Well first of all, why did you need so long to figure this out? We had such ideas here over a year ago already.

However, it just doesn't work that way. When a generation starts, it's not that clear which console will come out on top. Also, the fanboys of each system are buying, so the sales differences aren't that big. This is why third parties release their games more equally at the beginning.

As the generation continues, it is clear which console takes the throne, and therefore, the most third party support. From now on, the sales difference will only get bigger and bigger. The losing consoles are drying up in terms of software, and their reputation gets worse too, which makes it unlikely that they'll ever make a comeback.

The market leader is usually the company that releases their new console as the last one. There was one clear exception to that rule, being the early release of the PS2 at the beginning of the 6th gen. However, this is explainable since the Dreamcast had a good start and Sony didn't want to let it sell two years without competition, and the PS1 launched quite a while earlier than the N64, so it already had a long lifespan.

In the other generations, the market leader was waiting as long as he could to get the most out of its successful console. The SNES and the N64 were late to the party, and the PS3 was too.

So as long as Sony doesn't make a move, Nintendo can just lean back and enjoy the money they got out of the Wii. Microsoft will probably be the first company to release a console next gen again, but not as early as now since the 360 will get a fair amount of marketshare and make the gaming division of Microsoft profitable, finally.

However, when Microsoft releases a new console, Sony is definitely in a fucked up position. They are getting bested by the Wii every week, and Microsoft is already taking marketshare of the next gen, so they'll just have to give up the PS3. I guess they will release their new console earlier than 9 months after the next Xbox's release.

This is basically how it works.

Also, BTFeather55, you are just ridiculous.

Lets step back here for a moment.

What is the POINT of releasing a console?

Yes - to make PROFIT. Either short term - or long term profit. There is NO OTHER reason.

The PS3 is going to struggle to make any significant profit for Sony - and THIS is the key issue. All this rhetoric about a "10-year" plan is just that - rhetoric. Its just Sony trying to justify their (poor) business/design decisions with the PS3.

Any company can design some $100,000 "uber 3D/VR console", start selling it today for $100k - and call it a "100 year plan". Reduce prices every year, yadda yadaa. Yet they don't - because it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. There is no *profit* in it.

One of the biggest issues Sony has had since the PS3 launch, is they have been UNABLE to convince consumers that the PS3 is a *significantly* superior machine to the 360 in terms of gaming. Why buy a more expensive machine that does the same thing that a cheaper console does? Even more so, when most PS3 titles also appear on the 360 - and commonly looking and running better?

One day I will buy a HD console - and I will almost certainly get the "cheaper" one. I'll much rather spend my money on games than hardware!
...

As I said in a few threads now, Sony's *biggest* problem ATM is that they are competing directly with MS - a company with no debt, and MUCH deeper pockets than Sony does. This is a much bigger problem for them than anything else.

Sony fans had better put their seatbelts on, because there is a chance 2009 could be a *dreadful* year for Sony (and the PS3). We'll find out in a few months...

A bios upgrade for 3d-gaming and an additional motion-controller could work very well for them. Imagine Wii Sports in 3D that's what I think is the next step for gaming. Unlocking the 8th SPE will improve graphics just a little bit. Remember graphics are not important as we have seen with the Wii. Of course Sony has to make real effort to pull this of.

PS3 is future-proof if Sony wants, they can make the 10 year lifecycle a truth.
360 is a no go because PS3 can outperform it on High End gaming, not only gaming also multimedia mainly because of Blu-ray.

PS3 could also outperform the Wii, but they have to use a me-too strategy. Or in other words steal the motion tech. They also have PS eye that could track motion. Or just release a better one that isn't horrible for the ones that bought the old one already.

Sony has to consider that some of their fans will switch to Xbox 720 for higher end gaming. I don't this would cause trouble for them. Since the PS3 will have a decent userbase and is going on par with Wii HD.

Main platform for HD games will be PS3. Developers mainly choose their platform for the largest userbase. Motion games will be multiplatform for PS3 and Wii HD. What should be the main platform? Wii HD also has to start from scratch.

While Nintendo and Microsoft are happy with their sales. Sony could be pulling of this strategy to make it competitive in the next generation. The bottom line is Sony has 2 choices. 1. Dump the PS3 or 2. make it competitive with next gen.

The only backdraw for point 2 is lack of graphics. Those will be last gen. Keep in mind that Wii HD will likely be jsut a little more powerful.

PS3 2012
PS3 + 8 SPE (cell will be stable enough to run all SPEs)
Bios upgrade for 3D gaming on WOW TVs
3D glasses for people without an 3DTV
Six-Axis controller with Rumble (they should upgrade to rumble 2.0)
PS Eye (maybe PS Eye 2.0 I don't think it's needed but just in case)
Gloves (PS Eye could track your bare hands but just in case)
Make bundles with games that make full usage of these new hardware and software. Price full options @ $250-300* and of course full BC for PS2/1

Can Nintendo and Microsoft compete with a revived PS3?
Microsoft will beat them with graphics easily. How popular is Blu-ray in 2012? Who will digital downloads do in 2012?
Nintendo spends a lot on R&D I'm pretty sure they will pull off better hardware. Will the casual market see Nintendo's new technology? I'm sure the hardcore does, unlucky us that's not important any more.

I'm pretty sure Sony could make it very for Nintendo and Microsoft. Time will tell.

I don't know, I think Sony just messed up.

This isnt correct, when was the last and final Xbox game released? Madden 09. The Xbox was discontinued in 2006. This shows that it took 2 years for all developers to finally kill production for a discontinued system.

As long as Sony keeps a small but steedy userbase with the PS3 after than next PlayStation is released than there will be developers willing to make games. Keep a system alive till its unprofitable than kill it. What is the sense in not making every dime and penny you can?

I have to agree with the OP. But, this is not a new idea from SONY, they have done it twice before.

That's just a small fraction of developers, not the kind of support to keep a console selling many years after it launched (especially when its previous library is nothing out of the ordinary).

They ensured themselves pretty good. Only reason for PS4 is better graphics/physics. Could be Blu-ray 2.0 for bigger storage, but not likely because 9GB is enough for HD graphics so will 50GB nextgen.

The point is what will be the next big thing for next generation and could Sony pull this off with the PS3? This generation it was motion controls and a lesser succes HD gaming. My guess is 3D gaming. Cinema's are shows more 3D movies then ever and it fits motion gaming really good.

It's so crazy that it may or may not work...

Also, graphics are reaching a stalemate, can't people see this? They will not be a defining character in buying a platform in the not so far future, (LOL to all the PC only gamers who always only focus on visuals). Nintedo realised this with the Wii and has proven that people will go for the fun factor first.

So, come next gen the PS3 should be sitting in the best chair, being the more "future proof" console. Just think, games are already starting to take 50GB and who is the only one already doing this?