The original Playstation had a design approach that was clean and simple, and worked well for developers.  Their machine wasn't necessarily the best, but what it did, it did well, plus being easy to program for.  They then went away from this with the PS3, and then went bonkers with the PS3.  Looking back at what made the original Playstation do what it did, would help Sony a lot.  

To be honest, I agree with this. It's a console that I want to last me anywhere between 6 to 10 years. I want it to be well built, and I want it to be the best. I don't want it to be rushed to market just because they have to keep up with the competitors.

It's frustrating, because I feel like the PS3 has 2-3 years more life left it in that it's not going to get to use, because they'll have to match Microsoft on the next Xbox.

And also, consumers don't really care about this - a lot of people who follow consoles but not in detail just want the next generation to start now, meaning they'll probably buy whichever comes first - NeXtbox or PS4. And it'll be a repeat of the 360/PS3 all over again.

I at least hope that Sony have the brains not to release a £400 beast of a machine that does everything, but no-one can afford to buy. I'm hoping for something more sensible this time around, then maybe we'll see them putting up a better fight next gen.

Only thing Enhanced Bulldozer does is crank up clock speeds. That does not help the awful cache performance (important for gaming) and the embarrasing decoder (compared to Ivy Bridge). It also does not help the Integer Units either. AMD is heading the wrong way, they are trying to shove a server optimized part into desktops and improve performance by layering on cores and cranking up the clock. Sounds like the Pentium 4. If you want a great read that gets pretty technical, I recommend this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5057/the-bulldozer-aftermath-delving-even-deeper

Technically, he's right. Saturn released before PS1, Dreamcast befor PS2, and 360 before PS3 and Nintendo has always been cheaper than Sony.

I just don't know what is the purpose of such a statement. Is it to imply that these two things have been the key to Sony's winning formula? If so, I'd have to disagree. The PS1 and PS2 were terribly unreliable and less capable than their competition. Sony didn't launch first but when they were most successful, they launched about a year before their MAIN competition (Nintendo/Microsoft).

The key to their success was games, games, mainstream pricepoint, and games. The key to their demise was launching later and much more expensive than the other guy. Hell, the PS3 didn't start doing better until a cheaper version was released.

This applies to their handhelds, too.

Nah.  N64 launched at about $250 and the PS1 was $299 at the time.  Plus PS and Saturn launched for about $400 in the US (I think).  Nintendo was actually kicking all kinds of ass until they started hitting software droughts.  Months would pass without a decent game to play.  The two were so close in sales that Nintendo and Sony both claimed to be the best selling console.  In the end, PS1 pulled away and never looked back, though.

I thought that, at E3 1995 or so, Sega came up on stage, and announced the Saturn for $399, and then Sony walked on, said "$299" and walked off? That's probably just an urban legend, but I think the PS1 launched at $299.

To GOOGLE, Robin!!

*put on your Robin costume*

*edit*

Well I'll be damned.  You were right!  PS1 launched at $299!!  So you know what that means, right?  PS1 WAS the cheapest console when it launched.  That means the OP is full of shit.  They launched for less than the competition and then Nintend launched for less than them when they finally came to the market one year later.  I guess I forgot because I never actually wanted a PS1 until the N64 failed to provide games when I wanted them.  At that time, I think it was still $299.  There was also a big deal about how much the N64 would cost and people went crazy when it was just $249. 

It's probably due to pride. The PS3 is the most powerful home console on the market. The Sony fans love the power of the system and always brag about how they have the best graphics and console. Sony is hearing all the positive feedback from the fans and they probably think they're doing what the fans want. Unfortunely the people who go to message boards and talk about games is a very small percentage of gamers. I believe neogaf has 80,000 members that a very small amount of people when you compare it to how many PS3's have sold worldwide.

If Sony makes the PS4 and it's not a techinal beast, then those fans will complain about it. They're willing to pay 500 plus for the system. Of course the average consumer doesn't want to pay that much especially when the competition will have cheaper systems.

Like you stated the Vita is a prime example of this. Powerful system that blows the 3Ds out of the water. But it's too expensive for the casual consumer.Plus it doesn't have any system selling games like the 3DS has.

For once i completely agree with the OP. I hope they stay true to that statement, because in my eyes they held to those standards before and i've always been satisfied, and personally i could careless about the price of the system if i want it bad enough i can save up the money getting it and this is coming from a broke college student.

pretty sure playstation 1 was the cheapest