Why do people still use "The Ten Year Plan" excuse?

[Sullla]

Most of you guys don't seem to get it. Let me ask you this question: what prompts the start of a new console generation? It's not determined by a set number of calendar years (NES lasted for almost 10 years in Japan). It's not technology; CDs were being used on PCs for a good five years before the first successful CD consoles appeared in 1994/95. Here's the real answer:

A new console generation starts whenever a major competitor feels like it. Usually, this means a new entrant into the field (Sony in the mid 90s, Microsoft in 2001) or an old competitor killing off their old console to focus on their new one (think Sega killing the Master System to focus on the Genesis/Megadrive, or Microsoft with the XBox/360). There was no reason why a new "HD" generation had to start in 2005, for example. Microsoft deliberately pushed the envelope with the 360 in an attempt to shorten the PS2's lifespan and push Sony into releasing a new console. And it worked.

Talk of "future proof" technology is pure bull. Technology is irrelevant to the start of a new console generation. What you should be talking about are the motivations of each company. If the three current console manufacturers want this generation to continue, then it will. If even one of them doesn't want it to continue, they'll rush out a new product to start anew in the eighth generation. So let's look at each of the three:

Nintendo: They're making more money than God right now. Why would Nintendo want to start a new generation by rushing out a new console? As a result, the Wii will almost certainly be the last console to get replaced. The fact that it has the weakest processing power doesn't matter in the slightest.

Microsoft: They killed off the XBox to focus on the 360, and that's worked pretty well. Microsoft could go one of two ways: rush out a third console quickly to try and dominate the eighth generation even more, or pause to try and make back some profit with the 360. I personally think they'll take the latter route, and not react until forced. After all, the XBox division has enormous sunken costs - it would be nice to start making some of that back in profit.

Sony: The PS3 has enormous sunken costs too. They can either sit pat and try to make some of their huge losses back, or do what Microsoft did in 2004/05 and rush out a new PS4, timed to release in roughly 2011. Traditionally, the "loser" of each console generation tries to force the next competition by hurring their product to market. Think about it: why should Sony support a struggling console in a distant third place, when they can push the reset button and have a chance to be the overall winner again? That's why I believe Sony is the one most likely to hurry a new product to market. I think the PS4 will have the shortest lifespan of all, for reasons that have everything to do with the market and nothing to do with its power.

I hope Sony fans realize when they say "10 year plan" that it means all three consoles will be around for those 10 years (if Sony sticks with PS3, so will Nintendo and Microsoft with their platforms) and likely 10 years of sitting in third place.