maybe for nintendo and microsoft

sony it's yet to reach 199$ price point.

Wonder what will happen once Wii drops to $99. Late 2011 I'de say Nintendo should make that move or in 2012, depends how close Wii 2 or whatever it's going to be called is near.

It is entirely possible that the PS3 can stay stuck at $299 for too long, although I don't think a little over a year from now (holiday 2011) necessesarily qualifies as "too long."

Waiting past a certain point can lead to stagnation of the product itself leading to the decreased image of desirability among general consumers (the kind that won't pay a cent over $199). This is worsened by falling software support which generally indicates a platform in decline (like the PS2 currently).

But again, it's a bit of a stretch to say this is currently happening now when the PS3 is still priced at $299 and software support is actually growing.

There are tens of millions of consumers who won't pay more than $200 for a console, even if they currently want the one priced above.

About the only time a console will peak at $299 is if it is about to be replaced by a newer model in the series (new platform) or made obsolete by competitor at a lower or comparable price. Even then, when this happens, you have the inevitable fire sales and inventory clearing price dropping followed by a cheaper version of the product assuming platform support will continue as a "bargain" platform.

The PS3 could keep the coming years with rather stable yearly numbers, but it won't have a magical late peak due to a pricecut. There is simply no way of such a thing to happen.

My prediction is 24m PS3s, 33m Wiis and 14m X360s for 2010+2011.

PS. no console will be sold for $99 this gen.

The PS2 was strong since the begining, the PS3 has been in this wild rollercoaster of ups and downs, now I believe that the PS3 can extend its peak for a longer time, but the thing is What if Nintendo and Microsoft introduce new consoles before Sony? The audience could see the PS3 as an outdated system and damage the sales even if it's at $199.

I think that the fact that you don't think it is prevalent is BS. Countless games have sold on hype and bullshotted trailers alone (check Prototype) and people have bought into them, although they are terrible and hollow.

These visuals you obviously wish to get behind are like when a boy falls in love or gets a crush on a girl.

At first he is blind, only seeing her looks and situations in which he will imagine he is having fun with her. His friends think differently.boy asks girl out. Girl says no. After being burned the boy has time for reflection. After time, what does he realize?

Behind the looks and flirty demeanor lied a condescending, bossy, wild, vindictive bitch that he should've never wasted his time on. A high-maintenance ho not worth one dime.

I agree, but I'll take a different point of view. I'll give you my view of the story, but we have to remember what happened at the beginning of this gen :

At first, we have to think at the motivation of the change of generation. The change of gen was due to the high definition TV boom, and by the distance between PC games and consoles' in term of graphic capabilities. Meaning, PS2, XBOX and GC were at the maximum of their capacity, while developper were having fun developping tech beasts such as with Doom3, Crysis, Far Cry, UT2K4.  So a new generation was needed, not for the consumer, but for the developpers. MS was the first to answer. 

That's why I think this gen started too early, with MS releasing a half finished product, trying to copy sony by being the first to release its the first gaming machine of the generation with a 1 year headstart (remember PS2 had a 2 year headstart last gen). But, this decision made Sony response with their own half made machine, thrown at a price lower than manufacturing costs, with features hastily implemented (Sixaxis, home, BC). On the other hand, MS plan backfired later with the RRoD issue, people deciding to wait for the PS3.

In parrallel, in my opinion, the developpers had anticipated two years before the beginning of the current gen to make current gen games with higher graphical possibilities. I think almost no dev, second and first parties apart, couldn't forecast nor believed in the roaring success of the Wii at that time, and a lot of money and time was thrown at that moment to be ready for the next generation. HD consoles at the time, were a link between the consoles and PC, while Nintendo was giving little information about their new console. This has been a strategic move to ensure nobody copied them too early, but this backfired too because a lot of interrogation hit gamers, journalists, and devs, and the semi echec salewise of the GC was in everybody's mind.

Now, almost 5 years later, PCs graphical capacity have risen, but the developpers now are making games for both consoles and PC. I don't know how to express it, but I really think that the PC gaming had its crown stolen by the HD consoles this gen. I don't really think graphical capacites in games have reached their limits (it's another debate ^^), but one thing is sure, the wow effects of graphics have now reached a stagnant state. What you had exclusively for PC before, is reachable to the console crowd. The graphic card race is no more in the PC crowd, in my case, I have a GT8800 and I can perfectly run the latest PC games without any problem. A few years ago, in 2005, that was not the case, you had to evolve your rig every year to keep up the pace. And this had thrown more people in the console business.

So devs are not pushing PC graphical capabilities, thus staying at the HD consoles standards, to justify their HD investments. That's one of the main reason the Wii is not being given more love by devs, imho.

Unless a viable graphical/technological jump unavailable to console isn't made by the PC or whatever, you won't see a new console gen. I personally don't really believe in 3D, and I don't know about the impact of motion control solutions from the HD twins.

Let me do a prediction :

- If Move and Natal are a success, then new games benefitting from this tech and the higher graphical capabilities of the HD consoles will make this gen even longer, and this will force ninty to release a 3D version of the Wii.

- If Move and Natal fail, then MS and Sony will be behind Ninty when Big N will release their HD version of the Wii (which I believe, but that's not what I want).

Edit : Oh btw, the Source, I love your articles and admire the sheer accuracy and neutrality of your writing ^^ Sometimes, this forums need a bit of love...

You guys are kind of missing the point here...total sw for Wii / PS3 / X360 is at just about peak level - even if PS3 might not quite be at its peak for SW or HW. Natal and Move will need tens of millions of users buying multiple games to have any kind of reversal in the coming/current software declines. The PS3 base is already buying dramatically fewer games per year as compared to its peak, as is the Wii base. We're past a point where hw shipments can mask that much (if any) longer.

X360 has been consistently declining for a year worldwide if you go by shipments - I don't see Natal being able to reverse that this Christmas by itself. So in terms of a later peak - I don't think it is happening - by the time Move / Natal may catch on or have completely flopped Wii 2 will be out. Even if Natal turned X360 into a DS-like goliath somehow, it would take three years for the motion base to reach Wii levels for instance. That in turn would probably harm Wii - so what I'm saying is SW between the three machines has peaked or is at least plateauing.

Beyond that, I'm just not a big believer in Natal or Move. For instance, if Sony and Microsoft spend half a billion dollars saying motion controls are awesome...whats to stop a prospective customer from buying a Wii? I mean, in 2006-late 2007 my impression was PS2 was kind of a cheap substitute for Wii - in 2010-2011 at least Wii should remain the cheaper substitute for PS3 + Move / X360 + Natal

In the history of video games, nothing has ever reversed software purchasing rates by the base - Natal and Move probably won't be any different. They are designed mainly to prevent Wii from reaching PS2 software totals with a long tail as that would amount to Nintendo selling ~500m of its own games ($20 billion!) out of the 1.5b games shipped. With Natal / Move, Wii will probably only get to 125m or so and say 1.1b-1.3b games which leaves something like ~600m - 900m units of sw for third parties, instead of 1b+.

Best analogy ever

Getting a little testy there kiddo. You don't have to defend the prevalence of shovelware that virtually everyone admits has dogged the Wii since it became clear it was the most mass market friendly console.

About the only developer on the Wii that has consistently produced quality games worth buying is Nintendo. No surprise there seeing as how their games would do well on virtually any platform if they published on any other platform.

It also goes without saying that virtually ALL the major top selling franchises this generation, barring Nintendo's (which is a given) have been on either PC, Xbox 360 or PS3, or all three.