i like to hear that but the problem is, even if i prefer a 900 bucks console (because this would really work longterm with nice improvements every years and not only small ones), i don't believe it will work for ps4. and then there is the problem that as higher the costs, as later most fans can buy the console which means they have to pass the first years which means the 10 years lifespan doesn't really count for them if they can purchase the console only after 4 years^^

as example if they argue "with a later more expensive release, we can give more to our fans" ok this may be true at the time the console is out and the competition doesn't release the next one but i had my 360 earlier which means at the time i had my 360 and ps3 was not out, i had a "huge advantage" against playstation only owners. and if i will get nextbox one year earlier this will mean i don't need the last year of ps3 because i have my nextbox then. (or vice versa ps before nextbox)

that's why i will buy all consoles now in the future, i never have to wait until I can jump in the next gen because i don't care who will release first or latest, i will always be first then and donÄt have to play my shitty games as long as "my" company will release the next gen even if it's one or two years after the competition.

that's btw funny when people who only bought a console last year or so try to argue they have a much better console than the other ones. i mean, whoever bought his 360 or ps3 last year or in 2010, he has maybe the better console thn the guy with ps3/360 but the guy with the other console has his maybe since 2006 or so which means in reality, he had much more from his console even if that one isn't as good.

Considering you're pretty big on PC it honestly suprises me that Blu-Ray on PS3 is big enough for you that it is why you're going to remember it as a media hub when we're well into the next-gen... I haven't bought a BD since 2009... Just my 2 cents though.

practically yes, you've never been cheapest...

Honestly, I think the reason why the PS3 didn't have a lot of games to begin with was the difficulty level in development.  If, as rumors suggest, Sony is going with an AMD Fusion processor, then I doubt they'll run into those problems.

It was far and away a better device than the 360 upon launch, only problem was it was so architecturally exotic, it made the quality irrelevant

If they go AMD Fusion I will never buy another Sony system. Fusion sucks, the GPU in them is terrible. Same if they go with a Bulldozer processor, they suck down soo much power and have terrible cache latency and a horrible decoder and front-end. Only AMD part they should have is an AMD Southern Islands GPU.

Plus Fusion doesn't make sense, why would they use an x86 CPU?

that's exactly what i meant with my post. starting one year later, having maybe worse games the first years and then some years better games just to see the other one releasing earlier again which makes your console look like shit then. at the end you weren't better, you had better games in the best years as your competition but half of your lifespan was against the next gen of the competitor (the end of your lifespan) against the second wave of games when you still have your worse start tiltes (at the beginning of your next gen) or at the few years when both are very even.

Quality?

is that why I have had 4 PS2s and 2 PS3s? (one which was dead on arrival lol)

Not sure I would agree with you there.  Microsoft might have resolved it if they had another year.  Certainly there were suspicions about the cause of some failures before launch.  However from what I read, it seems as though they believed they would be able to work out the issue in manufacturing.  That is, they felt it was a yields issue not an engineering issue.  In the end, that proved untrue and they needed to re-engineer the console to fix the problem.

Up until PS3 they were always second to market and reasonably priced though. Saturn was $399 at launch, PS1 came out just 3 months later at $299. Last gen the DC came out first at $199, then a year later the more powerful, DVD-equipped PS2 came out at $299.

Then came this gen... 360 comes out first at $399, understandable being that it was the 1st HD console. A year later, PS3 comes out second again, but this time at $100-$200 more than the 360, and more than double the price of the Wii. Unlike previous gens where the PS1 and 2 were competitively priced right out of the gate, the PS3 was never competitive in price until the "Slim" model was released 3 years after launch. This is why Sony has found themselves in third and are struggling to regain lost marketshare.