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.

[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.