CLICKY for LINKY (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/914/914584p1.html)

Impress Watch technology writer Hiroshige Goto has posted his latest "Weekly Overseas News" (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2008/0929/kaigai469.htm) at the Japanese game and computing site. The subject, believe it or not, is PlayStation 4!

According to Goto, who doesn't cite any sources, Sony has started investigating the possibility of using the Cell Broadband Engine, the same CPU that powers the PS3, as a base for the new system and is currently seeking developer feedback. While it's possible that Sony will move away from the Cell, says Goto, Sony does appear at the moment to be moving towards an upgraded version of the current PS3 chipset as a basis for the next generation system.

The plan to use variants of Cell in future PlayStation iterations was always in place, explains Goto, which is why Sony invested so heavily in the chipset. However, while the use of the Cell in the PS4 may seem like Sony just sticking with its original plan, the real reason could be that the company in its current form doesn't have the reserves to create another chipset and build all the requisite development tools above it.

Going with Cell has the benefits of keeping production costs down for the PS4 and also allowing cutting game development costs due to a consistent architecture. Sony would also be able to include a smaller chip size from the start, potentially reducing the system's retail price.

The rest of Goto's article is mostly speculation as the highly respected writer considers how much of a performance increase we can expect from the PS4. According to Goto, Moore's Law suggests that Sony could go about including as many as 32 cores in the system (compared to the current 8). However, he doesn't think this is likely. Due to cost concerns, he thinks its more possible that Sony will stop with somewhere between 10 and 20 cores along with a small increase in clock rate. Looking at just the CPU, he says, the PS4 would have 2.x times as much power as the PS3.

Goto also feels that an early PS4 launch could be reasoning for the reuse of the Cell architecture. Assuming Sony wants to launch the PS4 earlier than it did the PS3 in comparison to the competition, going with a new architecture could be tough. According to Goto, it takes at least three years, and more usually four, to go from the start of chip development to an actual product. If Sony wanted a 2011 launch, for instance, they'd have to speed up the process, and one method for that, says Goto, is to use an existing architecture.

Not surprising. Late 2011 sounds about right to launch a new iteration. Have to keep up with the Joneses after all.

It should be re-iterated that the content of this translated article is pure speculation and rumor.

It should be re-iterated that the content of this translated article is pure speculation and rumor.

That's correct as the person being quoted did not provide any sources.

So much for that 10 yr plan... but I had no doubt since launch of any system, all 3 makers were in the works for the next version. I think what you see is Sony knowing the PS3 could be a lil better with some improvements and they REALLY want to beat xbox out to market. Gone are the days of PS supremacy... Can't fall back on the faithful alone. It'lld be good though. I myself might limit myself a bit come next-next gen and get 1 system. As is I don't have enough time to play through my current games and systems :p

So much for that 10 yr plan...

I'm sure that, or something relatively close, is still the case. Just because they're launching a new system 5 or 6 years after PS3 doesn't mean that they'll stop manufacturing PS3.

That's the time in the system's life cycle when profits are highest.

yeah but that is really fast, i mean lets face it there aren't a ton of games on ps3 right now and there are a ton of games that could easily go through 2011 and beyond, just off of the top of my head..
Jax
Kingdom hearts
uncharted 2
Rachet and clank
numerous final fantasy
MGS2

the list could go on, but with the sucky launch PS3 had, the ps3 is just now really gaining steam.... I think they may be nervous because of the jump the 360 got on them....

yeah but that is really fast, i mean lets face it there aren't a ton of games on ps3 right now and there are a ton of games that could easily go through 2011 and beyond, just off of the top of my head..
Jax
Kingdom hearts
uncharted 2
Rachet and clank
numerous final fantasy
MGS2

the list could go on, but with the sucky launch PS3 had, the ps3 is just now really gaining steam.... I think they may be nervous because of the jump the 360 got on them....

5 or 6 years is really fast? There's nothing stopping those games you listed (I'm assuming you meant MGS5 :p) from being released in 2011 or beyond. The system will still be there.

Uncharted 2 will be here long before that though :D

I doubt they're really sweating anybody. To be approximately only 5 million consoles behind when their competition had a year head start is not too bad a position to be in.

I just got a PS4...check it out:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2905817184_1b2ecc82b1.jpg

And how much money does Sony loose on the PS3 right now?

well, its lost more on the PS3 than it profitted on the PS2...if that says anything...

I'm sure that, or something relatively close, is still the case. Just because they're launching a new system 5 or 6 years after PS3 doesn't mean that they'll stop manufacturing PS3.

That's the time in the system's life cycle when profits are highest.

If this is true, we'ld have to see if Sony plans on slapping BC in the newer console. I'm sure they will but if they launch without any form of BC, I'll pass on the system all together.


well, its lost more on the PS3 than it profitted on the PS2...if that says anything...

Really? I could have sworn Sony banked LOVELY on the PS2, accessories and software

well, its lost more on the PS3 than it profitted on the PS2...if that says anything...

Link? :eek:

It may have cost more than the PS2 profited, but lost more? That doesn't sound right.

You also have to remember that a lot of people attribute the entire cost of developing the Cell Broadband Engine to PS3 alone, where it is actually a capital investment across multiple product lines. They meant for it to be integrated in a lot of their electronics for years to come.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10054251-82.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0

According to cnet, PS4 is rumored to have the same cell processor as PS3. Considering this came from Cnet, probably doesn't mean anything but since we're on the topic..

"Link?

It may have cost more than the PS2 profited, but lost more? That doesn't sound right.

You also have to remember that a lot of people attribute the entire cost of developing the Cell Broadband Engine to PS3 alone, where it is actually a capital investment across multiple product lines. They meant for it to be integrated in a lot of their electronics for years to come."


http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/19/the-sony-reciprocal-ps3-losses-surpass-ps2-profits/

http://www.psu.com/PS3-wipes-out-PS2-profits-News--a0004557-p0.php

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/19/the-sony-reciprocal-ps3-losses-surpass-ps2-profits/

http://www.psu.com/PS3-wipes-out-PS2-profits-News--a0004557-p0.php

Did you read more than the first line?

According to DFC intelligence figures cited by Dave Perry, Sony has lost more money on the PlayStation 3 hardware than it made on the PlayStation 2 during its five most popular years. Perry.... was just using the figures to underscore how much Sony was spending on hardware development

So it's not in total, for the 10+ years of the PS2's existence. He's just comparing it to its most popular five years to make a point.

eeeek...well...ahem...I did read a few stories, but I guess I absorbed only the juicy internet garbage. Thanks for clearing that up :o

still, you have to admit those are pretty astounding figures.

Link? :eek:

It may have cost more than the PS2 profited, but lost more? That doesn't sound right.

You also have to remember that a lot of people attribute the entire cost of developing the Cell Broadband Engine to PS3 alone, where it is actually a capital investment across multiple product lines. They meant for it to be integrated in a lot of their electronics for years to come.

..then they sold it to Toshiba, likely in a move to raise capital as they needed liquid capital (ie: they needed money).

Too funny.

..then they sold it to Toshiba, likely in a move to raise capital as they needed liquid capital (ie: they needed money).

Too funny.

Right, but those were only chip manufacturing facilities. Not the patent or intellectual capital itself. The Cell is still an income stream for them.

eeeek...well...ahem...I did read a few stories, but I guess I absorbed only the juicy internet garbage. Thanks for clearing that up :o

still, you have to admit those are pretty astounding figures.

Indeed. It's a risky business!

Not surprising. Late 2011 sounds about right to launch a new iteration. Have to keep up with the Joneses after all.

Based on historic cycles of Playstation hardware (7 year cycles for new hardware with continued support for about 3 for "last generation"), the earliest you'd see a PS4 would be 2013.

Right, but those were only chip manufacturing facilities. Not the patent or intellectual capital itself. The Cell is still an income stream for them.

Toshiba and IBM also own the IP behind Cell, too. IBM and Toshiba using a SpursEngine (a smaller version of Cell) probably doesn't earn Sony any coin. I think both companies are free to use the CBE as they wish without Sony earning a dime. If another company wanted to use the architecture, Sony would earn something, but IBM and Toshiba were development partners of the Cell (though I'm sure it was developed almost entirely by IBM).

The article does make sense, and would make BC a non-issue (except PS2 I guess).

I don't think with 20 or even 30 cores it's going to be the processing marvel the PS3 was at launch...my PC is already >6x faster in F@H than my PS3. I still think a scaled up Cell is a good choice for a PS4. If there's any flaw I can find in the PS3, it is that it has too fast a CPU and too slow a graphics chip.

From the looks of things, I don't think Nvidia will be the GPU maker on either next-gen console. From a performance per square centimeter of die(read:cost), AMD's got them beat by a very long shot.

I don't think with 20 or even 30 cores it's going to be the processing marvel the PS3 was at launch...my PC is already >6x faster in F@H than my PS3.

Comparing PC's to gaming consoles is always going to be futile. PC's will always be ahead of the curve because the bar is being reset so frequently.

However, PC's are no longer a competitor to console gaming, honestly. It's a dying market; mostly due to piracy and convenience, IMO.

well, its lost more on the PS3 than it profitted on the PS2...if that says anything...

You are obviously kidding right? or dont know this for a fact.

Sony has been loosing money yeah right... Only during lunch the PS side is already in the positive.

PS2 has been a great great cash cow, and dont forget the PSP, the Software side... PS3 launch and R&D was costly, and still has not made profit, but they are there....

Based on historic cycles of Playstation hardware (7 year cycles for new hardware with continued support for about 3 for "last generation"), the earliest you'd see a PS4 would be 2013.

PS2 was released five years after PS1 and PS3 was released six years after PS2. Based on the previous generations, 2011-2012 seems like the most likely range, although 2013 is possible.

PS2 was released five years after PS1 and PS3 was released six years after PS2. Based on the previous generations, 2011-2012 seems like the most likely range, although 2013 is possible.

Not from what I recall. Then again, I purchased my ps1 and ps2 from Japan so I got mine before they hit the US markets.

if i was a dev...i would prob be so pissed

if i was a dev...i would prob be so pissed

Not entirely. Sony is actually working with the devs to come up with the base kit for the PS4. Thus it becomes more dev-friendly.

Are you kidding? A console manufacturer is looking at developing a new system for the future? And it's going to have a better cpu? Get out.

Are you kidding? A console manufacturer is looking at developing a new system for the future? And it's going to have a better cpu? Get out.

You're reading this wrong. The PS4 is supposed to be an upscaled PS3 (similar to the Wii being an updated GameCube).

Hence the schematics won't be as big a difference as it was from PS2 to PS3.

Also, Sony is working very closely with developers thus making it more friendly to them because when the PS3 was being developed, Sony did not really consult developers as they once did when developing the PS2.

Personally, I would be shocked if November 2011 comes and goes and a PS4 hasn't been released in the USA. Honestly, I don't think November 2010 is completely out of the question either, although I'd put my money on November 2011.


If you look at the past history of the original PlayStation, PS2 and PS3, you find:

PS1 USA launch day = September 9th, 1995

5 years, 1 month, 17 days of availability before PS2 (roughly 1872 days)

PS2 USA launch day = October 26th, 2000

6 years, 22 days of availability before PS3 (roughly 2212 days)

PS3 USA launch day = November 17, 2006

So, if you take the average of the last two cycles, it would be 2,042 days, which would put us at:

5 years, 7 months and 7 days or,

June 24th 2012


Ever since the launch of the PS2, consoles have been launched either in late October or sometime in November in the USA. So it's very doubtful that the PS4 will break that trend, meaning that we are either looking at November 2011 or November 2012, but I don't see how Sony could wait till 2012 and let Microsoft get first movers advantage again. That's why I actually don't think 2010 is completely bonkers. If Microsoft wants first movers advantage again, then they will have to pull the trigger in mid November 2010. So, if Sony wants to launch at the same time, they would have to do that as well.

Certainly, both companies will continue to milk the PS3 and 360 even after the arrival of their replacements. You'd expect the replacements to cost around $399 or $299, and in all likelyhood, the 360 could have a $99 core system by November 2010, and Sony could have a $179 or $199 barebones PS3 by November 2010. So, the PS3 and 360 will continue to sell to the same people that are buying the PS2 today, while the PS4 and Xbox 720 will sell to the same early adopters that buy every system when it first comes out. I see no problem with that scenario.

And how much money does Sony loose on the PS3 right now?

They don't "loose" anything. The do however "lose" money.

If Nintendo is already working in a Wii sequel it's obvious that Sony is working in the PS4. And yeah, Microsoft is also working on its new console too.

Fall 2011 sounds right. By then the Xbox 360 will be 6 years old. Microsoft must probably will release a new Xbox by then. Sony won't allow a full year advantage again.

They don't "loose" anything. The do however "lose" money.

(Isn't it funny when people correct others, and then make a misteak themselves)....(whoops not steak, lol):p

The real question now is: Will I finally be able to play games with "Toy Story" like graphics?

You are obviously kidding right? or dont know this for a fact.

Sony has been loosing money yeah right... Only during lunch the PS side is already in the positive.

PS2 has been a great great cash cow, and dont forget the PSP, the Software side... PS3 launch and R&D was costly, and still has not made profit, but they are there....

please read the subsequent posts regarding my original comment. Thanks!

They don't "loose" anything. The do however "lose" money.

Fail.

If Nintendo is already working in a Wii sequel it's obvious that Sony is working in the PS4. And yeah, Microsoft is also working on its new console too.

Fall 2011 sounds right. By then the Xbox 360 will be 6 years old. Microsoft must probably will release a new Xbox by then. Sony won't allow a full year advantage again.

Chances are early development of the PS4 began even before the PS3 was launched. However, I highly doubt that they are going to rush a console to market just because MS or Nintendo release a new one earlier. Sure, it's a disadvantage, but it's a bigger disadvantage (imo) to release something that's not ready for market. I think Sony's own confusion over what their machine was and what the best SKU (and pricepoint) was hurt them more than MS coming to market a year ahead of time.

PS4 will hit when the PS4 hits. And I stand corrected on my 7 years. It's 6.

Playstation release schedule is as follows (all Japan since that's where they are measuring their cycle anyway):

12.03.94 (PS1)
03.04.00 (PS2)
11.16.06 (PS3)
11.16.12 (PS4)??

That's where I'd hedge my bets.

When it comes it comes. I dont want them to rush it. I am very very very happy w/ my PS3 (and 360) currently. I want to see something much better if i am going to upgrade, i dont want minimal change.

-J

Based on historic cycles of Playstation hardware (7 year cycles for new hardware with continued support for about 3 for "last generation"), the earliest you'd see a PS4 would be 2013.

True, but there is NO CHANCE they let MS come out with their nextbox without launching PS4. We'll see the ps4 when we see the nextbox.

I say they're aiming for 2012 but will actually launch in 2013.

True, but there is NO CHANCE they let MS come out with their nextbox without launching PS4. We'll see the ps4 when we see the nextbox.

I would disagree with that, mainly for the reasons I stated above. Additionally because I think the next XBOX is coming a lot sooner than most of us think it is.

I would disagree with that, mainly for the reasons I stated above. Additionally because I think the next XBOX is coming a lot sooner than most of us think it is.

Yes. After this gen, Microsoft is going to try and be first EVERY gen. Even with all the problems they've had, launching first and building that base early has paid off. It worked for them this gen, so I see no reason why they won't kill the 360 early and force a generation shift early again.

And that's annoying as ****. We could be fine with these systems for another 5-6 years. The money is in software, anyway.

I think Mr. Goto is being pretty conservative, myself.

I am looking at it from the POV that Sony will want to put out a system that costs $200-$300 on the day it comes out, and be BC with PS3. So that means the system will have a Cell chip. But I do expect it will contain all the advancements the Cell has seen in the years. I also think the system will have probably late 2009-early 2010 level 3D hardware, so whatever Nvidia has on the shelf a year to 18 months from now.

Make no mistake - next to what you are able to get on the PC by then (probably 2011, maybe 2012), it will be outdated. But it will be pretty cheap, and will be plenty powerful - capable of running a game like Crysis at 1080p and 60fps at a minimum. Plus developers will be able to use the knowledge and tools they developed this generation on the next. Seems like a no brainer.

BTW: Microsoft will do the same thing. I think the era of $400+ systems is thankfully dead.

Yes. After this gen, Microsoft is going to try and be first EVERY gen. Even with all the problems they've had, launching first and building that base early has paid off. It worked for them this gen, so I see no reason why they won't kill the 360 early and force a generation shift early again.


I wouldn't want to be the guy telling people in 2010 that the $300 system (cost of the main SKU) they bought in 2008 is now a doorstop. I mean, when Microsoft told them to do that with the Xbox it was like a $150 system.

I don't think Microsoft can burn bridges like that over and over. They got away with it once, but do it too many times and you become Sega in the mid 1990s. I remember talking to tons of people that picked a Saturn over a PSX and wouldn't have bought a Dreamcast if it were $50. If they do what they did before, that is kill the 360 early, rush out a system, and shut down game development I would certainly be wary of spending money on them again.

I think if Sony is not going to release first or the same year as Microsoft, they will release two years after and say that the extra years lead to better graphics, etc.

I think if Sony is not going to release first or the same year as Microsoft, they will release two years after and say that the extra years lead to better graphics, etc.

They tried that already, it doesn't work. Because so few people are making exclusive games anymore and people don't want SNES/Genny or even PS2/Xbox style ports where they take advantage of each system's capabilities. They want exactly the same game.

And besides, even if it were true, it doesn't matter... the Wii has proven that graphics aren't the most important thing.

I think an announcement in 2012 won't be bad but to launch the actual PS4 IN 2012, different story... The current PS3 is supposed to be the main PS console for 10 year life span. I understand overlap, I mean that damn PS2 is better than a cat's 9 lives! but still... this would only prove that the PS3, albeit a great system, wasn't it all cracked out to be. I do think a BD drive standard, with just double the current read speeds would help out a lot, along with clearing out those bottle necks and updated memory and GPU along with FULL Playstation franchise backwards compatibility and I'll keep the PS3 as a spare game system/BD player and hope and drool all over the next itteration.

Gone are the days of PS supremacy.

And besides, even if it were true, it doesn't matter... the Wii has proven that graphics aren't the most important thing.

The Wii has captured a different user base; non-gamers and casual gamers.

While they're certainly not the most important thing, graphics still matter to the PS3 and 360 fanbase who make up the "traditional" gaming market.

I think the era of $400+ systems is thankfully dead.Exactly.

The Wii changed the entire hardware profit model. The days when hardware manufacturers release cutting edge hardware tech at a loss and wait to recoup that loss years down the line are very much over. No one will ever release hardware at a loss again without a very good reason.

That's why a PS4 coming sooner rather than later isn't at all out of the question. It'll likely follow the Wii model of being a reimagining of existing tech. Maybe like a PS3.5? Slight improvements but nothing radically different. The biggest differences will be in a focus on the download market (games, music, movies, tv) and massively retooled online functionality.

And Sony has absolutely changed its attitude. They didn't get rid of Kutaragi for nothing. He was the figurehead of the PS3's tech-forward thinking and it cost Sony big-time. They won't make that mistake again. They also won't make the mistake of letting MS have such a huge lead-time in the marketplace. Those were their two biggest mistakes (overly expensive hardware and releasing it later than MS).

If Sony were to have for the PS4 the same major hardware innovations that they had for the PS3 (new disc format, new processing architecture, etc.), it'd cost even more than the PS3 did at launch and probably come at an even greater loss. Won't happen.

Better solution: Sony finds a way to repackage PS3. If they can redefine the platform, they wouldn't even need new hardware. Keep upgrading the HDD size in the skus they release and keep beefing up the downloadable offerings. They wouldn't even need a new piece of hardware, just more robust infrastructure. Scrap Home and come up with something more radical and innovative for its online community/distribution. Instead of just a basic cosmetic change (like the PS3 slim), they could do something similar to what MS is doing with the Xbox this fall.

The Wii has captured a different user base; non-gamers and casual gamers.

While they're certainly not the most important thing, graphics still matter to the PS3 and 360 fanbase who make up the "traditional" gaming market.

Graphics do matter. However, not as much as other things, like price, game quality, etc. Releasing a system a year later with better graphics won't do a damn thing. That power will be wasted anyway as everyone wants games to look exactly the same right now. I still maintain releasing a system that could breeze through a Crysis-style game in 2011 at 1080p and 60fps smoothly and release it at $300 would make people very happy. If you want the best best graphics, get a PC. Consoles shouldn't be chasing that anyway.

The current PS3 is supposed to be the main PS console for 10 year life span.

I do not think that is what they said. I am almost positive they said the PS3 is on a plan to have a 10 year lifecycle... PS2 is getting into its 9th year by the end of the month.

And Sony has absolutely changed its attitude. They didn't get rid of Kutaragi for nothing. He was the figurehead of the PS3's tech-forward thinking and it cost Sony big-time. They won't make that mistake again.

It wasn't a mistake. It's that forward-thinking technology that built the Playstation brand name.

Frankly, I don't give a damn how much money Sony makes. I'd prefer them to stick with the subsidized hardware model and try and make their money on software. That's how we now have a great game machine, fantastic blu-ray, and all-around technical wizard.

I've been spoiled now and don't want Wii-esque hardware :p

I still maintain releasing a system that could breeze through a Crysis-style game in 2011 at 1080p and 60fps smoothly and release it at $300 would make people very happy. If you want the best best graphics, get a PC. Consoles shouldn't be chasing that anyway.


PC-gaming has been dying for a while now. As people have migrated to consoles, they're still looking for those stunning visuals but in a far lest costly and far more convenient platform.

I put my vote in for not having seen the last of $400 systems. That's just not the way things work, economically. The Wii may be cheaper than the PS3 or 360, but it was still a considerable jump in price over Nintendo's previous offering. I believe system prices (for Sony and MS) will remain in the $400-$500 range for their initial offerings. Just my opinion, of course.

PC-gaming has been dying for a while now. As people have migrated to consoles, they're still looking for those stunning visuals but in a far lest costly and far more convenient platform.

I put my vote in for not having seen the last of $400 systems. That's just not the way things work, economically. The Wii may be cheaper than the PS3 or 360, but it was still a considerable jump in price over Nintendo's previous offering. I believe system prices (for Sony and MS) will remain in the $400-$500 range for their initial offerings. Just my opinion, of course.

Couple things:

1. You can't get stunning PC quality graphics on a system that costs less than the graphics card that gives you those graphics. I agree the gap has closed significantly, but its still present and will always be there (except for 6-12 months after the system comes out - and this only happens if the hardware maker takes a $200+ hit on each console). Crysis is currently by far the best looking game on the market and there is little doubt in my mind it will still look great in 2011 (Far Cry still does, and it came out in 2004). If a console can produce those visuals and that quality of physics for $300 people will be happy.

2. It may seem tough to believe, but $399 as recently as last generation was considered too expensive, thanks to Saturn flopping. It's a really lot of money. All the Sony and MS apologists can say all they want about catering to a different market - Sony and MS would both kill to be in Nintendo's shoes right now, fact is N is making a lot more money than them. That is why Sony and MS are not going to chase the $500 ultra powerhouse next time around if they can release a box that produces great tech for $300... and I am saying that is very possible. It always has been.

This generation of systems introduced more hard drives, blu-ray, more extensive CPU's and GPU's. This is whay they were so expensive. Some of these compenets will be very similar in the subsequent systems and since they are already in developement costs will come down by the launch date of the next gen. Microsoft WILL HAVE TO add Blu-Ray (Sony smiles), or dare the impossible with HD-DVD or other storage medium. The result will be that Sony might be in a better position to beat Microsft on the hardware price come next gen...will Wii-HD be any more relevant in the next gen or will Nintendo continue to have their own niche?

I would disagree with that, mainly for the reasons I stated above. Additionally because I think the next XBOX is coming a lot sooner than most of us think it is.

You are very likely VERY wrong in this thinking.

You are very likely VERY wrong in this thinking.

Actually, no one is right or wrong at the moment. We should archive this thread and come back to it when the Next Xbox/PS4 has been released and then see who can claim the "I Told You So..!"

Actually, no one is right or wrong at the moment. We should archive this thread and come back to it when the Next Xbox/PS4 has been released and then see who can claim the "I Told You So..!"

Maybe they'll take a page out of the Wall Street book and merge to fight off a stagnant economy....

Playstation 360 :p

You're right though. It's anybody's guess and nobody is "wrong."

Who knows what will happen? It will be interesting to see.

About the Xbox 360, I always thought the reason they launched "early" was to get the jump on the competition. They had already lost the console war to Sony, and they wanted to start a new generation with a new system. Since the 360 has been successful, I'm not so sure they'll do it again. Also, bear in mind that if the next Xbox comes in 2010, that will be a 5-year life cycle, which I think is fine, and it has worked for every Nintendo console.

However, that will put Sony in a tough position, because they would then have a 4-year old console that was slow to gain momentum at first anyway. I don't know if they would release the PS4 that early, so I bet they're hoping we don't see the next Xbox until 2011.

I would be kind of disappointed if they do release a console that is not much more powerful than the PS3. I don't mind buying a new console, but I want something to show for it. If the PS3 is, say, $200 by then, and they come out with a new system that is not much better for $300, I would be disappointed. While I wasn't too happy to see Nintendo release a system that wasn't that much more powerful than its successor, it did add some important technologies the Gamecube lacked (DVD storage, SD card slot, USB ports, wi-fi, built-in wireless connectivity for controllers, etc.). I'm not sure what Sony could add to the PS4 that isn't there in the PS3 already, aside from refining the existing technologies (new version of Bluetooth with support for more devices, faster wireless networking).

Also, I think having a much less powerful system has hurt Nintendo somewhat in this generation, as developers can't do their big games on the Wii. Therefore, it gets stuck with PS2 ports and recycled engines from last generation (though Nintendo's own games of course are very good). Not that I would expect it from Nintendo, but if the next Nintendo and MS systems are far more powerful than the PS4, Sony could potentially lose out on third-party games that are too ambitious for its console.

Then again, it's hard to say what "twice as powerful" would mean. Also, if they release another system that's similar to the PS3, developers who are getting familiar with the PS3 now should be able to get more out of the PS4, rather than having to learn a whole new system (which I think affected the PS3 to some degree). If it is at least comparable to the competing consoles (as the PS2 was to the Xbox), it will be okay.

Anyway, I've rambled enough and I need to go to bed. :)

I for one, hope that Sony and MS do not follow the Wii blueprint and continue to push the envelope performance-wise. I won't speculate about the specifics of a PS4 or when it will arrive but I did read an interesting article a while back about Crytek (Crysis developer) and its future plans. Although I found it a little odd that the company's CEO would bet so much on a platform that is probably in its infancy, it gives me hope that the PS4 will still be a powerhouse.

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/3811.html

Crysis is overrated.

Right now, in the PC, with a $150 card (AMD 4850) you can have the best graphics at 1080p. In 2 years that should cost $50 or less for Sony and Microsoft.
Graphics won't be the problem. Blu-Ray drives should be down in price too.
I see no problem in releasing a sub $400 console.

An extended world wide recession may change all these plans. This is a very real possibility.

An extended world wide recession may change all these plans. This is a very real possibility.

This is very possible. I think it's also likely that the severe recession that the US will most likely be experiencing next year will begin to take a toll on the sales of the current gen consoles. It will be critical for Sony to reduce the price from the $400/$500 range to the $300 range next year, as most of the untapped market may be unable to afford $400 video game consoles.

Crysis is overrated.

Right now, in the PC, with a $150 card (AMD 4850) you can have the best graphics at 1080p. In 2 years that should cost $50 or less for Sony and Microsoft.
Graphics won't be the problem. Blu-Ray drives should be down in price too.
I see no problem in releasing a sub $400 console.

Not true, no card nowadays (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,751.html) can run the game at 1080p and 60fps with very high detail settings (that link has framerates on the game at very high but a sub-1080p resolution and no AA).

I have a 4850 and it runs Crysis fairly well by Crysis standards, but not at 1080p and not at 60fps that's for sure.

That is why I think the consoles will go beyond today's tech. I think next generation really should be the 1080p generation - this one is the 720p-unstable-30fps-or-upscaled generation, but they really gotta get enough power in there to display the games at 1080p. WipeOut HD proved to me its necessary!

So basically, I think the next round of consoles will be like a really good PC built late next year. Which is maybe not the type of massive improvement you saw in PSX->PS2->PS3 but still significant.