Do you prefer shorter or longer console cycles?

With how fast technology changes, I prefer shorter cycles, but if the system has good enough games, I don't really mind longer cycles.

The problem with longer cycles is that devs tend to release to many sequels with little changes (can't really blame them). New consoles at least give devs the opportunity to use the extra resources to do something cool.

Shorter Cycles would be preferable but cost is an issue

Hmm I have a mixed reaction to this, because the PS3/ 360 had a long cycle but brought games in the later years that really shined.

On the other hand, it showed how dated technology struggles to handle the demanding experiences developers want to achieve. .

So to answer the question- I don't know.

I think that 5 years is the sweet spot.

no shorter than 5 and no longer than 6 before being replaced and when the next machine does come along it should be a clean break.....no obligation from the developer to support the older console.

it should be in some constitution.

last gen went on too long and this gen is turning into an almighty mess.

Longer... some of the best games of the previous generation came out towards and right at the end of their life cycles (at least when the next generation arrived) Of course, that hardly mattered when most of these games ended up just getting remastered. Still, I just don't see 3-4 years as enough time to get the most out of a console's potential. I don't think gaming is meant to keep up with the latest, most expensive technology. There just isn't a big enough market for it which is why consoles will stay around for the time being until we're just streaming games from our TVs or whatever the ****.

Shorter, tech moves at a faster rate than ever before.

5 to 6 years would be my preference.

5 to 6 seems just about right to me. Any shorter and you don't really give developers enough time to work with the hardware. Any longer and the tech feels too outdated.

Yeah around 5 is probably adequate... give or take a year.

5 years is great. What's the point if it's shorter? Might as well stick to pc only (which is still awesome). If companies were to make their consoles cheaper and 100% bc I would be for shorter console cycles.

Longer. If you look at the golden age of gaming, its always when the console gens were absurdly long.

SNES, PS2, PS3 all considered golden era, all had absurdly long console generation.

Crono Trigger came out in the fifth year of SNES's life cycle, according to OP, there would be no Crono Trigger.

The longer the hardware remains static, the more creative developers can get with the hardware, rather than chasing the tech, they settle down and simply concentrate on the creative aspect of game design. When you are busy chasing the tech, the games suffer. I.E The Order on PS4 is so technically advanced that no other game has managed to reach its visual fidelity, but the game's content suffered from being so advanced visually.

Longer

When I was a kid, longer was simply better; new consoles created new anxiety about feeling left out as rich kids could get the new consoles right away and you'd be left in the dust.

As a young adult with some money, I was somewhat ambivalent. Now I have a great job so I guess I'm happy to throw money at the best stuff all of the time. Still, I want real noticeable improvements for my dollar.

tech might move faster but game development does not. We are long past the days of one guy pushing out a game in a couple months. Then there's a lot of time put in to just building game engines...consider how long it took Naughty Dog to build their's for Uncharted 4. Three to Four year life cycle for consoles would be 1 or 2 games per studio per console and for the tech investment, I'm just not sure that would be worthwhile to studios that don't use licensed software packages....I really don't want Unreal or Frostbite running everything.

The nice thing about long cycles is you reach a visual plateau where graphics become a sort of given, optimization is such that more of the system can be used in other places and game devs are forced to look elsewhere for an edge...like gameplay, AI, etc.

And I promise you that consoles aren't slowing down GPU production. Those companies have R&D costs they need to cover and release new hardware well before the average consumer is ready for them as it is. As for the PC games, well, most of them will run just fine on 5-6 year old technology and that's not because of consoles, that's because of current hardware prices and publishers/devs wanting to sell to the largest audience. It's a similar phenomenon with MMO tech that tends to be developed with internet connectivity metrics in mind rather than just being built for the relative handful of people with access to absurdly fast internet connections.

@undefined:

5 to 7 isn't long enough. It takes too long to make games as it is. Let us get our bang for our buck.

Longer - 5 years

6 to 7 seems fine without a games drought. The Genesis has lived that long, because it had great competition, but for today's standards: 4 to 5.

I prefer longer waits. It allows developers to focus on the current technology and the games. Each time a new console is scheduled to arrive most developers don't focus on the current system and start focusing on the newer generations which causes gamers to complain about the lack of new games....

The longer the life cycle, the more games to justify the purchase, and the bigger the jump in technology from one generation to another. The shorter the life cycle, the more it makes more sense to buy a slightly more expensive PC with a great CPU and upgrade the graphics every 3 or 4 years.

I think longer cycles are good. Just look at the games we've had for previous generations. Last of Us looked awesome and better than anything we had on that console. Developers need time to familiarise themselves with the tech and learn how to get the most out of it. They can't do that in just 3-4 years time.