[Radd]

There is educated supposition about technology trends over a relatively short term time span, and then there's bold statements about the future of technology 10 years hence. For a very long time now videogame generations have lasted pretty much 5 years, with several consoles enjoying a year or so of decent support into the next generation.

The 360 is a hundred dollars more expensive than the original Xbox, but the original Xbox was not trying to push a new console generation a year sooner than it otherwise would have come. The 360 came out 4 years after the original, while most console generations last about 5. A year can change a lot. Not only better tech, but more inexpensive ways of achieving better results (hence the redesigned NES, Sega Genesis, and the Slim PS2)

There is also the issue that significantly more impressive 3D graphics are getting more and more difficult to attain. This means more expensive hardware if you hope to continue releasing consoles within a 4-5 year time frame. If graphics are the only thing you're interested in, that would indeed suggest either longer console life spans, or more expensive new consoles.

However, several things. The success of the PS2, the DS, and the bright looking launch of the Wii (or alternatively the relative failures of the Neo*Geo, Dreamcast, Gamecube,and Xbox. Or even more complex, the failure of the Saturn) show beyond a doubt that graphics power alone does not determine a successful console.

It's really not hard to imagine Nintendo releasing a console with graphics on par with the 360 or PS3 for $300, using a Wii-like controller, in 4-5 years, and Microsoft releasing a console with better than PS3 graphics with a Wii-like controller for $400-600.

That's not including any possible leaps in graphics technology that may or may not occur in that time. This is simply itteration and streamlining current technology.

another thing to take into account is blueray/hddvd; if one of those starts to become mainstream, even for game developers, than the next xbox may have an added $100-$200 cost...

You forget, if either becomes the industry standard as DVD had, then in 4-5 years it will be significantly less costly to implement those media formats into a gaming machine. Sony chose to implement BluRay despite it being such a new technology because they hope to force it into the position of industry standard. The graphics capabilities of the PS3 alone do not warrant the added price above that of the 360. By then, BluRay/HD-DVD may well be in the position DVD was when Sony chose to include DVD capabilities into the PS2. The PS2 launched at a modest $300. Here we are a generation later and you can practically pull DVD players out of cereal boxes.

So really, in 4-5 years, the ps3 will be competing against an xbox that is graphically stronger, more expensive and has no game library other than whats on the the 360...

And, ignoring all of the above, you can really make this identical statement about any new console generation. Yet new console generations continue to appear, and people continue to buy into them.

(really, how much graphically stronger can the next system really be?)

Statements like these, when made by the famous, often become the source of derisive humour 4-5 years later.

grant it, this is all second guessing tech... so it may not pan out this way

Second guessing, or educated guessing. One thing that is true, though, is that it remains impossible to completely see the future and know with 100% accuracy what will occure in the coming years. Nothing is black and white in this world, and what happens is the culmination of many individual occurances leading up to them, which in turn leads to many other occurances. All we can do is see what has come before, what is happening presently, and see where that is likly to lead.