Are there any benefits to shorter lifespans for consoles?

[vivster]

garretslarrity said:

So when I buy stuff, I want to use it for a long time.  I like the feeling of knowing that I've had something for a long time and it has always worked well.  Technology, even though it moves so fast, is no exception.  Consoles are a perfect example of this.  Not only I want a console I buy to work for many years, but I want their lifespans to be long.  I see a lot of benefits to consoles having long lifespans, such as: 

-The purchase is better justified. 1)

-A better library. 2)

-Developers learn the hardware very well and can create some impressive looking games. 3)

-A greater chance for smaller IPs to make it onto the system (this one mainly applies to Nintendo consoles) 4)

 

So I can see all these benefits to longer console lifespans, but I can't think of any benefits to shorter lifespans.  The only one I can see is that if a system is selling very poorly, ending its lifespan somewhat early can create greater profits.  So are there other benefits?  I named a benefit to the producer, are there any benefits to the consumer?

1) that is highly subjective. In fact I would say the longer the gen goes the less it is justifiable to be that much behind current technology.

2) If next gen launches with the same architecture(which is rumored) then it will have full backwards compatibility to this gen, which gives it instantly the better library.

3) That wouldn't be necessary if they were just supplied with easy architectures and more powerful hardware. A thing that could be done with faster cycles.

4) That's Nintendo's problem and has nothing to do with the length of a console cycle.

 

In fact the only benefit I see for longer console cycles is the small amount of money you save and in case of no BC less clutter on your TV board. Longer console cycles are only beneficial for the console manufacturers and for people who can't do math and/or don't care about visual fidelity.