Thing is, you really can't have the same kind of leap.  It isn't like we are going from hd to super hd.  You can have more stable fps, a little better textures, and a couple other things, and the graphics would already look amazing.

Also, not so sure that going with the same graphics as the WiiU is the greatest idea.  We don't even know yet if the WiiU graphics will trump the PS3 graphics.

As for the $100 cost, I think they are full of crap.  Funny how PC games don't cost any more, yet still look incredibly better this generation.  I have a strong feeling the whole jump to $60 instead of $50 was something they knew would boost revenues and sales wouldn't be too affected by it.  If you would boost to $100, game sales would drop so massively it wouldn't even be funny.  Hell, I wouldn't buy nearly as much even if it was boosted to $70 or $80.

$350 max for the cheap version, with a $450 'elite'. GT6 at launch, are required, even that by itself wouldn't be enough though

Yeah, I think $60 is the sweet point for games for at least another generation of consoles. Anything higher and you start getting less sales, especially with a $100 price tag for games (you'll get a lot less sales).

Win the hearts of the children.

Simple.  Make a shitton more profit off the PS4 then they did off the PS3.  Then Sony "Wins". Who gives a shit if they lead in marketshare. 

Do u have any links ? How can Sony make "more money" from software when they sell less software then MS or Nintendo?  Go ahead to the VGchartz software totals and list the top 50 or 75 games of the PS3 & Xbox 360  - heck, instead go ahead and list them all as ive done .. ... Only thing that can make them 'close' is if Sony takes a bigger percentage of the profits earned ( Im talking profits shared with developers ) then MS or Nintendo does ! 

While Sony has had it rough this generation.. I dont think they should call it quits.. I think next gen will be better for them.. but I doubt they'll be #1 .. its really hard to say.. the PS2 sorta launched in the perfect storm for a console maker.. they launched before an underpowered Nintendo console.. and a year and a half before MS's first console Xbox 1, so they had all the developers backing them... they had a built in DVD player and the console cost maybe $100 more then a good DVD player when it was launched so it was a great console for those at the time who were excited about having DVD player.  DVD specs were agree'd on in 1995.. but DVD's players were not launched until 1997 for most of the world  ( DVD launched 1st in Japan in Nov 1996 )... so alot of people in 2000 ( when the PS2 launched ) didn't own a DVD player yet .. so it was sort of exciting.. The PS3 lost alot of exclusive support and the console launched way too exspensive.. and unlike DVD.. Bluray wasn't  a fixed standard yet.. Next gen you might see bluray on multiple consoles- possibly all of them.... 'Some' people think Sony owns Bluray, but of course they don't.. they were part of a group of companies ( just 1 of 14 companies ) that developed its technology, thus they invested in it and wanted it to succeed as Sony has Sony Studios and many other movie buisness related incomes.. Otherwise anyone can use bluray ..

Sony lost more money this generation then MS did on Xbox 1 ( MS ate 4.2 Billion as Bill Gates knew getting started in a market already dominated by 2 sucessful consoler makers would be very exspensive, but bet that later they grab market share and so far he was right ) ... Sony has had it rough.. they lost so much on PS3 hardware ( by Oct 2009 they had lost 4.7 Billion ) im not sure if overall they are breaking even ... PS3 began making a small profit mid 2010.. so for about a year and half PS3 has made a profit but does this + Sony's cut of software profits balance out the 4.7 Billion loss.....

The big picture is Bluray suceeded and while PS3 ( and the entire gaming division ) make take a loss this gen.. Sony still made money from Bluray in its other business ventures as BD sales have made some money... although BD doesnt seem to be what DVD was.. at peak the avg DVD player owner owned over 40 movies.. while bluray its around 12 movies.. so people are alittle less 'happy' to go buy a whole library like they were back in the DVD days.. plus the business model is changing.. Convience is now itself a competitor over physical disc media.. now BD competes not just against DVD, but against HD streaming from the cable company, from Netflix, from Redbox.. and options that are both cheaper and more convient..

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/ps3-has-lost-sony-4-7-billion-may-be-profitable-next-year/

Im no expert but here are my quick thoughts:

Launch at $299/$349. The more expensive one having a larger HDD and/or game bundled.

Honestly and sadly, we have reached a point where graphics and visuals are really important to define a game good, so they will need to noticeably push graphics. I would prefer all games running at 60fps regardless of realism, but most would want full 1080 60fps B3 PC type visuals. Also, stronger gpu = better aliasing, anything 8x +.

2 or 3 flagship exclusives. Microsoft has Halo and Gears, so Sony should have similar franchises next gen (new IP's) They should take advantage of Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games talents. One would launch with the console, the other the next holiday season and alternate between years.

A lot of things, but they can all be solved by one, simple point...

-Return to the ways of the PS2

What do I mean by that? I mean, release a competitively priced console, with different games for everyone. And a constant stream of quality games as well, even if they won't sell particularly well, just bring the quality. That is what people want. A return to simplicity in videogames, yet still innovate.

Of course, online needs to be improved, better graphics etc., but it needs to be below $400 at launch really, especially if WiiU launches at around the $300 mark...