but PC tech is advancing all the time whether it's put in a new console or not.  So the price for stuff will be the same in 2020 whether we're on PS5 or 6.  So why not make the console gens longer and have a bigger leap in power when you do switch?

True, the competition with previous gen remains.

Sure sequals stagnate, yet I think their would have been a lot less buzz about fallout 4 on 360/ps3 than there is now on ps4/XB1. New gen breathes new life into sequels as well.

I meant the gap between AAA and smaller games at the start of a gen is not perceived as big as later in the gen. They're still a step up compared to previous gen. Outlast was a step up from previous gen games for me and competed well with the full launch games. Resogun same thing.

Shorter cycles are better. The longer a console generation goes the longer visuals stagnate. Thibk about last gen and how long that cycle was and as a result game engines get optimized for old hardware and graphics top out relayively quickly. The evolution of hardware is inevitable and the quicker we transfer over the better it will be. I think 5 years is about the perfect time. 5 years is an ETERNITY in technology.

Shorter life cycles will drive hardware development and console manufacturers to follow the technological advances closer. For us consumers it also means possibilities for even more new IPs, since you usually want to release a console with fresh new ideas to come along. It will also help sustain sales for the industry since the "wow" factor of new consoles come more often. This stabilizes the industry and keep growth.

A lot of good games come from long gens and some of the best looking games in a gen come out in the tail end of it. The last of us for example. I just want good games. Graphics are just the cherry on top. 

With shorter gens, you're gonna have more cross gen games and not less. If you honestly want more up to date graphics, get a gaming pc.

You get a more exciting E3 more often.

same here, i see no benefits in short cycles i think long cycles are actually better in the end, im not asking for a decade long cycle but a 7 year cycle like last gen would be welcomed from me, also when the next gen console ends up finally coming out it will be slightly more powerful due to the fact that the market waited longer and more powerful tech used to make the console got cheaper, in other words i doubt a 2013 PS4 would have been as powerful as a PS4 designed with new more powerful and cheaper parts in 2015.

I prefer shorter console cycles. The tech is advancing enough as it is, and consoles are becoming a thing of the past. It will get to the point where a phone that is released every year will out muscle consoles at this rate. But what developers need to do is make sure that scalability is a factor for their games. If they do this then their games can be on lots of devices with little issue, no matter what hardware it is using.

TloU was an exception, which would have worked perfectly well as a ps4 launch title. Many said at the time that it should have been a ps4 launch title. Same with GT6, kinda died in sales by releasing on ps3.  It's not just that the visuals stagnate, things like Skyrim have a bigger chance of occuring, running out of memory left and right, crashing because the developers want to push it further than the hardware allows. The drive for better graphics with each sequel is always there. When the hardware remains the same, other things will start to be compromised.
Shorter cycles will give developers more incentive to better budget for development time. The longer a console cycle lasts, the easier it is to let a release date slip.

The main benefit is that the console will not be underpowered and more up to date