Right, well, like I said, until Sony actually proves it, it doesn't mean very much.

I'm not regretful by any means for purchasing my PS3 (GT5 next year is good reason to have it anyway) I just wish that Sony would either put up or shut up when it comes to the supposed cell power of the processor. 

And really, I don't think this generation really needs the high capacity Blu-ray discs.  Right now, the average game on either console is about $60.  Therefore, if developers did take advantage of the larger space of the disc for bigger games, they would almost have to charge significantly more of the extra coding, graphic work, etc it would take to fill up that space.

Playing devil's advocate though, the only thing I have seen from PS3 that would make it more "future proof" than the XBOX 360 is the larger space of the BD (assuming over the next few years developers wanted to take advantage of it).  The HDD is kind of a mute point, because a 360 is easily upgradable should the need for it arise for those people who bought the arcade.

I think I would sing a diffferent tune about this if it weren't for the fact that Nintendo bucked the standard way of thinking when they released the Wii.  It proved so much really.  HD graphics, HDD, movie playing capabilities, etc don't make a system sell better.  In all actuality, they seem to have been helped by not including those things.  (of course, I have the Wii too along with the PS3 & 360, so I guess I win no matter what happens).

Either way, Sony needs to release a game that really shows the cell power, because if they wait too long, people will say "wow, that's nice, but I already own a 360".  Not everyone is like me and buys every console released every generation.  I think the average consensus is that you can buy a Wii (the innovative system) and a 360 (the HD system) for about the same price as a PS3 alone.

Most of you guys don't seem to get it. Let me ask you this question: what prompts the start of a new console generation? It's not determined by a set number of calendar years (NES lasted for almost 10 years in Japan). It's not technology; CDs were being used on PCs for a good five years before the first successful CD consoles appeared in 1994/95. Here's the real answer:

A new console generation starts whenever a major competitor feels like it. Usually, this means a new entrant into the field (Sony in the mid 90s, Microsoft in 2001) or an old competitor killing off their old console to focus on their new one (think Sega killing the Master System to focus on the Genesis/Megadrive, or Microsoft with the XBox/360). There was no reason why a new "HD" generation had to start in 2005, for example. Microsoft deliberately pushed the envelope with the 360 in an attempt to shorten the PS2's lifespan and push Sony into releasing a new console. And it worked.

Talk of "future proof" technology is pure bull. Technology is irrelevant to the start of a new console generation. What you should be talking about are the motivations of each company. If the three current console manufacturers want this generation to continue, then it will. If even one of them doesn't want it to continue, they'll rush out a new product to start anew in the eighth generation. So let's look at each of the three:

Nintendo: They're making more money than God right now. Why would Nintendo want to start a new generation by rushing out a new console? As a result, the Wii will almost certainly be the last console to get replaced. The fact that it has the weakest processing power doesn't matter in the slightest.

Microsoft: They killed off the XBox to focus on the 360, and that's worked pretty well. Microsoft could go one of two ways: rush out a third console quickly to try and dominate the eighth generation even more, or pause to try and make back some profit with the 360. I personally think they'll take the latter route, and not react until forced. After all, the XBox division has enormous sunken costs - it would be nice to start making some of that back in profit.

Sony: The PS3 has enormous sunken costs too. They can either sit pat and try to make some of their huge losses back, or do what Microsoft did in 2004/05 and rush out a new PS4, timed to release in roughly 2011. Traditionally, the "loser" of each console generation tries to force the next competition by hurring their product to market. Think about it: why should Sony support a struggling console in a distant third place, when they can push the reset button and have a chance to be the overall winner again? That's why I believe Sony is the one most likely to hurry a new product to market. I think the PS4 will have the shortest lifespan of all, for reasons that have everything to do with the market and nothing to do with its power.

I hope Sony fans realize when they say "10 year plan" that it means all three consoles will be around for those 10 years (if Sony sticks with PS3, so will Nintendo and Microsoft with their platforms) and likely 10 years of sitting in third place.

I don't think it's necessary for Sony to just release a game that uses 100 percent of PS3 with every possible trick on it, they should make the games evolve gradually like last gen, but I agree that they should have a higher standard than Xbox 360 games by now.

As for BD 's necessity, I think it is necessary, but the main problem to Sony is that this gen, third parties aren't going the same route as last generation, so only first party games and few third party exclusive games can take advantage of it, again DVD need few years to be a necessity, so I think Blu-ray needs a little more to get into that level.

Wii...Well I am not gonna say much about Wii now, but what I think, it's Mattel Inc, and MGA Entertainment that should be afraid of Wii rather than Sony and Microsoft. Wii is definitely not competing, even though they are on the same market.

Also, I have to disagree with you on the HDD thing for Xbox 360 Arcade, becasue if 20 percent of the Xbox 360 owners own that version, then no dev can make something that takes advantage of the core units' hard drive, so in my opinion, Microsoft should've been smart and included at least a gig or two on every Xbox 360.

How do you "future proof" a system?

If Sony had wanted to "future proof" a system 10 years ago, that means that they would have created a current gen system in 1998? (Say at least the power of the Wii.) That's two years before even the release of the PS2. Would that even be possible?

Also, so far the PS2 has been the most successful console in history (much more successful it seems than the PS3), but is even the PS2 on a 10 year plan? Who is buying the PS2 right now? I know that the console continues to sell to *someone*, but it's hardly the console of choice among gamers, right? Was the PS2 "future proofed"? Did it operate according to a 10-year plan? Or was it made obsolete to gamers 2 years ago (in its sixth year of release)?

No one can predict the future and, if anyone can, Sony's proven this gen that it's not them! Tech improves and things change. You can bet that it won't take MS 10 years to release a console technologically superior to the PS3, and so what then? What will Sony say when PS3 isn't in the place of technological front-runner, but when it's at the back of the pack graphically, etc.? Will Sony then begin to argue the Wii's message of today, that it isn't all about graphics?

If Sony had a plan at the beginning of this gen, it wasn't a very good one, and I'm sure it's been scrapped for a while. If Sony needs to release the PS4 more quickly in order to compete and try to reclaim marketshare, you can bet they'll do it.

I agree that a 10-year plan is worthless... this generation may not end as soon as some people hope it will, but it won't last 10 years for the PS3.

Technology moves way too fast, and the apparent superior Sony cell processor won't be state-of-the-art by then.. it will be antiquated technology.  I know some fanboys want to believe their consoles have 2050 technology in it, but it really doesn't.  In a decade every console of this generation will look like a PSOne in retrospect.

That's a smart observation and it points out a fact often overlooked around here: both the HD consoles are complex beasts and these days how good the game will look is more related to the tech budget for the project, the artistic talent and making smart decisions.

While I wouldn't go as far as calling SCE the highest quality develeper this gen, they sure know how to make things look pretty.

Ok, I skipped the last 10 or so responses because I just woke up and I don't feel like reading but to the guys saying the PSP wont reach 10 years.

1. SW support has been increasing. (SE, insomniac, L5, media Molecule, Slant Six are all companies that will support PSP)

2. It just had a hardware revision. No way Sony will kill it just a year after.

3. It's more expensive than he Ps2.

4. for a first attempt in the handheld that use to be dominated by Nintendo they did very good.

5. it's still selling.

Hope, seece. It gives us hope.

retailers make 0 money from console sales. if the PS3 costs 399, that means it probably cost 395 in order for the retailer to buy it from the distributor. Add in shipping, and the retailer pretty much breaks even, or even loses a little money when the PS3 is sold.

The retailer makes maybe 2-3 dollars max on games sold though, which is something. The money maker, though, is accessories. Extra Batteries, charge kits, used games, service plans, and magazine subscriptions (if you're at a gamestop).

I don't think your profit numbers on console sales or games is accurate, but I don't have any tangible evidence otherwise.  Do you happen to have any sources for this information?  I am curious as to the actual retailer profitability on console/games sales.