Are there any benefits to shorter lifespans for consoles?

[vivster]

fatslob-:O said:

vivster said:

My wallet won't help in that matter. They won't let me pay more for better hardware and buying games on an old system only supports their decision to keep it running. And not buying anything is not good as well. First, my wallet would burst and second I'm the only one buying niche titles so they get a sequel some day.

Imagine a PS5 selling next year with double the hardware, same architecture. Price point maybe 500-600? It will have perfect backwards compatibility and will be able to play all next and old gen games in 1080p60.

And yet you have people object to this great future.

If it's being marketed as a new platform where all devs immediately make the majority of their games exclusive from now on then I don't want to be a part of it and you can count the vast majority of the customers out ...

If it's just an enhanced version of a platform like DSi or N3DS then I have no qualms about it ... 

No one wants to keep shelling out $600 at every 3 years and backwards compatibility is no guarantee ... 

This "great future" that you propose will leave consoles with very few games including the ones you would've liked because of the fact that the install base didn't warrant such a game so your idea is most likely fundamentally at odds with the games you want to play ...

The games I really want won't get made regardless of what I do.

People are already shilling 600 bucks every year for the new iphone. The resistance of not wanting the pay the price is not because the money isn't there but because console players were lulled into thinking that it wasn't necessary. If phones and PCs can do it I don't see a reason why consoles can't adopt the system of quick progression of hardware.

This naturally entails BC because the generations are closer to each other and the leaps in technology will be smaller.