What the- this guy again!? He's a funny dood.

I readily confess most of what he wrote sounds like much of the poorly thought crap we find on the forums here everyday. That said following bad logic doesn't necessarily mean your going to reach the wrong conclusion. He may be right, but for the wrong reasons. The reality is if Sony is going to make another run next generation they are going to have no choice, but to scrap their current play book. It remains to be seen if they can play a radically different game.

Lets be brutally honest about what has happened in this generation. Microsoft and Nintendo bent Sony over the table, and put the sword to them. Sony cannot afford to let this happen next time around, or even take the risk that it will happen again. So they only have two options either they follow the lead of Sega, and become a entity like Electronic Arts, or they follow the Nintendo model which is very low risk versus very high reward. The one thing they cannot do is enter into another hardware arms race.

That is there real problem. Their brand is built around arms races, and like the now long gone Soviet Union they just can't keep raising the stakes. They cannot juggle two dozen studios, and acquire the third party exclusives they need. They can't keep selling hardware at losses when the down side is they can eat five or six billion dollars in losses. Now look at their audience they have acquired this generation. Consumers that want technological monstrosities. How will this transition to a moderate technological improvement.

The whole point of this diatribe is Sony can't repeat this generation or this console again. They had their strategy assimilated by Microsoft, and now they are the masters. I honestly ask the question can Sony play any other game other then when they have done for three generations. Would anyone consider it a Playstation if it were three times weaker then another console. What about if Sony has to cut out half of their internal studios so they can be more about licensing out exclusives, or buying exclusives. What if Sony has to bill themselves as something different then they have been. What if their big exclusives have to be more casual fair.

Bottom line is Sony needs to change a lot about how they do business, and that isn't necessarily going to be good for their next console in the eyes of the fans. Not to mention that they could do a lot better by being software only.

is it against the rules to just write "AHAHAHAHHAHA"?

This guy is a terrible writer. He should take writing lessons from the (no doubt) endless berating he is going to receive for this very poorly founded/written argument. I mean, come on, for source he used a person who asked, in all seriousness, how the new PSP was supposed to improve ps3 sales.

It's just an incentive for buying one over the other.. and even then, the psp's purpose is not to sell ps3's at all! It's just an open venue that they didn't have to use to add a little value to the ps3 or psp. Shit, I'm buying a psp because of the tie-in functionality (and also for idol master), but honestly, they didn't have to work on interconnectivity and yet they are blasted by John Breeden and then some other douchebag who feels the need to quote such stupidity.

This is what is killing gaming. Unabashed hate and bias.

This.

Everybody is in some sort of brain shutdown due to the rumors of the Slim model of the PS3 (tomorrow we will know, but honestly I dont care, I just like the meltdowns), the rest of us, well we are playing Mario Kart Wii, Halo 3 or CoD

They have a lot more resources, but all signs indicate that Sony doesn't plan on changing the way they do business. So, yeah, it may take much longer, but the end result might be the same.

Why now?
after they got off of the edge?

This David Richards makes Malstrom look mildly eccentric

This is Michael Pachter's anti-Sony alt account.

I'm not quite sure why anyone thinks a PS4 would need a major reduction in technology advancement. What the PS3 has done is provide a technological base from which Sony can launch a console that is more price competetive in the next gen, yet still significantly superior to the current generation. I don't see any need for Sony to do a Nintendo (repackage the GC with a waggle stick (esp. since the waggle stick is coming to the PS3 anyway)), not that I think what Nintendo did can be criticised at all, it was inspired thinking on their part.

But as to this opinion piece: this guy is so self contradictory especially around the price of the PS3 that he loses all credibility as a gaming industry pundit.

This guy may have had some credibility if PS3 sales was languishing around the 10 million sales. But PS3 sales have reached a sustainable level (in terms of software sales potential)and provided the rumours turn out to be true the HW sales will kick on quite nicely. And the claim that 360 will challenge Wii for top spot is utterly laughable.

And once again a so-called analyst totally misrepresents the PS2 sales vs PS3 sales data. The FACT is (if you accept VGC figures) more consumers bought PS3s than PS2s during the period people refer to. Even in Japan in the last few weeks where there have been high selling releases on PS2 with no major releases on PS3 and the PS2 is still not out selling PS3 on a weekly basis. OK that the PS2 is even in the same ball park as the PS3 is perhaps not a good thing, but I'm talking about the false claims being perpetuated by those who should know (and write) better. I expect misleading use of information from competing companies (just like competing politicians do) but I don't expect misleading manipulation of data on the part of those who wish to claim some credibly objective analysis.

The state of punditry in this industry is worse than the state of political punditry.