No.

They came out at the right time.  What people don't realize is that Current gen consoles cost way less now, than last gen. consoles costed when they first came out.  At the start of last gen. you had X360 selling for $399, and PS3 selling for $499.

While that is technically the same amount that the new consoles cost now, due to inflation, $399/$499 is not worth as much as it used to be, and therefore, the new consoles are cheaper.  Because the new console are cheaper, it means that the HW in them will be less powerfull in compairison to PCs than the X360/PS3 were compaired to PCs back in 2006/2007.

So it's a trade off.  We have less powerfull consoles this time around, but at the same time they are cheaper, so we can't really complain, just be thankfull that game prices haven't risen to $70 yet.

How did we survive the earlier generations?

The Xbox 360 and PS3 were half a year ahead of their PC counterparts. Blu Ray wasn't the norm, but Sony included it in their console. Sony and MS brought out HD consoles, while normal televisions were the norm (Nintendo followed the norm at that time and traded it for the motion control innovation). It's not about pampering to the norm, it's about looking what's going to become the norm.

I'm actually surprised by the fact how little resistance there is in this particular case.
It IS a game that heavily implements several online features, among them various multiplayer modes. So, in the past many demanded 60 fps for such a game...and even for games where there is no need for it. Now we are here and suddenly 30 fps for playing online is totally alright???!!! :-O Where are those people now?

Personally, I'm ok with 30 fps in general and in multiplayer too.
It is just so bizarre that specific games do get a nasty bashing and others don't for the same thing.

In gen 6, 60fps was the standard. We didn't have to servive. We prospered. Now 60fps is a "big deal," which is bull shit. If you're not striving to push the medium forward by doing something the generation before it couldn't do, like with No Man's Sky, you don't have the right to make your game run at less than 60fps. 

The Wii only support SD and it was first, Blu Ray drove the price up of the console that made it a loss for much of its life, Motion Control "Innovation" is luck that hitched on to a fad, Sega did motion control way back with the Activator. Blue Ray was probably the only New thing from last gen since literally every thing was "innovated" and tried earlier even on consoles.

Not to mention PCs were still more powerful then last gen consoles, its just that powerful PCs were much more expensive. Had the PS3 cost 1000$ instead of 600$ pcs of comparable power would only be a few hundred dollars more.

The upperbound has always exceeded what consoles have been able to do, power alone has never been the priority behind making consoles.

It would be good if people actually knew what the parity clause is instead of making baseless comments.  The parity clause involves CONTENT not graphical or performance features.  

Try reading through the thread. I've acknowledged I could be wrong.

BS.

first person shooters should be 60fps all of them as for others genres it doesnt really matter.

My post wasn't meant to be taken seriously.