Alright people continue to prove my points for me despite saying I had tons of flaws in my initial post!

A big thing people are saying (Sony had to launch PS2 because DreamCast was a threat). Some have argued that Sega was not a real competitor. So lets see what I have to say. Take a DreamCast game then take a PlayStation game and put them side by side. Now tell me how in hell the PlayStation game could possibly compete with the DreamCast game. Heck Sega skipped the 64Bit generation altogether forcing Sony to follow suit. This is drastically different then saying the PS3 couldn't compete with 720 or WiiHD.

Another thing someone brought up. It's stupid to skip a generation can you imagine if PS2 tried to compete against this gen. Well again thats another thing altogether. The PS2 was the weakest console of its generation, take a PS2 game and a 360 game and put them side by side. Now tell me how that could possibly compete? But just like I said earlier the PS3 won't be that inferior to the NextBox and WiiHD. The hardware just hasn't advanced that far. The PS3 is still more powerful then anything the competition could possibly release.

As many have pointed out!

A) BluRay, at the beginning was a major loss to the PS3. R&D and production costs with little pay back. People were holding off on Bluray waiting for the battle to be decided. Now that the battle has been decided sales of Blurays are beginning to pick up spead and this inturn is beginning to benefit Sony. So why would Sony launch another platform when their current one is only starting to see success?

B) Graphically nobody has really maxed out the PS3s potential. Some are argueing that Crysis2 is the first game to truly push the PS3. By this time in past generations we had seen the most powerful thing a console could potentially do. The N64 was maxed out halfway through the generation and needed a graphics chip to boost its capabilities. The X-Box was maxed out with Halo2 halfway through the last generation. But the PS3 still hasn't been maxed out. Developers can continue pushing the cell for years. Why release another more powerful platform when your current platform hasn't even been maxed out?

C) Some said that Backwards compatability was going to be a major seller of PS4. That PS3 games will sell the PS4. So if PS3 games still have that much potential where is the point in spending millions if not a billion launching yet another platform. Why launch a new platform if your last platform is going to drive your new platforms sales? where is the point.

All I see is more and more reasons for Sony to sit the next gen out. Thats not insulting Sony (I wish some people read the initial post and didn't just respond based on the title) I'm just saying the PS3 with the wand could compete with WiiHD and any possible NextBox!

This is my point, next generation companies like Microsoft and Nintendo aren't going to be pushing the boundaries as far as they have in the past. At a 350-400$ price point Microsoft can't possibly produce a unit more then a couple times more powerful then PS3. Nintendo obviously isn't out to push the barrier far, I have an uncle working for IBM's branch responsible for Nintendo's platforms. He says Nintendo will likely only beat PS3 by a slight margin.

So Nintendo isn't out to top the PS3 by far next gen. Maybe 1.5x to 3x at best. Nintendo is learning from the Wii, its learning that graphical superiority isn't nescessarily the be all end all. But of course as games look better and better on PS3/360 Nintendo will see the need to launch another platform. Nintendo will likely launch their next platform in 2011.

Microsoft has noticed Nintendo's success as well. Next generation they will want to produce a unit that is solid (Won't red ring) and they aren't going to see the need to push the graphics bar to far. Infact Microsoft will probubly launch its next platform at 3x the PS3. Natal will likely play a big role in the NextBox.

So as I said many times, why should Sony launch a new platform to compete against those listed above? The PS3 would essentially be in the 360's position this gen. Not the most powerful console on the market but not slacking behind too far. Some may say "No its more like the Wii Versus PS3". Thats simply not true the NextBox and WiiHD won't be more then a couple times more powerful then PS3. With the wand and another price cut when the competition starts the next gen would seel Sony's fate as the dominant force next generation!

If the Wii can kill the PS3. PS3 can kill the WiiHD!

Also thanks for giving my thread a 9.4/10 that is very nice of you to say!

the CPU won't be more than 3x more powerful but the GPU could be as I have shown in this thread GPUs are now 10x more powerful than the ps360 and todays games arn't CPU limited I mean on the PS3 developers feel the need to use the Cell for rendering just so the games look as good/better than the 360.

By 2012 GPUs will be more powerful than the PS3s cell and GPU combined.

Sony needs to perform far better in the US and Japan than it has this generation.  It still does well elsewhere, but they really need the US, a large gaming market with only one language to localize for.  They just didn't get the jump on this generation and the 360 has a pretty commanding lead here.  So, while they may continue their dominance outide of the US, lagging too far behind the next generation may put them in a position where they will release against 2 competitors that are already well entrenched with their new systems and Sony won't have a strong enough technological jump to be able to wrest that control back.  They claimed to have a technological jump this time, and it has never materialized into anything.  This time the 360 had a 1 year jump on them.  The plain truth is that the PS3 just doesn't have enough momentum for it to go for the mythical 10 years without an update.  Not only that, but the 10 year generation gap was a myth from the beginning.  Of course they will produce the PS3 for 10 years.  Consoles continue to sell when newer consoles come out because they sink to price points that are very attractive to those without the means to continually sink $300 to $400 into a new system.  Also, they have a more expansive library.  While those sales are helping the system turn its big profit, the ball needs to start rolling on the next console.  If you don't start that ball rolling, someone else is.  Then the PS3 is the aged system without an update.  When the holidays start rolling around, those with the money will start investing in the next generation consoles that are out there.  If you dont have one out there, you aren't getting that buzz.  People stop talking about your system because you are now last gen.  Sony can't afford to sit out a generation.  They have to stay current and stay up with their competitors.  Especially when they have markets they have performed somewhat weakly in.

I give that post a 9.3.

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know how much Sony is in the hole from the PS3?

sony as a hole lost 74 billion US this year

@joecool, Dreamcast wasn't a competitor because Sega was out of money, you know the thing that a company needs to stay in business

The exact numbers would be tough to find out, but my guess is close to $3.5-4B.   But that number doesnt matter really,  they made enough money off the PS1, PS2 and PSP to offset the cost and are still in the black in their gaming division.  

No , they didnt.     Sony's total operating revenue was $78B, they lost $2.3B  as a whole,  and after adjustments from resturcturing that number dropped to $1.3B.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/08q4_sony.pdf

oh sorry I got that number off wiki a billion $$$ is still a lot of money