Going Forward What Do You Prefer For Console Generation Length?

[The 1 2 P]

After several generations where five years was the standard length of time before the next generation of systems started releasing the Xbox 360 changed things up a bit and extended the previous console generation to eight years before the next gen started. And even though the Xbox 360 and PS3 are still available for purchase in stores today they have been on borrowed time since 2013 when the Xbox One and PS4 launched.

So what does everyone prefer, the shorter console generations lasting 5 years or less, one's that last 10 years or more or somewhere in between? I personally enjoyed the length of the last gen for a few reasons. First, I didn't get my Xbox 360 until 2009, four years after the generation started. And second, since it lasted longer than the standard 5 years it gave me lots of time to get caught up on all the games I've missed out on during the first 4 years. Third, we're still getting new games for last gen although most of them are ports or multi-gen releases.

So going forward how long would you like the Xbox One and PS4 to remain on shelves before their successors replace them(even though both companies will likely continue selling the older systems for a few years after)? Or in general how long would you like console generations to last in the future, including this one?

[Tanooki]

I grew up on Nintendo and their effective shelf life on systems has been 5 years despite the longer support (at times) on stuff. SNES was outdone in 5 but lasted a bit, N64 the same but barely lasted beyond, Gamecube too. Sony though which I also get into seems to follow their 10 year of solid support model which is cool but the systems do overlap as well. Personally I think a decade is too long for the price of a system investment wise to be a true focus but as a secondary device sure, and I think given the annoying cost of consoles now versus stepping up even to a moderate PC a good 7 year 'alone' window would be very nice with it trickling out to a decade like Sony does.

[Satoshi_Matrix]

Oh definitely the longer, the better. The length of the seventh gen couldn't have made me happier. It means older titles can be bought on the cheap years later and still be on a system where current stuff comes for it, plus it means that there's a much greater chance that games that appeal to every taste will get released for said platform.

[Tupin]

I don't know, I feel like this current gen was stunted by Sony and Microsoft keeping support for previous generation systems for so long. Maybe it was a lack of interest in people to upgrade, too. No real incentive this time, no major tech jump.

[kupomogli]

I want to feel like I've gotten some value from the console, but that extra year from the seventh gen just felt like way too long. I think six years would be perfect, while five is a little short. With architecture so similar to PC, I also want to see these consoles fully backwards compatible with everything digital and at retail at launch, with the more powerful hardware giving performance boosts to unlocked FPS games.

[Gameguy]

With how modern consoles are, 10 years or longer is perfectly fine. They're more than powerful enough to do what they need to. I can see companies not wanting to do that because they'll have to guarantee that the hardware will still be fully functional for that whole period, but that's what it should be.

[otaku]

I grew up with 5 or so being the norm and am fine with that though these longer periods work fine to because well its nice not to have to upgrade so quickly because of finances as long as good games keep coming and the hardware holds up reliability being a concern. Gives them time to revise the systems and lower prices to for someone like me to obtain. I am just now getting comfortable with joining the next gen as we now have some games and the hardware is getting more affordable. anything past 10 might be too much and 5 might be to soon so I vote in between 7-8

[ProjectCamaro]

I think eight to ten years is best. It's enough time for a lot of great games to be made while being able to update the hardware on a timely matter as well. The last generation got it right.

[The 1 2 P]

The last generation got it right.

Agreed, although another reason for the longer generation is because our game systems are now media hubs. Five year gens were fine for back in the day when all we did on our Atari 2600, Nes and Sega Genesis was play video games. But today I play games, watch blurays/dvds, stream online episodes of shows from tv apps, stream music and even order and watch my UFC pay per views from my XBO or 360. I think all future systems will probably continue to have all these(and many more) features, with Nintendo being questionable. If only these systems could get power increases through software updates.

[Tanooki]

I want to feel like I've gotten some value from the console, but that extra year from the seventh gen just felt like way too long. I think six years would be perfect, while five is a little short. With architecture so similar to PC, I also want to see these consoles fully backwards compatible with everything digital and at retail at launch, with the more powerful hardware giving performance boosts to unlocked FPS games.

That's my feel for it why I said 7 years is fair before it gets replaced (not saying do what those trolls at MS ddi with xbox and cold turkey kill it for 360 though) and let it die over a year to 18mo with starkly reduced support. I want nothing to do with backwards compatibility though if it raises the price of the system, or they do shady crap like Sony charging for PSN downloads again for the same game (like the PS2 on PS4 starting up now.) I'd think with the power of the hardware older stuff should just straight up work unless the jump from last to current gen hardware is so wonky it can't emulate/simulate it right.

Given the crappy prices of the games at $60+(with special releases) and the hardware starting in the $400-500 range given these aren't full multi-use boxes like PCs I think they should get a longer life to get a good value out of them. Given they are media hubs at least for music, dvd/blu ray, and netflix(etc) services they need to last longer for that type of use on the consumer end.

I feel I got my use out of the PS3, and while I ditched the games since patches don't last forever, it's still a daily use box even more than my PS4 since it's often running netflix, disc movies, and also youtube in the main room. But as it stands if I hadn't got my new PS4 a couple years back with some shenanigans I did for $200 I'd feel ripped off at $400 so far as I've had few games (dozen~) so far and mostly used it for movies as is. I think given 7 years of life before a PS5 pops up I'll be satisfied.

[WCP]

I used to really like shorter generations, but honestly, the jump (lately) is so minuscule that I think it's better if generations are dragged out, so that you see more of a jump forward with the new technology.

[Tanooki]

That's a good point. The jump from PS3 to PS4 so far hasn't been some big hop like PS2 to PS3 was. Given how so called 'behind' the WiiU is and looking how it appears it doesn't feel all that lost in the weeds against the other guys in presentation value as the Wii did against PS3. The longer jump of time would make sense so you could more qualify bothering to buy the next system to see a real change in things.

[WCP]

I'm not sure if Virtual Reality is going to be this huge game changing technology or not. However, if it does become a huge game changing technology, I could see the generations getting dramatically shorter, because basically it will be all about getting the new and improved headset. The new and improved tracking. Higher resolution screens, smaller, more lightweight headsets. The newest glove or wand type things that let you "feel" the game.


Eventually, the hardware might be built into the actual headset itself, making it wireless, or maybe just a single wire for power.


At that point, maybe every six months or so new headsets will arrive with some new bells and whistles. It will almost be like cell phones basically. Actual video game platforms will kinda become meaningless. Most people will either hook it up to their computers, or the headsets will just have the tech built in, or maybe console makers will make special boxes to use with the headsets, but I'd imagine that these boxes would have to be refreshed like every 2 years at the minimum, because things will start to move so fast. The fear of being dramatically behind the technological curve in VR will be so great that companies will be unable to milk out 5 or 6 years from their graphics technology, for fear that one of their competitors has something dramatically better and everybody just jumps ship to that platform. It's going to be a constant upgrade cycle.

What I'm talking about is probably about 8 or 9 years away from happening, and obviously it will only happen if VR actually catches on in a huge way and becomes the dominant platform going forward.

[Tanooki]

While VR seems like a novelty if games actually went down that road I'd write them off in that respect and stick with TV/handheld dedicated devices whether Nintendo/Sony are wiped out and it's Android/iOS or not.

I don't want to get into a repeat of the 80s/90s computer era where your crap was outdated so badly after just 2 years you had to sink another 1000 into getting a full new tower with all new parts so stuff would work and not crawl or fail entirely. I was happy when PCs kind of hit the wall a decade ago or so with the dual/quad cores where they'd last a long time if you just plopped a better video card and inched up the ram a bit more as well. Even a somewhat of a turd stock PC could get stuff like that added later to make it far nicer.