I think the reason that PS3 had a slow start is the same reason it will have a long life. It's expensive future proof components. To me it's like 06-07 ps3 didn't even exist.

I am so glad that they are not trying to focus on casual games. Nintendo covered the bases there and the core market is still profitable enough. Besides the problem here is not the console but the games and addons. And these can be written and developed as easily for the PS3 as for the PS4. But perhaps I am simply selfish. I want God of War 3 in jaw dropping graphics not Carnival Games.

I think the 10 year cycle for the PS3 is a feasible thing.They are already into the second year of the system.But that doesnt mean there wont be a PS4 until 2016.Probably around 2012 there will be a new machine out.

But the PS3 may kepp support until 2016 ,just as the PS2 is getting some support well into 2008 when it launched in 2000(if you count the years its 9 years no less).

The PS3 ,when it gets under the 250 price point ,will find many more users.Saying it wont ever reach the PS2 userbase is adventuring too much.

About the PS4 well Sony cant let the same of this generation happen by giving MS a 1 headstart at bringing console that isnt too apart from the Sony one to the market.Sony should take one of these approaches:

1)Let MS take that 1 year start ,ok.But then ,one or two years later launch a Sony console vastly superior to the MS one and kill it instantly as all the hardcore gamers MS may have amassed make the jump fast to the Sony plattform.No Blu Ray advantage ,no free online ,no web browser and built in wifi advantages that only those who know will appreciate.I am talking about something so sensible in videgaming that it turns the X720 (or whatever is called) obsolete the same day it hits the market.Until then ,refine the PS3 price and library until they reach their highest and try to get ports of the games that arrive to the market even if its a dumbed down version.

2)Develop the PS4 right now and be ready for whenever MS announces their machine announcing theirs in the next monts.This shouldnt be that difficult,the Cell architecture is gaining popularity between developers and is fully scalable ,the BR is already developed and could include de 8 layers version at 12X ,the PSN will be fully portable to the new machine ,and their have their contract for Nvidia for succesive generations so Nvidia could provide with the best graphics card at the moment.For Sony launching a PSN enabled ,blu ray 200Gb 12X ,Nvidia-built graphics card ,and Cell powered motherboard with say 7 or 8 Cell or Cell+ at 4200 mhz,full BC with PS1-PS2-PS3 catalogue ,everything along 4Gb of Ram and a monster HDD should be a breeze.The problem was to develop the PS3 ,but that effort will pay off in the future.It will be a monster machine and with technologies alredy mastered by developers and proved in the market ,that wont be nearly as expensive then.

Dear god.  Tell me you don't believe the "future-proof" crap?  NO console is future proof.  As console gamers we get a cheaper option with a unified platform and less maintenance but we give up the technical advantage to PC gamers.

The PS3's life does not mirror the PS2's.  The PS2 is still great for 3rd parties because there are a crap load of them out there and people still buy them.  The PS3 has failed to dominate so it will have a different life.

The 10 year cycle does not refer to when they will release the next console.  The next new console will come out 5 to 6 years after the PS3 launched.  You can put money on that.  The cycle has been the same for almost all companies since the days of the SNES.  What Sony is trying to say is that the PS3 will be as successful as the PS2.  However, this hasn't happened and doesn't look like it will.  The 10 year cycle is marketing bullshit.  With the PS3 not dominating this generation, it is more likely that 3rd party development for it will dry up much sooner than it has for the PS2 (which is still getting new games).  It is much more likely that we will see the Wii continue to get games for the next 10 years simply because of the new market it tapped that isn't as interested in cutting edge graphics.

The real question is this, What approach is Sony taking to the new console?  The PS3 was a mess at launch and had to hastily recast itself as primarily a gaming machine shortly after launch.  Sony hopefully now knows that they can't do that with the PS4.  They ignored their competition with the PS3 and I doubt the new regime will do the same next time.  Hopefully Stringer has broken mantality in that company that each department is its own kingdom that fights for power with the others.  A few years back, pre-Stringer, news of the internal workings of the company is that interdivisional cooperation was almost non-existant and projects that depended on 2 or more separate divisions were subject to power struggles and sometimes ended in complete disaster (see Sony's MP3 player software).  Hirai seems to be a more level headed leader of SCE so I think that the PS4 will have a more purpose driven design.  Microsoft will most likely move to Blu-Ray with the next Xbox so that won't be a competitve advantage for them anymore.  Sony is going to have to come put of the gate with better design tools and a good online system. 

With the PS3 launching in 2006, expect to see the PS4 be displayed at the 2010 or 2011 tradeshows and come out the year after.  At least they won't have to worry about a disc format causing a delay.

I give this thread a 9.4.

I'm fairly sure that whenever MS put out their next console. Sony will have their new console out within a year of its launch. Ideally, they don't want to let MS have any head start, so it is very possible the PS4 will launch in the same quarter as the next Xbox, meaning that the 360 will have actually been supported a year longer than the PS3, because while the PS2 is a great console, it started towards the inevitable end, the day the PS3 was announced.

I have no problem with supporting old consoles. I do have a problem with touting that support as if it's an industry changing event.

If you support your console for 5 years, and it lives on for another 3, after you've put out something better, that's not a 10 year life-cycle, imo. I view lifecycle as how long a company exclusively focuses on you before they announce your replacement. If Sony could pull a true 10 year lifecycle, and skip next gen, then "10 year life cycle" would cease to be a talking point or a marketing gimmick, and become a real plus to potential customers.

profcrab said
Microsoft will most likely move to Blu-Ray with the next Xbox

I actually dont think they will profcrab.

Nope...