Support NeoGAF

[Hollywood Hitman]

With the new models hitting.... I'm curious what in general you feel console lifespans should be? Do most feel 6 years is still viable? Or are most adapting to the idea of 3 to 4 years and new models?

As a Pc gamer mainly and console second, I feel 5 to 6 years is to long... I love the idea of every 3 to 4 years a new console model, I know many won't like it but I think it's good for keeping up with the rabid profession in how much better games are becoming as years go by.

But just in general curious what most feel currently on the subject.

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

I like a 5 year window. Last gen fucking dragged.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

5-6 years. It takes a while for developers to really get comfortable with new consoles so its counter productive to throw new hardware at them every couple of years.

 

[Fisty]

3 years per console, 6 years per "gen"

I don't mind upgrading every 3 years if it's worth it and b/c is guaranteed. Makes me worry less about taking care of the console too.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

Console that are as ubiquitous as the Wii, PS2 and even the NES should still be manufactured and get major 3rd party releases to this day. Fuck forced obsolescence.

 

[Inuhanyou]

6 years. 7 at the absolute most

 

[Captain Europe]

4-5 years, after a couple of years I want some freshness that only a new console can bring.

 

[zewone]

4-5 years. By then I'll get my $400 worth and want better tech.

 

[EmiPrime]

If PS5 is due in 2019 then I think Sony will have hit the sweet spot. A 6 year console generation with a mid cycle upgrade half way through for those of us who care is perfect.

 

[psyfi]

I don't really care, honestly. As long as each new console works well and doesn't have to go through a million OS updates to run decently, I'm happy.

 

[gelf]

I'm fine with 6 or even more. Progress is overrated if it just means the same games with prettier graphics. I've hit diminishing returns with how games look so I'd rather as long as possible before being forced to need new hardware to play new releases.

75% of games I buy these days would likely work on a system a gen or more lower anyway.

 

[James Scott]

5 years sounds good. 6-7 with a half gen like Scorpio seems fine too. Long enough to give devs time to make games and for technology to progress but short enough that the tech in use doesn't become stagnant

 

[brinstar]

am I going crazy or did you touch your avatar up a bit

I'm fine with 5 years, I keep my consoles plugged in for a while anyway.

 

[kadotsu]

Around 3 Naughty Dog game dev cycles.

 

[primasaurus]

10 years, keep expensive HW purchases down to a minimum

 

[tapedeck]

6 years or so..call me naive or old fashioned but I still prefer devs to master or 'max out' a consoles potential to the fullest..and then fully move on to its successor which is a massive 'generational' upgrade.

 

[Icolin]

6-7 years.

 

[Ishida]

7 years.

 

[axisofweevils]

I think 5 years is standard.
However, if a console does poorly / really well, you can -1 / +1.

 

[michaelius]

3 years with BC- I want a new one every time new semiconductor manufacturing process becomes available

 

[SpideySenses]

5-6, will suck if the Pro ends up prolonging it this gen, I'd like to see a legitimate jump in 2018/19 without being tied to previous hardware.

 

[MrDoctor]

if they're not going to try to keep up with a pc like this gen, all i want is backwards compatibility

 

[0coolclimate0]

Solid 5 years is good.

 

[LCGeek]

Should rarely be more than 3 to 5. We are in era where engines are highly scalable the big 3 need to be better about offering a variety of skus to consumers.

 

[Serious Sam]

6-8 years because:

Year 1 - crappy launch window titles
Year 2 - developers start to get a feeling for new gen
Year 3 - masterpieces start to come out that are generation defining
Year 4 - more amazing games
Year 6-8 - sequels to these masterpieces from year 3 start to come out

 

[fredrancour]

as long as possible. I want to get away with buying as little hardware as I can.

 

[Johndoey]

Probably four-five years.

 

[Donniewahlberg]

If we're resigned to mid gen upgrades, I suppose 6 years is sensible. Selfishly though, I think I'm good on a 4 year investment to be honest. My WiiU has done me that long, as will my xbox have and I will happily upgrade them given the chance, feel like they've gave me my money's worth at this point.

 

[Iva Demilcol]

They could get away with short gens in the past because making games weren't as expensive as it is now. Longer gens is what await us if the 360/ps3 gens are a good indication, and I'm totally okay with that since I still have ps3 and 360 games to beat.

 

[disappeared]

roundabout five years is good.

 

[PlayerOne]

7 years cause the first 2 years are always bleh. Year 3 is when it gets going.

 

[Bowl0l]

Ideal console life span for me is not as important as availability of games.
($600 console + $180 games)
---------------------------
$20(saving in a month)

= 36 months to save for a new console

So, 3 years is good enough for me.

 

[SatoAilDarko]

5 years with no mid-cycle upgrades.

 

[Dovahking]

6-8 years because:

Year 1 - crappy launch window titles
Year 2 - developers start to get a feeling for new gen
Year 3 - masterpieces start to come out that are generation defining
Year 4 - more amazing games
Year 6-8 - sequels to these masterpieces from year 3 start to come out

Pretty much this.

 

[Dougieflesh]

5 years. Anything longer and it's a damn drag.

 

[CarbonFire]

6-7 years. Enough for large studios to churn out at least 2 proper full blown AAA titles on the platform (3 if they can work on launch software). 5 years or fewer just isn't enough time given these longer development cycles for games these days.

 

[AmyS]

5-6 years.

 

[Agent_ShortBus]

I'm going with 7 because 10 feels too long and the 5 feels too soon like it's just at its prime.

 

[Norse]

3-4 yrs until first upgrade and then another 5 till next gen.

Would be cool if consoles had GPU and CPU on a removable cartridge that could be swapped out if you wanted every 3-4 yrs. Then you wouldn't have to buy an entire new console when boost comes out. Cheaper to upgrade then.

 

[Sheentak]

6_7 years ps4 still feel fresh to me.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I hope there will never be a playstation 5 or a xbox two. I hope they will keep re iderating on the existing eco system so ps4 and xbox one games will work on the same updated devices coming out. now we have a scorpio and a ps4 pro for the forseeable future. then 4-5 laters they might make an update that once again greatly expands the power, but xbox one and ps4 games will still work.


It is unacceptable to launch a ps5 that doesnt natively play ps4 content, or will require wonky emulation.

 

[potatohead]

I liked the 7 year gen actually much more time to enjoy the generation and catch up on games.

Plus fewer consoles to buy and rebuild library or buy new controllers and stuff.

And then the following console upgrade for the real new generation is way better

But Yea I expect full bc of ps4 on PS5 given we will surely remain with AMD and x86

 

[Emitan]

Last generation was perfect. I wish every gen was at least that long.

 

[InsaneFandom]

6 years or more is good imo.
Just looking back to last gen the last couple of years put out some awesome games that didn't really seem possible on the hardware at the start of the gen.
Also, if the console cycles are shorter than 5 years aren't they likely to be the same as or even shorter than a lot of AAA development cycles are getting nowadays?

Hopefully everything will be backwards compatible in the console space now. Well, I guess Switch isn't but I'm hoping its successor will be.

 

[zewone]

I hope there will never be a playstation 5 or a xbox two. I hope they will keep re iderating on the existing eco system so ps4 and xbox one games will work on the same updated devices coming out. now we have a scorpio and a ps4 pro for the forseeable future. then 4-5 laters they might make an update that once again greatly expands the power, but xbox one and ps4 games will still work.


It is unacceptable to launch a ps5 that doesnt natively play ps4 content, or will require wonky emulation.

Why do you feel this generation should live on forever and Sony and MS be forced to keep upgrading the One and PS4?

Why not previous generations? Is it because of x86?

 

[autoduelist]

8 years. With a $400 console purchase on launch, that's $50 a year for the hardware. With a growing family, that's the most I can really justify given I'm buying games as well.

If they're any quicker, I'd have a hard time convincing my wife I need a new rig. I sure can't convince her I should get a PS4 Pro given that I have a perfectly good PS4 sitting in front of the tv.

Not to mention, I want a couple sequels per cycle. So... 8-10 years is just about right, and gives a nice big jump every gen.

 

[Fess]

5 years, upgrades ignored, PS5 in 2018 would be perfection.

 

[w0s]

3 years per console, 6 years per "gen"

I don't mind upgrading every 3 years if it's worth it and b/c is guaranteed. Makes me worry less about taking care of the console too.

Agreed on all accounts

 

[goldenpp72]

5 years, gives enough time for 1 or 2 entries for a series and keeps it not too old or too new

 

[120v]

i expect to get a year for about every $100 i've spent on the console.