By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How long would you prefer a console lifespan to last before replacement?

 

I prefer...

5 years or less 9 14.29%
 
6 years 22 34.92%
 
7 years 16 25.40%
 
8 years or more 16 25.40%
 
Total:63

7 or more years in fine by me. My PS4 still delivers amazing games and I'm not craving better graphics. I'm not sure I get people getting "tired" of a generation as long as developers are making new original content for a console it feels fresh since I'm experiencing new adventures constantly.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network

I honestly would not mind if console generations became obsolete, and we transitioned into a period where generations are indiscrete with smaller upgrades. I'd rather have a Switch now and it be supported for a long time, and if I choose to upgrade the next console would still be able to run the same games but nicer. I want to play 10+ year old games on a console much like we can already do on PC.

The challenge in this, though, would be consumer confusion (I do think the custom-PC market would be larger if the choices on PC builds were streamlined). Something like a phone line, with 2-3 year upgrade iterations would be more consumer friendly and could still lead to success for hardware manufactures. I think Nintendo might legitimately go down this route with the Switch. A high-grade Switch, mid-tier Switch and introductory Switch could all coexist in the same market, I think, and they could all be upgraded every few years.



vivster said:
I want new hardware every year. Generations are a bad concept and hurtful to both consumers and developers.

Every year would be too much. The nicety about consoles is that a game can be guaranteed to run the same for everyone. So much hardware differentiation will leave a lot of consumers unsatisfied with their hardware very, very quickly. Developers would also have the challenge to make sure their games are optimisable widely so they capture the most audiences possible. I also think generations are an increasingly outdated concept, but yearly is a bit much. 2-3 years could be more reasonable and give everyone - consumers and developers - a bit more time to settle in to their hardware choices. 



I would like a generation that lasts about 10 years personally. I like taking things slow and sticking with a platform.

Edit: I'm cool with mid gen refresh though.

Last edited by Shaqazooloo0 - on 08 July 2019

Longer is better. The next generation is already quite close, yet it feels like the current generation just started (and it felt like it too started too soon).

I might change my mind if extensive backwards compatibility and cross-generational releases ever become a thing, but we're not quite there even though the situation has improved - at least judging by rumours.



Around the Network
Zkuq said:
yet it feels like the current generation just started (and it felt like it too started too soon).

Don't think I've ever seen someone who thought the PS3/360 generation should have lasted longer.



Barkley said:
Zkuq said:
yet it feels like the current generation just started (and it felt like it too started too soon).

Don't think I've ever seen someone who thought the PS3/360 generation should have lasted longer.

Was probably mostly because of my backlog. It wasn't a bad generation though, and I wouldn't have minded seeing it around a little longer.



6 years is good enough for me.



vivster said:
I want new hardware every year. Generations are a bad concept and hurtful to both consumers and developers.

Hardware more ofeten would be great. I think every year is a bit too often, but I wouldn't be against it is something justifiable becomes possible. All I would really need to upgrade would be a new HDMI standard, Support for Higher Resolutions, Better Audio Playback, More RAM, a new Bluetooth or USB standard, basically if they can introduce a new standrard from the current year, then I am good with an upgrade. Then there is the obvious of a new fab process, offering either lower power consumption or improved CPU/GPU for better performance.

I don't think generations are a bad concept though. Having a baseline to build to is a good thing. I know that if the target was moving that developers could set their own baseline, but that would make it difficult for consumers. I think it is better for the market if there are generations. It makes it easy for consumers to understand. If they go to the store and pick up a game that says PS5, it works on any PS5. Having a generational standard for a decade, while people that want better performance, or the latest tech standards from their box have the option to upgrade within the generation, IMO is the best possible scenario. 

For me the XBO X doesn't feel too dated. I have a UHD Blu-ray Drive, support for Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, a new Elite Controller coming this year that uses USB Type-C. The only thing the XBO X is lacking is VR support. The Pro on the other hand is in need of an upgrade, as is the PSVR. 



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

It's circumstantial, but 5 years can feel too short now. 
Especially if you buy a system a few years into its cycle (as most people do), and if you do so because there weren't enough compelling games out before then.

The 7 year cycles with PS3 and PS4 felt pretty good with how the games were released. Although I could (and probably will) go a bit longer before jumping into next gen. And that's partially because I got my PS4 in Feb of 2016.

Last edited by Hiku - on 08 July 2019