with their gadgets is the same approach platform holders have to take when approaching gaming, the market is now diverse to the point that aiming at one group is allowing your competitors a free ride, a company can't just ignore demographics not to mention the possibility of new gamers becoming more mature gamers, buying a console now is more down to can I get COD and GTA then image of the platform and who they're aiming for. Running the samaritans on your platform will mean nothing if developers don't have the finances to invest into utilizing such tech and instead stick to releasing multiplatform titles on all platforms, it would leave your first party alone to try and do something

Agreed but I think a major issue for the whole next gen though that I haven't seen anyone touch on is that first party titles are going to be the central pillars of attracting consumers along with marketing, third parties can't afford to be exclusive anymore. Imo the next gen is going to be down to first party performance and marketing more then anything else.

Hopefully the VITA isnt anything to go by....sony seems like they are planning on isolating large demographics. Although i see the handheld market and the home console market as two completely different environments. In the VITA's case...i see sony fufilling a niche market need, that being hardcore portable gaming. Im not exactly sure how this will work out though...but then again sony did not build the playstation brand on a handheld.

The home console market is where sony needs to come out strong and target all markets.

Just to add another point about the samaritan demo: Most people on here and in general on the internet seem to be blown away by the graphics of the demo and seem to make a clear distinction between that and current AAA graphical games. On the flip side of that, i think to most casual gamers and casuals in general, the difference is negligable...and im pretty sure they would see the samaritan demo in line with games like uncharted 3 or gears 3. Not to mention the idea of a next gen console running a FULL game looking like that is impossible. Personally i feel weve reached a point where graphical advancments can no longer be THE major selling point.

Wrdness, who do you feel out of the big 3 is best poised going into next gen?

Obviously Nintendo as they go into the next gen with out any financial problems and from what I hear a spare 15 billion in dollars to spend not to mention the power of their first party, after all it's Nintendo forcing the situation here and they're forcing it on their terms. We all know the Wii has had issues but tbh Nintendo's first party with third party titles filling the space between first party releases is going to make Wii U a difficult platform to deal with, how do you exactly deal with Nintendo when they now have the same third party support now.

The main issues that have given Nintendo an advantage is that development costs are so high that third parties can't be exclusive anymore they have to hit every platform unless it's an odd game like Dragon Quest or Monster Hunter.  This effectively means the only differences will be first party titles, it's now a case of the's no point going for super powered console that will lose huge amounts of money per unit if it doesn't give you an edge, Microsoft seem to indicate to going the same path as Nintendo and despite losses in money I think they can afford to shake it off and enter the next gen soon after the U they also have a broad approach which I commend as it's bringing in new gamers who can mature in future. First party wise they're weaker then Sony and Nintendo but they still have the financial muscle to contract another third party to develop an IP for them much like they did with Gears and Halo.

For Sony this must be a nightmare, after losing money in multiple divisions and only starting to make a profit on the PS3 they are as someone put it in between a rock and a hard place, they can't afford to be splashing out on a new console just as one is starting to make money while ironically recently releasing another bit of hardware that's sold at a loss but at the same time coming out much later then the U and X3 may in the long run be even more disastrous and industrial suicide as they're not in the same strong position as when the PS2 dominated. They also have Japan to consider so letting Nintendo run off with Japan with both U and 3DS is asking for trouble, I say they just have to respond and get the PS4 out with in a year of the Wii U. Sony's financial issues are part of the reason I suspect MS will be willing for a next gen tbh.