If they wanted to do the same thing they did with the PS2, they probably could do it, but they simply don't want to.

The PS1 sold another 30 million after the PS2 launched, the PS2 obviously sold a ton after the PS3 launched, but manufacturers don't care about the low end market that much any more.

PS1 and PS2 sold THAT well in the latter years due to late launches in many countries including major ones. PS3 only sold 6-8m after the PS4 launched, and PS4 is heading towards the same trajectory.

The PS1 and PS2 were available in virtually every country not that long after launch, maybe they had "official" launches much later, but like in Brazil "officially" PS2 didn't launch there until 2009 (lol) but the vast majority of systems had been sold there via grey market for years before that. 

Same reason no one in China gives much of a fart over "official console launches" there ... because those systems have been available to anyone who really wanted one years earlier. 

PS3 had to be phased out because it was expensive to keep mass producing with the bespoke CELL processor being stubborn to lower end pricing. 

I don't really see the point in "replacing" consoles. You can sell the PS4 for another 4-5 years at $150-$199 alongside the PS5 with little to no problem.

The reason manufacturers create this artificial "replacement paradox" is to force people to only buy the newer system.

People still want the SNES and NES even today, sneaker manufacturers have no problem selling popular sneaker models that are 20-25 years old as current releases.

There's no reason with digital storefronts nowadays that consoles can't be kept on storeshelves for many, many years after "successive" consoles are released. 

The 2DS XL could be sold for many more years if Nintendo wanted to sell it for $99.99 and made a digital storefront where you could select from hundreds of GBA, DS, and 3DS games for $20-$25 a pop (no retail overhead), but they likely don't want to do that. 

My logic is that two games aren't going to sell 50 million units of a console that's already been out six and a half years and is getting replaced in six months. Those games will give relatively short-lived bumps in the downward trajectory that's only natural of a console nearing the end of its lifecycle.

It doesn't need to, ps4 has already sold over 111 million, its only 39million more for 150million, and I never said 150 million until end of the year, I said lifetime, as in the next few years.

PS1 and PS2 sold THAT well in the latter years due to late launches in many countries including major ones. PS3 only sold 6-8m after the PS4 launched, and PS4 is heading towards the same trajectory.

It doesn't need to, ps4 has already sold over 111 million, its only 39million more for 150million, and I never said 150 million until end of the year, I said lifetime, as in the next few years.

Last week Sony reported that the PS4 had reached 110.4m in life to date shipments by March 31, 2020. This translates to 13.6m for the past twelve months (April 2019 to March 2020), down from 17.8m in the year before. Sony did not provide a PS4 hardware forecast for the current fiscal year ending March 2021, but it's supposed to be announced in August when Sony next reports on their financials.

A continuation of the PS4's decline is expected because the PS5 is still on track for its scheduled launch during the holiday season 2020, but how far can the PS4 go?

...

Bonus question: Hindsight is 20/20. When Microsoft announced their vision for the Xbox One roughly seven years ago, a huge gamer movement formed to push back against Microsoft's policies, such as always online and big restrictions on used game sales. Said movement ultimately succeeded because Microsoft abolished some of their policies before they launched their Xbox One console, demonstrating that gamers do have the power to dictate the direction. However, concurrently the same movement remained silent when Sony announced that they would stop providing the options for free online multiplayer or a paid premium online service, putting everything behind a PS+ subscription. Do you think the collective gaming community should have taken a stand, are you indifferent because you don't play online games anyway, or are you fine with gamers sending the message that it's okay to screw them over as long as it is Sony who is performing the deed?