Support NeoGAF

[March Climber]

5 years. Because in the PS2 era it was enough. Of course it should be more now but the question is in general not this gen in particular. I think that if you accept the idea that 1 game per generation that seems to happen often those days then the less time is "lost" in a gen the faster we can get another sequel of the best games ever, regardless of what game is considered the best. Maybe in a few generations the jumps in tech will slow down enough that it will be possible to go the phone route of 1 each year but I hope that it will be in a long time.

The PS2 was not fully dead in 5 years. You simply stopped playing it in 5 years.

These are examples of games that released on PS2, post-PS3 release:

Okami
God of War 2
Persona 3/P3 FES
Persona 4
Baroque
King of Fighters XI
Hot Shots Tennis
GrimGrimoire
Red Star
Rogue Galaxy
Socom
Final Fantasy 12
Phantasy Star Universe
Burnout Dominator
Eternal Poison
Yakuza 1 and 2
DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi 3
Tales of the Abyss
Mortal Kombat: Armageddon
Dot Hack G.U. Vol 1, 2 and 3
Valkyrie Profile 2
Stuntman: Ignition
Wild Arms 5
Smackdown Vs Raw 2009

These releases range from late 2006/2007 until late 2009, which is around the time the PS3 finally found it's footing with price slash and the Kevin Butler ad 'It only does everything'. If PS3/360 came out in 2008 or 2009 instead of 2006, I think people would have been fine with this output. The length between PS4 and PS5 was arguably too short, and Covid didn't help matters, because the PS5 had an extremely dry start.

 

[SEGA_2012]

10 years would be perfect!

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Put out hardware every 5 years, mandating that games run on the last console, and have the cloud infrastructure to run games on old hardware. Day 1 buyers know they have roughly 10 years before they have to upgrade or go cloud.

Edit - I fully understand this would not have worked 20 years ago, but we're reaching the point of diminishing returns on 'next gen' hardware. I personally don't think 8k televisions are going to be anywhere near popular in 10 years compared to the jump from CRT to 4k. The innovation will come with game design, as opposed to, "Look at the pwetty qwafics!!!!"

 

[Icymanipulator]

6-7 years seems like a good spot. Games just take longer to make now. The hardware should be around for a while to build up a decent library.

 

[tr1p1ex]

as long as they can make good games and sell consoles.

some consoles deserve longer cycles than others.

 

[TLZ]

Would've said 6, but I'm not getting any younger. I want to see and play as many console gens as possible. So 4.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

The PS2 was not fully dead in 5 years. You simply stopped playing it in 5 years.

I didn't stop playing it after 5 years. GOW 2 and Budokai 3 were amazing! Just that the 360 was out 5 years after the PS2. So I "could" have stopped playing it if I wanted to. Like the PS4 that is still clearly alive with games like Resident evil 4 remake, Elden Ring, GOW Ragnarok ...

These releases range from late 2006/2007 until late 2009, which is around the time the PS3 finally found it's footing with price slash and the Kevin Butler ad 'It only does everything'. If PS3/360 came out in 2008 or 2009 instead of 2006, I think people would have been fine with this output. The length between PS4 and PS5 was arguably too short, and Covid didn't help matters, because the PS5 had an extremely dry start.

In hindsight, maybe. But putting the PS3 out in 2006 was probably needed just to learn how to make them cheap enough a few years later. a 2008 PS3 launch would mean that the Blu Ray format is delayed a little, or weaker than it happened in reality, the Cell would have been a nasty surprise to developpers later than it was so the HD revolution would have happened later too. And the 360 is in a sense in my opinion Xbox Megadrive. By being late they would have lost a lost of the opportunity that Sony gave them. So they probably would still be out in 2005.

 

[Bakkus]

At this point they could last easily over 10 years.

 

[LRKD]

8, but I certainly wouldn't mind it being a little longer as well.

 

[gimmmick]

7 - 8 years. We are at the point at diminishing returns and would rather have developers get the most out the hardware.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

I went with five years.

You'll get five iPhones in that period and probably 5000 and 6000 graphics cards at this rate.

Plus five Assassins Creeds

 

[vaibhavpisal]

7 yrs for PS/Xbox

5 yrs for Nintendo.

 

[DenchDeckard]

6 to 7 years was always my goto but if new hard ware starts coming every 3 to 3.5 years then OK.

 

[the_master]

Definitely phone model. Microsoft has the right approach with having a value and premium SKU which they'll hopefully just replace in the market with more powerful S2 and X2 in a year or two and organically drop software support as the market supports it. The idea of a console generation should just die when everything going forward is just going to a more powerful iteration of what we have now.

This mediocricy is what would happen if competition ended. The dominant brand would sell hardware at a profit and slowly release slightly better hardware to milk more the user.

-Games would never run optimally
-Technological advancement would be slower
-Higher waste and pollution for minimal benefit.

 

[the_master]

7 yrs for PS/Xbox

5 yrs for Nintendo.

But Nintendo is the slowest of all.
Remember gc=wii and for how long the switch or any of the handhelds have been.

 

[Damigos]

6 years, 1 less than what is currently.
7 feels just a bit too long for me, 6 should be my sweetspot

 

[NahaNago]

I'd prefer every 5 years but picked 6. Even if you released it in 5 years you still have the cross gen games for the first 2 years with some even coming from the first party these days so why not every 5 years.

 

[Team Andromeda]

I miss the good old days when the console gen just lasted 5 to 6 years. That is more than enough time for any console.
The trouble is now mind it takes 4 years to make a bloody game LOL

 

[balls of snow]

5 year without a midgen upgrade. 7 years with midgen upgrade.

 

[balls of snow]

I miss the good old days when the console gen just lasted 5 to 6 years. That is more than enough time for any console.
The trouble is now mind it takes 4 years to make a bloody game LOL

Even now, every AAA dev not named insomniac gets at most two shots per gen. Rockstar and Bethesda, one game per 10 years.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

a console generation should last as long as it takes to have a minimum of 6-8x jump in performance.

Or not, whats the point?

The generations are getting longer because its taking longer and longer to get that kinda performance increase. At this point, if we do it every 5 years, you get maybe a 2.5x jump. Every 7 years we get maybe a 5x jump.

There is no need to be jumping to a new generation if we can't have a meaningful jump in performance. That is why we have these 3+ years cross-gen windows now.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Idk anymore because what does it look like when they stop making games for these newer consoles with SSD’s? For a large majority of people, these consoles play just fine. There’s nothing wrong with the graphics or the load times. I don’t exactly want to be a console hoarder. GTA6 will make the PS5 last a lot longer. Even with your 4060 GPU’s, most games look the same. NPC’s and scripted dialogue from characters still look rubbery textured. I’d honestly say the games that expose realism don’t always impress me, so a console lasting longer than 5-6 years is fine by me.

 

[Alan Wake]

7-8 years is good. It gives developers time to launch a game and a sequel. After that time the console usually feels a pretty old. But this could potentially change with mid-gen upgrades like we saw last gen. To me, Xbox One X didn't feel old when Series X/S launched.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

5 Years, no Pro consoles. That's the ideal for me.

 

[jshaver488]

8 years with mid gen consoles at 4. 2ish years of cross gen.

Performance gains have slowed down and are continuing to slow down at a drastic pace, so the gens should be longer.

We’re at the point now where we might be lucky to get 2x performance 4 years into the gen with a pro console…. Last gen it was 3 years for a 2.3x bump with ps4 pro. Previous gens were massive jumps.

 

[Hendrick's]

Console generations no longer exist. With that in mind, iterative hardware improvements like phones is the best option.

 

[Punished Miku]

we're reaching the point of diminishing returns on 'next gen' hardware.

I can already hear the people complaining about no PS6 games fully taking advantage of it, or all its good for is playing PS4 and PS5 games.

 

[poodaddy]

As long as possible. The excitement of a new gen is gone for me, replaced with anxiety about my library being backwards compatible, finding a spot somewhere in the house for the old gen console or selling it, putting money aside for the new ones and of course my daughter will want one of her own and my wife typically wants Nintendo's newest for her self, so it's expensive as shit when the gens shift, and then I prefer to have a display that makes use of the newest technologies supported on the new tech, so I might end up having to buy a new TV, sell the old one or move it downstairs, pay to have the TV's mounted as I never trust myself with that shit, clean up the huge amount of messes that result from the refreshing of all the entertainment centers with new tech, learn the new consoles' interfaces and idiosyncrasies, buy new controllers so that we all can play together and controllers are insanely expensive now, buy expansion storage because there's never enough default on consoles at launch by design, get the sound systems connected to the new tech and make sure everything is synced up properly and compatible; I mean it's legitimately a fuckin nightmare now just to get everything set up. I'd be fine if there was no new generation at all to be frank. Just kind of over it, I just wanna play games. If there is a decently priced service you can buy with new generation technology purchases where a team comes out and sets up your entertainment centers to your liking I'll probably purchase it honestly, as it's a real hassle every time. Don't know if that's a thing or not.

 

[thefool]

I voted 10 year or more.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Even now, every AAA dev not named insomniac gets at most two shots per gen. Rockstar and Bethesda, one game per 10 years.

I like the era of 5 to 6 years. 6 years is long enough for a console IMO but I guess the issue is more down to development time for games

 

[hlm666]

2 years, new models every 2 years like most other tech shit. Just start making sure the games have vsync options for the quality modes so you can just use that with vsync off and shoot for the stars.

 

[fart town usa]

For me, as long as possible. The current gen is honestly underwhelming as can be. Not that I'm unhappy with it, I love my PS5 and have no shortage of games to play but we really are at diminishing returns and I'd rather see studios get efficient and maximize what is already there before trying to up the ante in mediocre ways.

Modern gaming just feels so uninspired and stale. It's borderline pathetic in most ways.

 

[R6Rider]

The current 6/7 isn't too bad, but I honestly wouldn't mind 5 years.

 

[EverydayBeast]

From a business view 5 or less years bc that’s what’s going on in pc gaming the value of your precious graphics card drops immediately you leave the store. Meanwhile PS3 was a trend setter and did 10+ years.

 

[Warnen]

I’d say 4 years if we count mid gen upgrades as new gen, 8 if not.