I count slim reductions as 'new' systems.
I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. Especially since slimmer versions of consoles are usually intended to reduce
manufacturing costs and are usually associated with price drops
, which would make the gap even bigger. If Sony did something weird here it's the fact that they didn't drop the PS3's price...in fact they actually increased the cost of the cheapest model (while bundling more junk, whatever...).
They practically are since they're intended to make you go "Hey; this is an upgrade, better pitch the old one and buy this one."
Who the hell thinks that? New models are intended to reduce costs as I already mentioned and to attract new customers. If there are a few idiots out there who will buy a system they already have just because it's in a different box, well I'm sure Sony won't complain but they're hardly the the target market.
The Wii/3DS comparison doesn't follow the logic of my argument anyway. You missed the point where I'm talking about the cycles being within an approximate year of each other. A better comparison would be the Wii U/3DS. Which will be roughly $300 (Wii U basic) to $170 (3DS basic). A perfect example of how your handheld system, within a rough one year gap of your newest console system, should be cheaper. Not more expensive.
That's a completely cherry-picked biased comparison. Remember the 3DS came out in the very beginning of 2011 and it was still more expensive than a Wii then (while the Vita is almost a year younger). Yet you insist on comparing it to something that's not even out yet. By that logic we ought to be comparing the Vita to the PS4 or whatever, which I assure you will cost more than a Vita when it's released.