They are walking in to a shortened cycle, but they do it with eyes open, because they know this was the top-of-the-line, latest-and-greatest hardware three years ago, when it was introduced for $399. Now because it's three years closer to obsolescence the price has come down all the way to $299 (we're assuming). A half-dead console is what your $100 savings buys you. This tradeoff is well established price and lifespan tick down from launch.
Now Neo comes along. Does it play new games, or enable new modes? Nope, it's just the top-of-the-line, latest-and-greatest hardware, being introduced today for $399. (I think we all agree that's the minimum price for Neo, yes?) Now, how do you explain to the average consumer that this launch-day, launch-price hardware is being EOL'd at the same time as the hardware that's three years older? Is it three-years-better, or not? If it really is new, why doesn't it last as long as every other "new" console does? If it's not as good as new hardware, why does it cost as much as new hardware? Your next one is gonna last people six years, right? Just not the one I paid top dollar for because reasons? Da fuq?
The market of people looking to replace their console every three years is vanishingly small. Most people agree that replacing your console after five or six years is more reasonable. House seems to understand this, given that he thinks someone who buys new hardware should expect 5-6 years before it starts feeling outdated. I just don't know why people think he meant, "
except anyone who buys Neo, obviously, because it's so new, it's old."