 |
|
|
| |
Sony Reduces Investment Cost For PlayStation 4
by Frank Cifaldi [Console/PC, Business]
|
|
| |
|
May 26, 2011
|
| |
Development is already underway on Sony's next home console, according to the company, though it won't repeat the ambitious and expensive PS3 development process that kept its division in the red for so long.
Speaking to investors Thursday following the announcement that its PlayStation division posted a profit in the previous fiscal year, Sony Corporation executive vice president and CFO Masaru Kato revealed that part of its projected R&D cost in the coming year will be used for the next PlayStation home console.
"The PS3 still has product life, but this is a platform business," he said. "So for the future [of the] platform, when will we introduce it? What product? I can not discuss that. But development work is already underway."
According to Japanese business newspaper Nikkei (as translated by Andriasang), Kato told investors today that the company would not have the same level of financial investment in its future products as it did with the PlayStation 3.
"It is no longer thinkable to have a huge initial financial investment like that of the PS3," he said, allegedly in response to a question about whether the games division would retain its profitability.
The company spent significant amounts of money designing the PS3's Cell processor from the ground up with IBM, and more on the plants to fabricate it.
"Significant cost reductions" for PlayStation 3 hardware was fingered as a major contributing factor to the division's approximate $435.5 million profit during the fiscal year ending March 31, up from a loss of $1 billion the prior year.
|
| |
|
|
Generally, I think the biggest problem developers have had is the shift away from traditional "single-threaded" programming models: it was a fairly major paradigm shift. This was discussed at great length back in the day - e.g.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/5054.ars
Beyond this, developers had severe issues with the PS2 due to the quality of the early dev kits and associated documentation. Legend has it that this was due to a fatal assumption by Sony: having seen the performance people squeezed out of the PSX by coding to the metal, Sony assumed that they'd want to do the same again with the PS2, without taking into account the fact that developers were only able to do so because they'd had several years of prior experience, during which they were supported by the dev kits.
And by all accounts, Sony did much the same again with the PS3:
http://www.ps3blog.net/2005/09/09/ps3-harder-to-develop-for/
In addition, the SPEs aren't particularly good for general-purpose tasks and are highly memory constrained - e.g.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1355827/what-does-programming-for- ps3s-cell-p
rocessor-entail
All told, there's a lot of reasons why a number of cross-platform titles (e.g. Ghostbusters) have come out best on the Xbox 360: the PS3 is potentially a bit more powerful, but squeezing that power out takes a lot of effort...
IMHO: Microsoft's biggest advantage over Sony is their support of developers.
It's a waste of money and resources to be manufacturing all of these proprietary gaming systems that can never be upgraded.
Media PCs are the way to go as one does not have to replace the entire system just stay on top of future advancements or if a single part bites the dust.
The entire console market is just so wasteful, it's pitiful.
How much money would you have spent keeping a GPU set upgraded for the 5 years that the 360 has been on market? Less than 400 bucks plus the price of the PC itself?
You know what's pitifully wasteful? Coding through layers of abstraction in order to support a wide range of metal.
Not to mention that most PC software will be for the lowest common denominator. Either you personally get the entire PC market to stay current, force PC developers to optimize for every single card out there, or convince pirates to actually pay for their games, then maybe PC gaming will make some sort of headway.
I think you're missing the point of my comment.
And what exactly are you talking about with getting the PC market to stay current?
Also, who's to say that these people that are using pirated copies would actually pay for the games if they had no other choice? More than likely, they don't have the money, so it doesn't even matter since people with money are still buying these titles.
Last, since when has pc gaming fallen behind?
It owns more than 50% of the market while the console market has to share the remaining percentage.
http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2010/04/19/hear-that-knocking-s ound-its-pc
-gaming/
I'd venture to guess that a lot of people pirate games because they don't like the uncertainty of knowing whether their hardware can actually play a game well or not.
Most people won't stay current, their GPUs will lag behind a few years, so developers get less of a percent of their audience able to play the game at high settings, which takes more development resources.
Lumping in free to play and MMO? The least graphically demanding games on the planet? Yeah, that's a great argument that PCs are better because they can be upgraded and kept current.
I fail to see why an entire system needs to be replaced every 5 years when only one or two parts need to be replaced to stay current.
If that were the case with people using pirated copies, well that could easily be fixed with developers releasing demos or directing potential buyers to sites that have developed web apps. to determine whether or not your system can handle a particular game.
There are plenty of people who will buy and play games at the lowest settings and if their specs are too low....Well then that probably means they're using a system from the late 90s. In which case, they're not even worthy of being a target audience. Ultimately, it's up to the developers to figure out who their target audience is and it's their own damn fault if they only target people with high end systems. Besides who's to say they can't target people with systems that are on par with the current gaming consoles?
I'm not saying PCs are better or worse for gaming, I was just stating a FACT that the greater majority uses PCs for their gaming entertainment. Argue with that if you want, I don't really care.
If people really wanted to upgrade their systems we would be living in a world where console upgrades were common. Instead almost every attempt to release a hardware upgrade for a console has failed miserably.
Turning the console into a PC is the last thing average Joe wants meaning it is the last thing Nintendo, Sony, and MS want. Then if you include all the developmental reasons not to, and suddenly it becomes a lot more obvious as to why having a standard console is a much better idea for everyone, except a small minority.
The Intel Study proofs next to nothing, because it only counts the number of desktops and notebooks, that are capable of running games. Every single person, I know, that owns a laptop or desktop PC has a machine capable of running games, but most of these people don't play games at all.
The PC gaming market is down, no doubt about that, just look at the number of released titles, compared to the consoles.
No Alan Wake, no Red Dead Redemption, No L.A. Noire should be sign enough of the state of PC gaming.
If you say, there are people with PCs from the late 90s, who play games on their PCs, I would like to ask you, what games they are playing, the late 90s was the dawn of DirectX, we are talking about Quake II and III, Unreal or the original Tomb Raider games. If people still want to play these games, they have difficulties finding them, I would say those people should better take a PS2 or DC, it costs less, consumes less energy and the games run much better on these machines.
You say, you only have to replace parts of the machine, true, but in a 5 year span, you definitely have to replace your Mainboard, cause the new CPU won't fit on a mainboard, that's 5 years old. New Mainboard usually means new memory, cause 5 year old memory modules won't fit on the new mainboard. So changing 1 component (CPU) leads to changing a bigger part of the system, besides, most people simply aren't able to change their mainboard, most people aren't able to install the OS by themself.
Also, there's nothing that says you have to buy a mainboard or any piece of hardware that is incompatible with your current system. You're also leaving out the fact that many average joe's turn to places like best buy, staples, repair technicians, or friends to do their upgrades.
I see consoles as being no different than what macs were before they turned over to using Intel based hardware simply because they couldn't keep up with the advancements in technology.
I don't like Apple and their evil marketing tactics, I would however like to see consoles become more like them with the added benefit of choosing whether or not you want to go with the xbox, nintendo, or playstation gaming OS...or even all 3? OR better yet, any other OS that suites your media entertainments needs without having to shell out hundreds for an entirely new system.
In the end, all I'm saying is that all this proprietary crap needs to go so that we can stop wasting resources. Perhaps, my approach to this is not the best way but I believe it would be a step in the right direction before completely turning over to cloud computing (like what wes bogdan expressed below) in which everything is equally compatible with everything. And not only that, it would bring super computing to the entire world on any device and would eliminate nearly all of our software, hardware, and piracy issues via pay-to-use subscriptions.
We're along way from completely turning over, but google has their sites on bringing cloud computing to games:
http://www.gamewithabrain.com/2008/02/29/news/google-to-bring-cloud-c omputing-to
-gaming
And then there's onlive:
http://www.onlive.com/#3
Proprietary systems are money trees for companies when successful. Look at the xbox for instance. Anyone who wants to sell something to an xbox user must give MS money. All software, all online services, every peripheral, etc. MS also gets to data mine millions of people. And during the end phase of the life cycle, MS gets to sell decade old hardware as if it were new.
The next gen could be magnificent for MS in terms of profits if Sony is marginalized, because with one player, MS can start to squeeze those companies that want to sell things to xbox owners.
Just because players are willing to put up with subpar graphics based on their hardware doesn't mean that's always a positive for the developer/publisher. How would you feel as a developer releasing a game knowing it looks really good, but the impression most people have is below that simply because their specs didn't meet the full requirements? In many ways, that makes the developer look bad.
Also, with regards to demos, making a demo isn't something that comes automatically. A lot of times, time and resources are required to get a demo developed, tested, and released that you often have to branch off from your main build to create a second one.
This generation serves as a prime example, what advantages consoles have, compared to PCs.
First of all, the most successfull console in this generation is the Wii, something, that never could have happened in PC gaming or an PC-like console enviroment you are describing. The console was built around the idea of the Wiimote. Never in the history of computer & video games a gaming input device became standard (like the Wii-mote for the Wii is standard), when it didn't came packaged with the system. Heck most PC gamers still didn't own a gamepad!
You will never be able to play games from Sony, Nintendo and MS on one console, just because Nintendo isn't interested in making software for other platforms, just because they are successfull in creating hardware, where they can realise new gaming ideas, e.g. Nintendogs - Touchscreen, Wii Sports - Wiimote. This would be completely impossible with Onlive and the whole cloud gaming idea.
Second, if you bought an high end computer in december 2005, when the 360 was launched, you couldn't play any of the games, released for this system in 2011. While the 360 still plays fine Fable III, Bulletstorm or Dirt3, your single core PC with it's first generation DX10 card will fail to do so, even with lowest settings.
It is true, there is the whole social media games space (which I see as a bubble right now) and the MMORPG space, if you are interested in these games, you better buy a PC, no discussion necessary here, but for everything else, your console, priced $150-300 (or €) is better for gaming.
hoursepower as far as graphics go. If everyone had super fast eithernet at next to nothing i'm sure the gaming industry would jump all over not producing discs,boxes,systems and keeping the content under lock n key. The downsides would be just as people still buy cd's even with mog and itunes there would be those who preferred bd games and if there ever was a psn sized crash just as you couldn't watch netflix if the internet went down you couldn't game if it was taken down due to hackers or the internet went down in your area...if you could store the games on an external HDD/ SSD then at least you could play single player provided companys like capcom don't treat you like a thief using terrible drm.
By the way i should be able to have a Master Control Profile where i set up all my controls in my system profile and the games are slaves and obey putting my custom scheme in my game profile because all current presets for dual analog games are worthless to me and i went so far as to get my 360 pads rewired and use a custom pad on my ps3,in a post play ,create and share world where i can't even play my way,well that must change.
Makes me wonder why media companies are still freaking out about pirates and pressuring our congress to pass the Protect IP Act...Oh yeah, so they can own the internet and shut down any competition with false claims of illegal activity without due process.
Internet myth:
http://blogs.forbes.com/bruceupbin/2011/05/18/netflix-is-not-30-of-in ternet-traf
fic/
During Peak Times, sandvine reported Netflix is responsoble for 20% of all downstream traffic in NA, but downstream traffic is not the biggest portion in all Internet traffic, P2P traffic is a much bigger chunk of the pie
http://www.sandvine.com/general/document.download.asp?docID=20&source ID=0
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns7 05/ns827/wh
ite_paper_c11-481360_ns827_Networking_Solutions_White_Paper.html
"Well, with Netflix representing 30% of all downstream traffic in North American (making it the king of internet traffic)...it's not that far fetched that we're well on our way to what you've expressed. "
Regardless of how accurate that figure is, the two scenarios are very different:
1) Netflix: send pre-compressed data to client
2) OnLive: recieve data input from client. Render game world. Compress game world. Transmit data to client
Netflix requires large amounts of bandwidth, but doesn't have to worry about latency or transmission issues: video streams generally have a few seconds of buffer, allowing them to ride through packet loss or network interruptions. And since the data's pre-compressed, processing overheads are minimal.
Conversely, Online has to process a huge amount of data and then compress it before streaming it to the client - and latency/packet loss is a huge issue.
All told, it requires at least an order of magnitude more resources to run an Onlive system than a Netflix system - and that's before you take other costs (e.g. dedicated GPU units) into account. Or problems with end-client broadband connections, bandwidth caps, peak-time congestion and connection speed...
Frankly, the internet just isn't ready to handle the cloud concept yet imo. For people in large cities, sure, maybe. But when you think about all the ISPs beginning to consider metered billing and intentionally throttling streaming services, I don't think moving entire consoles 'to the cloud' is a great strategy.
We don't live in a democracy for nothing...
And that is different from the current generation of consoles how? We are already severely limited in our gameplay if we don't have an active internet connection.
I think we'll see the same thing with services like OnLive. They'll gradually become integrated into our systems that we will then start using them. Pretty soon it'll be all we know.
Of course, that's just an approximation.
Alan,
And that is different from the current generation of consoles how? We are already severely limited in our gameplay if we don't have an active internet connection."
Really? Because last I checked during the PSN outage I could still play Uncharted 1/2/3, KillZone 3, Dead Space 2, Force Unleashed 2, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, God of War 3 or pretty much any of the other PS3 games I own. That is with or without the PSN.
The only games I could not play were Fat Pricess, which made me a VERY sad Panda, and LBP, which I did not care about. But my daughter did. She could not play either and that was not cool.
There are so many reasons that the network can go down. DoS attacks like the PSN, weather, natural disasters, technical issues, server updates, ect. The list goes on and on and on. Sorry, but the idea of cloud computing based gaming is inherently flawed for this very reason. No network equals no games. PERIOD.
Then there is Marcus's point of bandwidth usage caps. What to do about those? I have made that point in the past as well. ISP's hold the idea of cloud based gaming by the proverbial sack. They are the gate keepers. They know this very very well. Do you really think that they are going to let this pass by for free? It will cost. How much? I don't know yet but it may be more than the average gamer is willing to shell out. To me this is all just common sense thinking.
Plus, I shouldn't have to mention that devs will only have to develop for one platform (the cloud server) as opposed to multiple platforms. And not only that, you get the added benefit of playing your games on multiple devices anywhere in the world since all it really comes down to is that it's just streaming media which is no different than netflix except that it's receiving mouse clicks and keystrokes to add interactivity with the streaming media.
You really think that there would only one Cloud Server system? You don't think that Nintendo would have one, Sony would have one, and Microsoft would also have one. Hell, maybe even Apple would have one too. Not to mention On-Live and Gaikai, which may or may not survive. Oh, and Steam too.
I also really believe that this utopian dream of a unified cloud based gaming service is just that, a pipe dream. It is never, ever going to happen. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are never, ever going to be that close of business pals. The Sun will go super red giant and the Earth will die of burning before it happens like that.
I also trust the power company to get the power back on after a power outage than I trust Comcast or TW to get the internet back on after an outage. Once I was with out Comcast cable service for four days. They took their own sweet time about it.
The electricity is a tad more important for people to use than the Internet or games are.
I don't deny that there will be some heavy competition, but that's a good thing as it'll advance the technology more quickly....
At the end of the day, this is all just speculation on my part. =]
I for one trust my ISP to get the internet up quicker than my electricity since a blown transformer can put people out of commission a lot long than the later. But this is all dependent on the area that you live in.
Well, it's a hell of a lot better than having to cater to dozens upon dozens of different platforms (hardware and software wise) and to make both low-end and high-end customers happy."
I actually agree with you. It is a logical idea that would benefit the industry in a lot of ways. I am just saying it is never going to happen.
Only time will tell? =]
EDIT: That all being said I figure that a cloud based system similar to NetFlix could work. I have NetFlix. My family and I use it all the time to watch TV and movies. But I also have physical copies of Blu Ray movies and shows I like. Thus if NetFlix does not work I can still watch something. BTW, I do not pay for cable TV.
If the PS4, or even PS3, had a video game streaming service a la NetFlix that was as inexpensive I could see myself signing up for such a deal. $7.99 a month is hardly a large chunk of cash from my monthly expenses. I have watched many, many TV shows and movies on NetFlix that I would have never watched otherwise. The same could be said most likely for a cloud based video game streaming service. People could play the games that they would have never purchased otherwise.
Sony should build a service like this into the PS4 and make it a standard on top of making Blu Ray games available as well. The two ideas could co-exist with little to no problems at all.
The only problem to over come then would the the latency issue. If that could be solved then all would be well with such a service.
You've probably just figured out exactly how it could reasonably be implemented into the market. Although I don't see how it couldn't be implemented now?
I mean the very fact that you can play a game instantly before buying is a double edge sword in that people might not like the game they are about to purchase but at the same it also opens people's minds up to instantly diving in and actually playing those games that they would otherwise never play. Not only that, they can watch other people playing the game they're thinking about purchasing in realtime...Which is one of the things I love about Onlive. It gives me a real preview of my potential purchase rather than some hyped up cinematics and one-sided reviews.
These days, everyone is becoming more and more accustom to instant gratification....
Agreed, Sony should tap into this at some degree since obviously they're distraught about the PS3's success...
That said, you really have to wonder what the point of developing the cell was. Did it really pay off for Sony in any way what so ever?
The PS2 still had games come out last year. It's a 10 year system. There is a period of overlap.
However, we can't say for certain that the future will repeat.
Sony makes a more powerful system, releases it early, and companies may just stop developing for the Ps3 and start developing for the PS4.
Many people are predicting that's whats going to happen with Nintendo Wii. when Project Cafe is released.
27 May 2011 at 9:19 am PST
But why should such a system interest anybody, it would just be a faster PS3, but right now, I see no real limitations in this generations hardware. The only thing that would rise would be the development costs."
Dev costs would initially be lower because the PS3 dev houses would all ready be familiar with the Cell design. Isn't that right? All Sony would be adding is more GPU horse power and more RAM with a faster Bus speed. It would be cheaper for everyone concerned. Those additions would virtually take care of many of the issues that Andrew brought up in the previous post.
Sony could even make the R&D costs back from their investment from creating the Cell with IBM.
It's obviously not the Cell design, that is driving development costs, because developments for the 360 aren't cheaper, both systems have ridiculous high development costs. Those costs would rise with a new system, like that had risen in the past with every new generation. This generation is completely lost in stagnation and sequels, because of the high development costs. I don't expect new games from a console that is just faster then the current console, from such a system, I expect more sequels of the same 3 games, just with more Anti-Aliasing.
I want a game system that can play games that look like Epic's latest tech demo, Samaritan, at least.
Really all PC's get are more powerful GPU's/CPU's, more RAM, and faster bus speeds. Nothing else really changes that much.
Resistance and the conduit shouldn't be the exceptions to the rule but the rule. I use inverted aim,toggle rather than hold(force unleashed with toggle for force powers plays infinitely better than force unleashed 2 which lacks it and if you stop pressing the force power it stops-poor design) My control scheme is based in southpaw but i realized when you move on the right stick and freelook on the left keeping the face buttons in default breaks the scheme. Ghostbusters said it best,"Don't cross the streams!!" Guess what happens when you're forced to move your freelook hand over your right hand to access the face buttons,or you could stop moving and DIE!!
I created what I term FULL SOUTHPAW or MIRROR DEFAULT though you could also call it QUINTISON mode after both my psn and xbl gamertag. They're the same
As for the big N,Sony and MS not working together all each need do is create a portal where on the other end is the UI/dash in xbox green,sony XMB or Nintendo channels all done in software and crunched by server farms which means i could have a nondescript roku sized gateway box.
As i told TWC it's no longer about road runner/the internet but netflix or xbl/psn-what you can do on the internet....eventually they will realize it,sooner if discontent subscribers keep telling them so.
Again never is a very long time like when nintendo would never sell rare to ms.
And the Wii shows the advantages of such a system above your roku sized gateway box, it allows innovation. Your box would be a standard system, evoloutionary dead plastic sitting below your TV. The only evolution would be on the server side, but something new like motion controls would never happen on such a system.
Remember after genisis sega started being first out,first out of date which culminated in their exit from hardware fast forward to now nintendo is being first out ,first out of date.
Wii was weak hardware so they need a HD refresh first but while it might exceed both ps3 and 360 when we get to ps4 and xbox next nintendo will again have weak hardware and 2-3 years after ps4/720 release a newer box...see a pattern because i do. Nintendo will quite possibly stop making consoles perhaps not portables but they could also join up with apple and become APPLE-NINTENDO.
Right now i'm just speculating but if apple wanted in like sony and ms before them then nintendo's very popular ip's would make a great fit. Steve jobs lost bungie and halo to ms after it was shown at macworld which i expect they're still fuming over so partner or outright buy franchises that are coveted and you have a launch lineup worth talking about.
The next version of apple tv could be a new console-stranger things have happened.
I don't see the connection.
"Remember after genisis sega started being first out,first out of date which culminated in their exit from hardware fast forward to now nintendo is being first out ,first out of date."
Don't know what you are refering to, the Sega Saturn wasn't the first new console in it's generation, the 3DO and the Jaguar were released prior to it, so no first out here for Sega. And I would say, the last one, who said "first out" was much more successfull, then the player who said "last out". MS is selling more consoles today, then Sony.
"Nintendo will quite possibly stop making consoles perhaps not portables but they could also join up with apple and become APPLE-NINTENDO."
Nintendo just released their most successful stationary console ever, seems not like a logical thought to say, they "will quite possibly stop making consoles" without giving any reason for that. For the record, the "inferior" Wii outsold the "superior" 360 and PS3 and right now, both consoles will have a long way to go to reach the installed user base, the Wii has today, it's more likely, they will never reach it.
"Right now i'm just speculating but if apple wanted in like sony and ms before them then nintendo's very popular ip's would make a great fit."
Yeah, sure, but they are not for sale.
"Steve jobs lost bungie and halo to ms after it was shown at macworld which i expect they're still fuming over so partner or outright buy franchises that are coveted and you have a launch lineup worth talking about."
The whole myth, that Apple wanted to buy Bungie comes from former Xbox executive Ed Fries and Tuncer Deniz, then project lead at Bungie, it was told in Developer Magazine:
"
"Tuncer Deniz, once a project lead at Bungie, believes the studio’s bosses “asked Apple if they were interested in buying us”.
His account of the circumstances was that Phil Schiller – Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing – then had a meeting with Steve Jobs to discuss if the Macintosh manufacturer should proceed with acquiring Bungie.
“Schiller asked Steve, who said no,” Deniz tells Develop. “[But] after a week, Steve said yes. Schiller calls Bungie, but Bungie had already consummated the deal with Microsoft”.
"
http://www.develop-online.net/news/36183/Ex-Bungie-dev-Apple-got-clos e-to-buying
-us
Sorry, this is nothing but a rumour, the main source says he "believes the studio’s bosses “asked Apple if they were interested in buying us”.", nothing solid, just the usual rumours, that the net likes to spread as facts.
I was comparing nintendo vs sega and left out jag,neo geo and 3do because either it didn't take off or was too expensive and imploded at launch.
While nintendo was content to ride both the nes and snes out sega after the success of genesis hobbled the system with sega cd and 32x then released saturn early and at a high price pissing gamers and retailers off alike. Then it was off to dreamcast which they got right but the looming ps2 killed it and dc has also been refered to as xbox 0 sort of a dry run before ms unleashed xbox on the world.
My fear is despite the success of wii stream will fail to catch the gamers wii attracted with a ps3/360 style controller with a screen in it and much better graphics. If ps4/720 arrive between sept -nov 2014 or 2015 stream will be about halfway through it's cycle as nintendo still builds 5yr boxes rather than a 10yr box. So just as i said stream will be the least powerful box again as i expect ps4 and 720 to be 2x-3x more powerful than nintendo who would rush out their next box to compete with the new Juggernaut systems from ms and sony.
Until this happens it's my own expectation however the past likes to repeat itself so this is what i expect to happen.
As for apple the ds lite /wii look like they arrived from the apple design school so with that in mind and no giant company behind nintendo as ms xbox or sony playstation what would be so hard to believe apple nintendo could happen? When others zig nintendo zaggs sounds like apple to me and if it ever happens i expect it to fit like a glove perfectly.
The future's hard to predict but some things are more likely than others and we'll just have to wait n see what happens.
Nobody knows right now, what features the new system will have, what you are refering to are just rumors.
"If ps4/720 arrive between sept -nov 2014 or 2015 stream will be about halfway through it's cycle as nintendo still builds 5yr boxes rather than a 10yr box. So just as i said stream will be the least powerful box again as i expect ps4 and 720 to be 2x-3x more powerful than nintendo who would rush out their next box to compete with the new Juggernaut systems from ms and sony."
Lots and lots of speculation, nobody knows, when the successor for the 360 or the PS3 will arrive, at this moment, nobody knows, if Sony even will launch a PS4 at all. Point is, Nintendo started in this generation with a system, most people believed to be inferior and now, in it's fifth year, it still has a comfortable lead over the competitors, a lead in Hardware and Software. It has to be seen, were the 360 is in 2014, but it still has a long way to go, before it has the numbers, the Wii has in 2011, not to mention the PS3.
This means, Nintendo can sell in 5 years, what others sell in 8-10 years, so Nintendo is eager to come up with a new system, because they have the chance to release their franchises on a fresh platform and can hope to repeat the success they had with them on this platform.
"Until this happens it's my own expectation however the past likes to repeat itself so this is what i expect to happen."
You are contradicting yourself, the Saturn wasn't inferior to the Playstation, the DC wasn't so much inferior to the PS2, as you speculate the new Nintendo System will be. The 360 was launched first in this generation and succeeded much better, than the original XBox, which was technically superior, but came later in the cycle, or as the N64 by the way, which was also technological superior in certain terms, but failed to succeed, same goes for the Gamecube.
This shows, a relation between the moment, a manufacturer steps in the cycle and his technological capabilities doesn't exist.
"The future's hard to predict but some things are more likely than others and we'll just have to wait n see what happens. "
Here you are right, but given the history of Apple as a NONCONTENT-Provider and it's inability to deliver ever, when it comes to games, it is unlikely, this will ever happen. Besides, this partnership would be useless for Nintendo, because they make lots of money, with their own hardware, why should they let somebody else make the money?
And the success of the Wii and the DS showed, they love to develop hardware, with new features, that haven't been done before and more important, they love to develop this specific hardware with games in mind, that could benefit from it. An approach, that is incompatible with a partnership with whomever.