What is an ideal console lifespan this day and age to you?
- Thread starter Hollywood Hitman
- Start date
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I don't want this generation to live on forever. It's not like that- I just don't want there to be generations in the first place. The only good thing that the moniker of generations has is that it moves more volumes of hardware, but I don't think games benefit.
If it's truly the games that matter, then there is no point in obstructing consumer value by fragmentation and polarization in userbases. It's natural that at a point, support for xbox one and ps4 will drop off for new games. I don't expect or need games made in 2026 to work on xbox one. But I do expect to games from 2016 to work on an xbox or playstation in 2026. Natively and scaleable.
To design a game with scaleable modification could yield further optimizations and improvements down the road. It would lessen the burden and the need to re-released remastered and enhanced previous games.
The dream to me is that a game gets released and then it exist as a singular entity always updated to never be unplayable or be surplanted by a bad special edition 10-20 years later.
Cross platform support between PS4, Steam and Xbox would be a key. If a certain overlay would allow crossplay communication between the devices.
On most apps on the phone, I can have an android phone and play with friends on ipads and iphones and chome os.
There is no sound reason to fragment players. It hurts games. It hurts gaming communities and I hope sony and microsoft will realize that they are stronger together making a better service by realizing that people are more willing to opt into an eco system if they can play with friends.
So we have to stop thinking of games in terms of generations. I dont want games form ages past to have their servers shut off or be unsupported. There is no need for this. What would be better is if microsoft and sony create a infrastructure that benefits consumers, not themselves.
More and more games will have online-online requirements as more MMO and social features and stats and impulsions from other players impact gameplay even in single player contexts; Its about interactive and choice and manipulation of the entertainment, and this is not going to go away. For these reasons also, there is a good reason to not adhere to generations.
What if you're 5-10 years to late to play a game which strongest suite is its online multiplayer? if PS3 and xbox users could play together the effective player base is theoretically doubled and the games in theory have the possibility to last twice as long before they fade into obscurity. So games in single, coop and multiplayer will last longer, and that will be key. I am sick of titles that have the lifespan of mayflies. Sometimes it just takes a few years before you get around to a great game.
7 years atleast the PS4/One needs to be around longer because the development time of a per game basis has increased.
Naughty Dog for example made four brand new games during the PS3 cycle.
This cycle at least so far they only made one!
Rockstar has yet to releases a brand new game....
Naughty Dog for example made four brand new games during the PS3 cycle.
This cycle at least so far they only made one!
Rockstar has yet to releases a brand new game....
killatopak
Member
forever.
Vital Tundra
Member
6-7 years. Last gen stayed around for just a little to long.
I think the idea of forward and backwards compact systems and games makes it meaningless. Like if my OG PS4 will be able to play ps5 games than I can upgrade at my leisure. And that makes it easier for makers to put a new system out every 3-4 years for the tech nuts to upgrade as soon as possible.
7 years after you launch a console you can launch the next one, but at that point you need to support the old console for another 3 years.
aka what the ps3 did.
Heck we are still getting a few high quality ps3 releases next year.
I rarely play any AAA games with high end graphics so the longer it takes the better as there won't be any real difference between the ps4 and ps5 for 99% of the series I play.
aka what the ps3 did.
Heck we are still getting a few high quality ps3 releases next year.
I rarely play any AAA games with high end graphics so the longer it takes the better as there won't be any real difference between the ps4 and ps5 for 99% of the series I play.
Harmondale
Member
6-7 years, mid gen bump like the pro uhm was first against it because of "piece of mind issiues" but fck that let everyone enjoy the model they choose. I usually jump in mid gen, console is Close to half in Price and there is a big and cheap library to choose from
Would prefer ps5 at 2020. That gives me a ps5 pro at 2023, at that time my tv is 10 years and Hopefully my wife lets me purchase a new one.
Would prefer ps5 at 2020. That gives me a ps5 pro at 2023, at that time my tv is 10 years and Hopefully my wife lets me purchase a new one.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
Every node shrink, or similar major technological advancement. But, launch the consoles with high end hardware so they last. Find some way of making it financially viable, like phone contracts or something.
Unfortunately console plebs don't want to pay for decent hardware, but are quite happy to complain about underperforming games ¯\_(ツ
_/¯
Unfortunately console plebs don't want to pay for decent hardware, but are quite happy to complain about underperforming games ¯\_(ツ
_/¯J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
Think there's a lot of actual factors that come into play that don't produce a static result that makes each console's lifespan seem unique to its "sum-of-experience." Dreamcast was short-lived and still one of my most memorable platforms, but its same-gen competitor PS2 shares the same distinction from me and went on for a much longer time.
Xbox 360 and PS3 felt just a bit too long, though admittedly I was still pretty satisfied with software coming out for both platforms right up the start of the current gen... So it's harder for me to define why it felt like it had gone on just a bit too long. Maybe my re-entry into PC gaming about 3/4 of the way through that generation and seeing the IQ and performance gap maybe influenced that, and I know I joined back in on PC gaming at a time when it was very much trending for pretty rapid expansion so I wasn't alone in getting that similar experience. PC has always had the potential to outperform consoles in any given console generation, but I do feel like with the current generation, the IQ/performance only began to feel significant to me with the introduction of Pascal GPUs from nVidia this year, and even then titles exclusive to consoles like Uncharted 4 still make me feel like there's still a good amount of potential to be squeezed out of the consoles before PCs make enough of a difference to me to feel like consoles need to advance to achieve a sense of market equilibrium in terms of capability again. Current gen I hope lasts another 3-4 years, personally, with 2020 being kind of the soonest I want the major players to attempt a whole new generation... But, post-Pascal GPUs on PC could be poised to make me crave console-side advancement sooner, not so much because of the third-party games, but because I'm sure my imagination will start to run wild with how the next big Uncharted-style console exclusive could look when the next console borrows a lower-grade adaptation of the tech seen in cutting edge PCs.
To note, I still consider myself primarily a console gamer and it's mostly because my tastes of game design are catered to a lot more by exclusives such as, say, Uncharted 4, the upcoming Persona 5 and Ni-Oh, or the vast majority of Nintendo's library of games. While there have been many pleasantly surprising port migrations to PC for franchises that used to be console exclusive in recent years, it's still not at a high enough rate (or in some cases, a fast enough rate) for me to have made the complete loyalty swap just yet... So while I do game on PC from time to time, I look to PC as more of a bar of where consoles might go someday, not as my personal primary preference.
Xbox 360 and PS3 felt just a bit too long, though admittedly I was still pretty satisfied with software coming out for both platforms right up the start of the current gen... So it's harder for me to define why it felt like it had gone on just a bit too long. Maybe my re-entry into PC gaming about 3/4 of the way through that generation and seeing the IQ and performance gap maybe influenced that, and I know I joined back in on PC gaming at a time when it was very much trending for pretty rapid expansion so I wasn't alone in getting that similar experience. PC has always had the potential to outperform consoles in any given console generation, but I do feel like with the current generation, the IQ/performance only began to feel significant to me with the introduction of Pascal GPUs from nVidia this year, and even then titles exclusive to consoles like Uncharted 4 still make me feel like there's still a good amount of potential to be squeezed out of the consoles before PCs make enough of a difference to me to feel like consoles need to advance to achieve a sense of market equilibrium in terms of capability again. Current gen I hope lasts another 3-4 years, personally, with 2020 being kind of the soonest I want the major players to attempt a whole new generation... But, post-Pascal GPUs on PC could be poised to make me crave console-side advancement sooner, not so much because of the third-party games, but because I'm sure my imagination will start to run wild with how the next big Uncharted-style console exclusive could look when the next console borrows a lower-grade adaptation of the tech seen in cutting edge PCs.
To note, I still consider myself primarily a console gamer and it's mostly because my tastes of game design are catered to a lot more by exclusives such as, say, Uncharted 4, the upcoming Persona 5 and Ni-Oh, or the vast majority of Nintendo's library of games. While there have been many pleasantly surprising port migrations to PC for franchises that used to be console exclusive in recent years, it's still not at a high enough rate (or in some cases, a fast enough rate) for me to have made the complete loyalty swap just yet... So while I do game on PC from time to time, I look to PC as more of a bar of where consoles might go someday, not as my personal primary preference.
CrashPrime
Member
Honestly the idea of a 10 year cycle with a 5 year refresh isn't so bad. I mean it remains to be seen how this PS4 Pro thing will work out but if they opted for a better CPU right off the bat, right now it seems like it would've made sense. See the 2500k. Still a worthy pair for a 1070.
Trouble was that 8gb DDR5 was not a pairing that made sense and ate away at margin where other improvements could've been made.
Thanks Mark Cerny.
Trouble was that 8gb DDR5 was not a pairing that made sense and ate away at margin where other improvements could've been made.
Thanks Mark Cerny.
Goldfishking
Member
Dont really care.
Games still come out on older consoles and no one is forcing you to buy the new one straight away.
Games still come out on older consoles and no one is forcing you to buy the new one straight away.
Newtype-001
Member
6-7.
Enough for a good enough leap in tech and for a good library to grow
Enough for a good enough leap in tech and for a good library to grow
fatherKratos
Neo Member
Yup, this is great, dint had a PS4, got pro few weeks back and now can skip PS5 again. 6-7 years is ideal, as studios take 2-3 years to get a hang of the system and churn out good games.
This seems about right to me.
Hesemonni
Banned
Ding ding.
Nocturno999
Member
10 years with a mid gen refresh (pro/scorpio upgrades).
Games take forever to release nowadays.
Games take forever to release nowadays.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
5 years at the very least. Last gen was perfect. Tons of games and by the end of the generation they're making great use of the hardware. PC versions would also run on a potato.
Fbh
Member
Something like this.
Console A releases, 3 years later we get console B but A is still fully supported. 3 years later Console C comes out, A will no longer get support but B is still fully supported. And so on.
All of them fully backwards compatible. By the time we get to console D I still want it to be compatible with games originally released in A
Goldenmoney
Member
4-5 years seems fair. Just like laptops, smartphones, underwear, etc.
However long it takes to deliver a 5x+ performance increase at the same price point.
If BC is broken or compromised, you need a good boost to justify it.
If everything is going to be BC from now on ... it doesn't really matter. The term "generation" might no longer mean anything.
If BC is broken or compromised, you need a good boost to justify it.
If everything is going to be BC from now on ... it doesn't really matter. The term "generation" might no longer mean anything.
Silent Chief
Member
Yeah, if it was to go 3-4 years, I'd start skipping generations.
I can only imagine all the new remasters we'd get.
Android18a
Member
The longer the better. Hell, I'd be happy if it was still the PS2 generation. I'd still be buying games for it.
odhiex
Member
Generational gap is still important, to make sure that technology needs progression and advancement, not just "iterrative". However, moving forward backward compatibility becomes more important than ever.
Although in this day of age, the console manufactures may release the pro version of their consoles in between.
I think 5-6 year gaps between generation are acceptable.
Although in this day of age, the console manufactures may release the pro version of their consoles in between.
I think 5-6 year gaps between generation are acceptable.
Black Mantis
Member
I wouldn't mind upgrading every 4 years personally, however, it's important that the replaced console is still supported for a few years after that, for those who don't have the means to buy the latest tech off the bat.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Announce the systems successor in the current systems 5th year, release it in the current systems 6th year.
Goose_Se7en
Banned
About five to six years is the sweet spot. Last generation was way too long, especially considering how quickly hardware advances. Consoles get very outdated in eight year generations.
I wasn't sure about the console refresh idea at first, but after getting a Pro, I think I'm starting to get on board with the concept. It gives the option for a hardware refresh without forcing people into buying consoles every three years, which ultimately seems good.
I wasn't sure about the console refresh idea at first, but after getting a Pro, I think I'm starting to get on board with the concept. It gives the option for a hardware refresh without forcing people into buying consoles every three years, which ultimately seems good.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
Ideal to me would be no more than 4 years. More realistically though I'm ok with 5 years but more than that and the console is probably passed it's prime. Especially in this day and age.
The Praiseworthy
Member
Yes.... 7 - 8 years are perfect, no less and no more,
Are some people seriously demanding a cycle of of 4 - 5 years ?
LOL people... some logic please, with the development cycle each big game takes now that's impossible.
I know it's nice to want things... but don't forget the logic part.
Yeah I don't mind that either. It essentially turns the upgrade cycle to the same as a PC where you can still play older games if you want. I still own a PS3 because it has a bunch of games I can not play on another platform until a sufficient emulator comes along. Selling my PS4 for reasonable money was also easy as it was not a end-of-life product that would get no more new games.
I would not mind a situation where developers can drop PS4 support when PS5 is out but make the game run on PS4 Pro so people on the previous gen can still enjoy new games if they can't afford to upgrade.
Risk Breaker
Member
6-7 years or so.
ferrasvansen
Member
5 years for me is ideal, but could stretch to 6 at a push.
