This, mixed with my thoughts on Team ICO's publisher treatment leads me to think these were time frames set by the developers and not the publishers.

Naughty Dog works on one game at a team and releases one every two year. Insomniac however, works on 2+ at a time and releases a game a year. I don't get why SONY would force them to work that way. I think Insomniac just really likes releasing at least one game a year and wanted to meet their own personal dead line.

Because the 3 year cycle games are better?

Since you talk about FF Versus XIII like it's a game that will ever actually exist, it's hard to take the rest of your post seriously.

Yes, but not as a game. It's going to be a non-dynamic theme for the XMB.

1. The plan wasn't meant   to be definite, it was just meant to be a sample
2. They'll be fine if they go back to their roots
3. They said they would still make exclusive games for Sony. 
4. True, but I can see them being similar to Sucker Punch and Insomniacs
5. I gotta see who they are..

Not necessarily, but some devs would benefit from it I'm sure.

Sounds like a good idea, but It seems very unstable. Is Naughty Dog big enough to be split into 3 different teams? What if the three teams have different visions for the game? 

If they can somehow make it work, then I'm down for it.

You can't make a sucky game better, you can release new content, new items, but the core can never be changed. Sony games don't have a issue being released too quickly, they actually take too long. 

Look at forza Vs GT, how's the quality of each games, how's the cycle helping each games.

I don't mean games that suck at the core. I mean a game like Killzone 3. It was pretty good , but it was sort of lacking in the content side. I haven't played inFamous 2 yet, but some people feel that the game could have been better with more dev time. Now, a game like SOCOM 4 was just bad at the core, and no delays would have changed that. 

My plan is wrong because I say that all devs should follow a three-year cycle when in actuality it varies with each developer. I should change my OP to suggest that Sony gives it's devs more flexibilty as opposed to just giving them more time.

As for Sony games taking too long. I agree to a certain point. But I think Sony gets a bad rep for its dev length and delays. GT5 and TLG are really the only games that really took a long time to release. 

I don't know about GT vs Forza, haven't played much of either. I can't really comment. I do know it was a disappointment to many. It had problems with its core rather than its content. The main complaint was it being too bland I believe.

A 2 year dev time is long enough if a dev team has the engine already built for the game. The problem is Sony wanting the devs to build games that are 3D or ones that support the Move controller which takes up dev time that could be spent on more polish. However saying that most PS3 titles are pretty solid in the polish department. I mean KZ3 was pretty much bugless and locked on a pretty solid 30FPS.

The textures, graphics, AI and special effects were top notch for KZ3 and they even added in a new brutal melle system, split screen co-op campaign, 2 extra game modes, Jetpacks and exo skeletons and a new sliding mechanic. I also remember the reasons custom games was eliminated from KZ3 was down to all the boosting that went on in KZ2 and not because of time issues. The only reason why they added it later was because everyone was asking for it.

See no matter how long it takes a game to release weither it has a 2 year dev cycle or a 4 year dev cycle you will still always have people thinking the game should be this way or that way and in need of more polish.