That's a very good one.

I'd like an "everybody wins" scenario because I've invested in every platform and I want to get my money's worth. I'd also like some COMPETITION to push the leader to its maximum. If Microsoft and Nintendo can't keep up with Sony this gen, Microsoft may just up and quit. Meanwhile any attepmts my Nintendo to innovate (for example, a controller with a screen) may actually be awesome but with Sony so far ahead, there would be no reason to even impliment it. What we are looking at may go from competition to domination in a short amount of time.

So let's say Nintendo goes back to the drawing board. Their next console is fantastic. Great. Unfortunately, console life spans are like 5-6 years. That's a long time to wait whereas as a new cell phone comes out every time I take a shit. In the meantime, relationships with developers and customers are being strained. The PS1 and PS2 were so dominat that it allowed Sony to really drop the ball with the PS3 because they felt so powerful, and still come away somewhat okay (in the public eye--not financially).

The much loved Playstation Plus came about to counter the much loved Xbox Live. The much loved Trophies came about to counter the much loved Achievements. The free online stayed around to counter the paid online of M$. If the Xbox weren't doing so well, what would have been Sony's motivation? If the PS3 had overtaken Xbox 360 in 2007 would Sony have done a lot of the things they've done to turn the PS3 around? Would they have changed anything with the PS4 (ie: The low asking price)?

And the success of the competiton did NOT impede innovation. It made the makers more creative last gen. For better or worse, we got Playstation Home. 1 vs. 100, Kinect and Move, Netflix, Indie game exclusives, and more in an effort to gain some sort of edge over the competition. Franchises that used to only belong on one platform went multi-plat because there was more than one viable platform selling hardware. Games that were "Wii Only" went to the PS3 because there was potential to sell there and specialized hardware that could do what the Wii was doing. Every gamer was winning because, in a way, none of the console makers would admit defeat. The market was highly competitive.

So if Sony is the only one eating off of the plate, what happens? Are we already ready for the 9th gen to begin?

/end counter-rant

I think that's more iteration than it is innovation.

what a lot people also don't understand is that buying everything DOES NOT contribute to competition. only buying the things you really can/do enjoy/need makes products better in the long term. so for example: if you already know that buying the next cod only leads to you complaining on internet forums how much it sucks, don't buy it. also to the people who praise steam so much: do you really think that getting for ex. 1000 games for a bargain leads to getting better games? if you treat games like fast food today you should/can not expect a 8 course dinner in the future.

Seeing as that almost every console in the last two generations was trying to tout other features instead of just core gaming (DVD! motion controls! blu-ray! kinect!), making a core game console with little focus on anything else is, in many ways, innovation for modern gaming.

OK, so let's set aside the fact that the PS4 is a multimedia machine, and is marketed as such.

Are you arguing that a console that retreats several generations into the past and embraces old ideas is innovative?

Compared to most of the consoles from the last few generations (with the exception of the Gamecube, perhaps), the PS4 has put MUCH less emphasis on multimedia. It plays blu-ray, but it dosen't advertise it nearly as much as the PS3 did. It does Netflix. Once again, not much advertisement. Sony's campaign and emphasis on the console this generation was almost purely on core gaming, with little emphasis on the other features. And I said it is innovative in modern gaming, as in it concentrates on pure, traditional gaming in an era in which manufacturers are increasingly wanting their hardware to be "jack-of-all-trades" and want to fundamentally change game controls in a different way every generation.

But Nintendo has always had competition in the core market, the real issue is that they have not sufficiently caught up to times that they cannot compete with the others in the same way any longer, they have been disassociated with  being the lead console for games in the home console sense. Thats pretty much their fault for not adapting quick enough.

The Multitude of consoles Pre-Nes, Sega, and then Sony, and lastly Microsoft.

If we're being honest here Sony took away Nintendo's multiplat by superiority advantage and then Microsoft, which is dependant on Multiplat and a few exclusives, made Sony fight for those exclusives by using their "advantages". Nintendo never stood a chance with their Pre-Sony mentality.

To be honest its more, focus and perfection rather than innovation since innovation can be anything and perfection/improvement > innovation. Sony is the only one of the big 3 directly targetting core gamers. Everyone else is advertising media features that are supposed to "distinguish" them, when the people who would be intrested in those devices already have better and cheaper alternatives.

Like I said in the innovation deception, Innovation is just a buzz word, to be succesful is to find what consumers want and clearly, the casuals aren't intrested in console innovations, and the core gamers are tired of being sidelined for what companies think the casuals want.

That's a pretty big market of ignored consumers who just want to play games.

I see what you're saying. I think we're just disagreeing on semantics. Innovative seems like the wrong word to use, but I understand what you mean.

I dunno, I don't see the PS4 as particularly innovative or games-focused, at least not compared against the other current-gen systems. It strikes me as an iterative console with an iterative controller and a comprehensive suite of multimedia options. It's an evolution of the PS3, which was an evolution of the PS2, which was an evolution of the PS1. 

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Judging by sales that's obviously what people want.