Are there any benefits to shorter lifespans for consoles?

[Aeolus451]

vivster said:

fatslob-:O said:

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.

Those people have to be suckers then. I don't need or want to buy a new car, house, lawnmower, clothes, phone, girlfriend, dog, friends, PC, laptop, tablet, ect every year just because of clever marketing and others doing it. I do not like to annually rebuy everything. It is completely baka.

Just because phones and PCs do it, doesn't mean consoles should too. If we update hardware faster than devs can keep up with, they'll just try to make games that are easy and quick to make versus games that take 2 or more years to develope. I like shit the way it is.