By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 on 18 April 2015
Edit Thread
bigtakilla said:
Aeolus451 said:


Maybe. 5 or 6 years is too short. They just need to release games in the console gen's later years and I doubt anyone would have any issues with the gen lasting too long.

The last year and a half of the Wii had IMO its best software releases (Pandora's Tower, Xenoblade, The Last Story, Skyward Sword), but I still was very ready for new hardware to hit the market. I understand it's my own personal opinion, but I feel 6 years is pushing it. By then I'm ready for better visuals and performance than what I currently got. Releasing more games will not alleviate the fact that the visuals and performance of said games will remain the same (granted they will improve the first few years while developers are learning the tech, making new game engines, ect).  

Oh, and 5 years is the average console life cycle, why do you feel it is too short? Here is a link to all console gen releases (about 5 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console

5 years huh?

PS   - 1994 to 2006 
PS2 - 2000 to 2012 
PS3 - 2006 to 20?? 

Nintendo 64 - 1996 to 2003
Gamecube    - 2001 to 2007
Wii                 - 2006 to 2013

Xbox           - 2001 to 2008
Xbox 360   - 2005 to 20?? 

I like to get the most out of my money when I purchase a console. The more games that are released within a gen the more I benefit from my investment. The best games within a gen are released in the later years of a console. Why would I want devalue my investment in a console by shortening the console gens? Developers have more time to create multiple games within a long console gen.  I don't care about graphics. Otherwise I would buy a gaming pc. I'm completely fine with the graphics for the entire console gen.