As soon as MS releases the next Xbox, Sony will have to respond within a year or so.  I don't believe the Wii drove the performance specs for this generation, and they probably won't be driving the specs for the next generation.

So, while I agree that Nintendo might not force Sony's hand, that won't be true regarding Xbox.

It seems like a lot of people keep wanting to forecast Sony's doom in the video game arena for some reason.

SONY wants PS3 to have a 10 year lifespan and they want PSP to have a 10 year lifespan -- both will get close.

PS1 lasted 1995 - 2005.
PS2 is in its 8th year (2000 - Present).
PSP is in its 3/4th year (2004/2005 - Present).
PS3 is in its 2nd year - 2006 - Present.

Now PS2 will easily last untill 2010 -- making it last a decade.
PSP is going to be harder for SONY but it should keep selling untill 2010/11** when PSP2 launches and die 12-24 months after PSP giving it a 7-9 year lifespan.

Finally PS3 -- Since PSP2 should launch BEFORE PS4, and Microsoft will continue to support 360 while its profitable for them, possibly waiting for PSP2 / DS2 launches to launch next-box when their competitors can't afford to launch a new system. Id guess PS4 will come out in 2012/13 - with PS3 dieing over the next 12 months, giving PS3 a lifespan of 8 years. Not bad for the system.

** Assuming PSP2 isn't shown off until E3/GC/TGS 09 or possibly even 2010...

Who said anything about doom for Sony?  I just don't believe that any company serious about staying in the console market can ignore a next-generation console for very long.  Nintendo isn't trying to directly compete this generation when it comes to raw performance, but they did have to release a new platform to say in the game.  If a new Xbox comes out in 2-3 years, expect to see Nintendo and Sony follow suit.

My guess is Nintendo and Sony already have their next-gen systems in the R&D phase.  Does this mean that Sony's next system to compete with Xbox will be a quantum leap in performance over the PS3?  Who knows... Nintendo didn't have to go that route this generation.  But it does mean that Sony will have to come out with a new console that at least offers buyers a reason not to jump on the next Xbox bandwagon.

It doesn't really matter what Sony wants.  The market will decide how long a console or handheld device will be relevant.

A big challenge to keeping the PS3 viable as a gaming platform for 10 years like the PS2 is the fact that it doesn't command anywhere near the market share the PS2 did.  People are still buying PS2s because:

a. They have a large library of PS2 games

b. New games are still being released for PS2

c. The current crop of PS3s can not play PS2 games

Does this spell doom and gloom for Sony.  I don't think so... the PS3 is selling well and is building a strong library of games.  It does, however, mean that the PS3 is less likely to have the kind of longevity that the PS2 has enjoyed as the king-of-the-hill.

What past track record?  The NES and the Wii were the only consoles they have released that have been less powerful than the competition.  The SNES was more powerful than the Genesis, the N64 was more powerful than the PS1 and the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 and comparable to the Xbox.

I'm not saying they will definitely release an uber-powerful platform next gen, but their 'actual' track record says it's likely.

I agree that there isn't necessarily a "track record", but if I was an executive at Nintendo I would seriously consider following a similar game-plan next-gen as they just used for the Wii.  Here's why:

1. Having a solid console with innovative controls instead of a console with bleeding-edge performance has allowed Nintendo to make money on every unit sold.

2. Nintendo has a very strong collection of first-party IPs, i.e. - they don't have to worry about a Mario game looking better on a competing console because it won't be on a competing console.  In other words, they don't need raw horsepower to compete in many ways.

3. Not relying on bleeding edge hardware means their hardware might take less time and money to develop.  This means they can focus more on their current platform, resource-wise, than the competition.  I believe MS and Sony had to start planning out/designing the 360 and PS3 years ago to make them happen.  Nintendo could just watch and wait to see where the market is going while having a small R&D team play with new technologies that might be candidates for their next console.  That's a lot less resource drain.

Anyway, I don't know if Nintendo can pull off another Wii type innovative console, but that's what I would be planning if I were in charge.

Right.  I'm not disagreeing that they might do it.  I'm just disagreeing with Paul's statement that it's their track record.  I think it would make business sense.  I'm just not ruling out a more powerful system.  Paul's acting like every system they have ever released has been under-powered and that's just not true.

PS1 did not last till 2005. Thats a rediculous statement... Shitty EA sports ports of madden and fifa doesn't mean the console is "Alive and kicking!"

Same thing with ps2...its already dead pretty much. Its just a cost effective gaming system for people that can't afford a next gen console or havent played games in the last 7 years.

The ten year life plan coined by Sony is for all intent and purposes meaningless public relations banter. Most consoles receive differing degrees of support for ten years. The Dreamcast still receives support. Both the Nintendo entertainment system, and the Super Nintendo enjoyed life spans far in excess of their production runs. Microsoft still supports the online functionality of the XBOX. Support is a terribly soft term. Technically most anyone can argue indefinitely that the console will be supported for ten years.

How relevant is that support is the real question. I would say in six perhaps seven years the following will have happened. Sony will have produced its own last first party title for the console. They will be removing functionality from the consoles online plan. The majority of the consoles titles will be the download only variety, and the console will receive no ports, because there will be little ability for the console to leach from the 360. Which is what the PS2 does with the Wii. Make a title for the Wii why not port it to the PS2. Nintendo just isn't going to use the same architecture as Sony for their next console, and that really murders the dividends of that.

I honestly do not see any of these consoles having incredible support seven years from now. They will be out of production, and the industry as a whole will have washed its hands of them. The problem is that none of these consoles is going to forge an undeniable standard. That is what you need for late generation longevity. You need carry over value, and that just isn't going to happen.

The plan is pure and simple bullshit. What is worse is there is nobody to hold Sony accountable for not living up to its promises. That is the problem if you are never called on your bullshit, or never penalized for doing so then what is to stop you from making exaggerated claims. So how can anyone take these statements as sincere intent.