Noo its not i means you maybe bought a system for 300 - 400 euro's hoping you wont need to buy one in the next 5 - 7 years and than after not even gaining that much of a support only a handfull of goodgames you need to buy the " new " console in 3 - 4 years its stupid!

IMO, that would not be a PS5. If Sony and Microsoft want to take consoles down that road, then I am perfectly fine with it, but new console should only come at a quantum leap in tech. I would basically consider what you are talking about as a PS4s similar to apples mid cycle upgrades. Basically they would sell one PS4 version of the game at retail, and it would just run better if you had the 4s or whatever. 

I honestly think this is a really good idea when they hit the next chip shrink. They can easily slap say 4 more CPU cores, and 10 more CU's on the GPU, and increase to 12GB of GDDR5. That should be able to hit the market at $399 in 2017, and it would hold people over tell 2021 or 2022 when a true PS5 could come out on new architecture.

It is hard to get it across to people that consoles can evelove as long as they have the same architecture. I have been trying to get this same point across with the Vita. Sony could easily make a 4G Vita with 3GB of RAM, 32 or 64GB of built in memory, and 24 hour battery life. At this point they could sell something like that for $300 and it could completely eliminate the need for a cell phone. However, people just put up a wall when your talk about refreashing a console mid-cycle. It angers me greatly that smart phones and tablets can get away with this at 200% mark up and people do back flips, but on a console selling at or below the bill of material this is an outrage. 

If Sony and MS did this, then the consoles would be relevent enough to the point were people would start replacing their smart phones, tablets, and PC's. Due to more people using them they would get more and more 3rd party apps just like ios and android have due to mass usage. This would put actual gaming devices in the hands of maybe 500M people instead of 250M, and the more people that have gaming consoles, is more people buying games, which means more money for games pubs and devs, which means more new ip's, and more games for us. 

To sum it up. Mid-cycle refreash, same system, same tech, just on steroids = good. Shorter console cycle, new branding, different tech = to confusing and potantially disasteruos. But, thats just my opinion.

I would say it made sense that console lifespans were short (even though they kind weren't always that short) when technology was increasing by huge leaps and bounds and we could _see_ it every 5 years.

Now the only reason to release a new console is to add some new gimmick or gizmo. I would prefer we had 7-10 year console lifespans, depending on the health of the console or the gen.

By level playing field I mean, any developer that wants to start out with the new hardware doesn't have to face a huge catalog to fit into. Early games receive the benefit of there not being that many games available yet, while the most hungry consumers are the ones that buy the console first.

Sequels happen and stagnate over the years as a console gen goes on. Publishers focus on pushing the graphics for each sequel leaving less room for extensive physics, smart AI or many characters at the same time on screen. Small teams have a much harder time producing anything that looks close to the graphic fidelity AAA games have gotten to. At the start of a gen everything is still fresh and people don't mind the gap so much, nor shorter games.

Unfortunately this gen the hardware isn't that big of an upgrade and we're already at the stage of graphics pushing innovation away :/ At least there's still a bit more (dumb) characters / cars on screen.

Personally, as long as the console supports full backwards compatibility, I wouldn't mind updating regularly because I can afford it and I don't have many consoles to replace.

I replace other more expensive items like my phone and laptop far more frequently than consoles not to, mention collecting other expensive items, such as guitars, so it wouldn't be an issue.

It's more a matter of whether companies can get the install base they need and if others would be willing to upgrade every four years or so. Having game that automatically adjust to the different spec hardware in different gen consoles could fix that. So, for excample, a game plays on an old ps4 but plays in 4k at 60fps with some enhanced graphical features on a new ps5.

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.

I agree with this, but I also see a huge benifit in doing more of a mid cycle refreash similar to what vivster is talking about. With a mid cycle refreash where they just add more of the same CPU and GPU cores, and increase the RAM, it would not effect development at all. All devs would have to do is build the game for the OG model and ramp up the res/fps and effects for the mid cycle model. This would allow players that bought the OG console and are content to continue enjoying all new games, and also let new buyers get a better experience. Another benefit is if your old console dies, then the newer model will play all of your games better. 

In this scenario a console can easily be on the market for 8 - 10 year before needing a full replacement. That would mean the next version would be a major improvement over the last, and it would mean a massive library for the generation. Honestly a mid cycle refreash is a win, win, win for gamers, developers, and publishers.

You alone won't make much of a difference but those people who wanted to support the games you like will be discouraged from what you envision ...

Phones are a necessity in this day and age, however gaming platforms are not. Hardcore gamers are the only ones with the bias of valuing gaming as a hobby over many other things so you can't just enforce your ideals to those who are not as dedicated as most of us are. Almost no one shills over $600 for a new PC every year and consoles can't do the same with phones because many people who buy consoles don't spend as much time as they like seeing as how the tie-in ratio is about 9 games for every console and a lot of people just see these platforms as a COD box or a FIFA box ... 

Backwards compatibility is a harder subject than you think. It's NOT just the CPU that you have to account for but the same applies with the GPU and the memory system. If ONE just ONE of those things are not the equivalent or a superset then backwards compatibility is either out of the question or troublesome. If AMD goes under the chances of Nvidia or others being able to deliver backwards compatibility could be very slim ...

The only benefit used to be getting cooler new tech sooner, but that was when it was advancing rapidly. Now things are evening out, so I say bring on another 7-year gen at least.

Except that when a new console gets released they absolutely are competing with previous gen games.  Not to mention they must contend with _new_ hardware with can increase the cost of making that new game, thus increasing the risk.

Sequals stagnate all on their own.  If you are talking about new hardware with new gimmick controls that is yet another risk.  Whether it is graphics, physics, AI, or whatever, it all requires more powerful hardware.

Likewise I think yet again you are wrong that people don't care about the gap in these things compared to previous gen.  People absolutely want better games than previous gen.

This gen has yet to see its limits. Seriously.