Are there any benefits to shorter lifespans for consoles?

[SvennoJ]

Aeolus451 said:

1337 Gamer said:
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.

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.

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.