I've been lurking for a while, but decided to register because of a number of related discussions where I thought some relevent points are being missed. Rather than track down each discussion and explain the part of my thesis that is associated to the topic, I thoguht I'd put it all together in a new thread.

As the title implies, I think that this gen is going to last longer than other recent ones; in fact I think that seven years is a low estimate. The one caveat I make in this prediction is that no new players enter the console market in that time; if a new company comes storming in a couple years from now, everything I have to say might be invalidated.

If you look back at the history of generation changes starting in the mid-80s you will see that one company usually pushed ahead, forcing all the others to either update or be made irrellevent. First Nintendo with the NES, then Sega with Genesis, then Sony with Playstation, then Sega with Dreamcast, and most recently Microsoft with with the 360.  With that in mind here is a look at the three current players.

Nintendo

There seem to be a lot of people, especially hardcore gamers,  who seem to think that the Wii2 is just around the corner; this view shows an ignorance both of console history and of Nintendo.  First of all if you look at the list above of the companys that forced generation changes, you will see that the company in first place never forced the change. The reason for this is simple - the company in first place is making tons of money and has no incentive to upset the current system. For that reason alone Nintendo would be unlikely to push a new gen unless they fall into a distant second. But even in second Nintendo won't force the generation change because Nintendo hates generation changes.  Nintendo had more incentive than any console maker in the past two decades to want the last generation to end - they were in third place, moving practically nothing, and knew they had a huge ace up their sleeve for this gen - yet Nintendo was the last to lauch this gen; in fact Nintendo has never been the first to launch except with the NES, which was their entry into the market.

More to the point, no matter how cheap they get, how pretty they get, or how many AAA titles they get Sony and Microsoft aren't going to sell units  to people like my mom; Nintendo has no reason to make a Wii2 for hardcore gamers because such a unit would likely not convince many hardcore gamers who are holding out, would do nothing to impress the casuals that Wii isn't doing already, and would cost Nintendo a huge amount of money. (see Gamecube for how much Nintendo can woo hardcores with a powerful unit)

Sony

Its no secret that when Sony said that the PS3 would last 10 years, they meant that in 5 years the PS4 would come out and be their primary system (in the same manner that PS and PS2 have had production long after they left the spotlight).

However, I don't think that Sony could have ever forseen the position they are in right now financially. I think its fair to say that Sony was not expecting MS to launch the 360 in 2005. Sony probably expected the price of their components (especially blueray lasers) to come down in time for a late 2007 launch, but were forced to luanch when they did because they knew a two year lead for Xbox would be nearly insurmountable. So by launching a year earlier than they planned, Sony took on huge, huge losses.

Normally huge losses would be incentive for a company to end a generation, but I think in Sony's case it will be incentive to drag out the gen as long as possible. If the PS3 base continues to grow steadily, its conceivable that Sony will break even for the generation inspite of its start. And if the the generation goes on long enough after that PS3 could become quite profitable.

On the other hand, if the generation is forced to end prematurely, Sony will be in a huge pickle. Sony fans won't want to upgrade to PS4 if its just a baby step ahead of the PS3; Sony will be forced to create another loss leader just to compete with their own unit. But at some point the mother company or investors will say enough is enough. If the games division after a huge money losing PS3 says they are going to make a loss leading PS4, they will likely get the rug pulled out from under them.

So I think Sony will not end the generation till the PS3 has shown a good profit for the generation. PS4 development won't be a huge project for them till the PS3 is making enough to cover the R&D.

Microsoft

After everything I've just said, you might expect me to say that Microsoft is going to pull the trigger; after all they did last generation. Many people think that if the Xbox360 falls behind the PS3 that MS will just release the 720 in the same fashion they did the 360 - way, way, way before anyone would have guessed. Unless the XBox reverses current trends and not only wins the generation, but makes a good profit, I predict that MS will get out of the console business.

One of the biggest things that people seem to forget when talking about the future of the XBox is why it even exists in the first place. In the late 90s Sony was so dominant in the console business that Sony execs were talking often about how their real competition wasn't the N64 or the Saturn, but Windows. Sony was talking about how they intended the Playstation line to eventually include all the basic functionality of a pc and that they intended for Playstations to be in homes instead of PCs.

It all might seem a little silly now, but at the time it had MS really scared. At the time low end PCs were still going for more than $500, and there were still a lot of homes that didn't have computers or internet (and as such were seen as the best place for growth).

MS created the XBox to take the fight to Sony. Rather then let Sony leverage its lead in consoles to get it into the home computer industry, MS  decided to shake up the industry as best it could. Many an analyst has raised an eyebrow as MS has just thrown billions away in its XBox division. But in MS's mind the success of Windows XP can in part be attributed to Sony being kept out of the computer industry.

In the last ten years things have changed enough that Sony is no longer a threat to Windows ;PCs now sell for less than Playstations; Sony is no longer dominating the living room (and Nintendo seems to be quite clear that they don't want to do anything other than games); and Sony can't afford to engage in experiments till they have paid off the PS3 debts. In short, MS has no reason to be in gaming, unless they can make it profitable.

So my prediction for MS is that either they will be in a weak position, and just get out of the console market, or they will be in a strong position, and have no interest in ending this generation. (my money is on the former)

So, in summary, Nintendo won't end this gen in 5 years or so because Nintendo has repeated through its history shown an aversion to the five year cycle; if the other companys leave the power in Nintendo's hands, expect a 7 year cycle. Sony won't end this generation in 5 years or so because Sony can't afford to; Sony needs to get the PS3 in the black then bank the money to R&D the PS4. MS won't end this generation ever because the only way they are making another XBox is if they starting turning a big profit, and no company making a big profit ever ends a generation.

A new console will be out before the end of 2012.  Older console will not just suddenly stop selling though.

Although I agree with you that each manufacturer has various motiviations to ensure the generation lasts as long as possible, the enevitable truth is that a new generation begins as soon as a weak member of the current generation decides to abandon their current console ... This decision is typically (more or less) forced because they no longer receive adequate third party support and/or their hardware is no longer manufactured.

Hypothetically speaking, if third party publishers completed all pending HD console projects and switched those development resources to the Wii we would see Sony and Microsoft pushing new consoles in 2010.

Depends what your definition of "last" is. If ya mean survival then of course. If ya mean from when it began til when the first 8th generation console releases then absolutely not.

Good & interesting read.. Welcome to the site!!

By the way more than likely there won't be Wii 2 simply because its an expendable brand. Nintendo has learned well enough from the Gameboy that having brand appeal tied to the product instead of the company isn't always necessarily good because it makes it a lot harder to advance if that brand gets hurt.

i agree microsoft should stop.

I agree for the simple reason that if someone chooses to launch another console in the next couple of years there's no reason for the others to follow. The company launching early would be resetting their install base to zero and competing against the others' existing bases.

And you think it's hard for games to stay exclusive now, there would be financially almost no reason to create something soley playable on the new system.

i disagree. Having Microsoft in the industry is a good thing. It forces Sony to be more competitive & innovative instead of being lax (in terms features & support regarding their consoles such as the PS3).