Is is best to have a console out long term like for 7+ years until that X company releases a new one or is it better to go short term with your console and only have it out for 3+ years until a new console is being manufactured?

If you have short term the console can compete with PC graphics, newer better hardware, gizmos, gadgets, and prices drop faster on older consoles.

If you have one out long term games can become better and better the longer there worked on, the company would probably make more money off it, more of a possibility of expanding on that console with add ons etc.

What are your thoughts?

Developing a console takes a lot of time and money. The Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 took years to return a profit to their respective companies. And lots of people would be very annoyed if they had to completely replace their consoles every three years... Not to mention people would avoid buying it after the first year because they would fear a new one's announcement.

Long term is obviously much better for consoles. I don't want to have to buy a console every 2-3 years with just minor improvements / revisions over the last one, and most likely with some kind of contract or subscription tied to it.

Plus, think of all the software compatibility issues you'd run into by constantly upgrading consoles every couple of years.

6 to 7 years is about the perfect life cycle for a console.

Long term 100%

Long-term seems better for both the software developers and the makers.

6 to 7 years. Is there a reason they can't be more staggered? Every 2-3 years a new console from a different manufacturer would be nice. WiiU should have come out last christmas.

The 5-6 year lifespan works best.
Any shorter and it feels like I'm not getting my money's worth.
Any longer and the system outstays its welcome and starts to feel old and boring.

Six year lifespans would be preferrable.

im a nintendo fan(boy?) but i would prefer a 10 year cycle ala PS2 with tons of games and full use of the hardwares capabilities.