Topic: Will this generation be as long as the last?

Hopefully not, the previous generation felt like it was on life support in the end.

Having generations longer than 5-6 years with static hardware is too much, IMO.

Really? I thought the best games only came out after 6 years, and by the 8th year things were only looking up. IMO, it could've gone another year or two (and technically is/did last/ing another 2 years), especially since developers aren't exactly doing much different with the new hardware...

I know what you mean. Of course, Greatness takes time, but maybe they could've held off on the PS4 a little while until they were ready to release some impressive games? Oh well.

Nintendo in HD is as good as it ever HAS to be. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't make a console with the same specs as their competitors.

No excuse for it taking any time at all. (And it didn't really for those that supported the PC properly in the first place see Wolfenstein).

Well developers can do more with the consoles, but are bottlenecked because the publishers want sales which means targeting last generation as well.

But yes this generation will probably last as long as the one last one did on the Microsft/Sony side of things. `While its true last gen lasted longer due to recession, but we've gotten to a point in technology where certain devices are replaced far more quickly. Case in point I bought my Xbox One the same year I bought a new TV and I probably won't buy another main console for six or seven years. I typically upgrade laptops every four years and phones every two years.

The first year with any console developers are getting to grips with the hardware, not only that they'll be upgrading or building there game engine's. Also some developers haven't even announced there current-gen projects yet, 2015 is the year of Bloodborne, Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, MGS: The Phantom pain, The Witcher 3, Batman: Arkham Knight, Street Fighter V (if it makes 2015) these game's alone are impressive.

As a gamer I'd say the PS3 and Xbox were dragged to the finish line. The games near the end were some of the most well designed, but ran very poorly. Most were 20fps or less. I introduced myself to next gen a little early by building a PC with Radeon 7950 in it so I could play big name games like Bioshock Infinite without muddy 720p or sub 30fps. I'm amused that the PS4 uses a lesser graphics chip than the 7950 over a year after getting it. Despite that I think PS4 will be consoles last good stab at 1080p, I believe 4k is next on their plate in 5 years or so.

I didn't understand word you said after that, but at least we agree on something. :T

Seriously, as a gamer who plays games for fun, design is all I care about. I'm not a tech geek. I'm not a computer geek. I don't know the different between a motherboard and an ironing board. I do know most of the games I played that came out after 2011 were good while the vast majority of everything that came before it on the same consoles haven't aged very well in only a few years strictly from a design and sheer-funness level. BioShock 1 was a poor FPS, while BioShock Infinite made me wish it was the game we got in the first place. inFamous 1 was a bloated Open World super-hero game that stretched its ideas too thinly, while inFamous 2 showed that they were clearly holding back, introducing way more abilities, enemies, and mission variety that drastically improved the pacing. And the bosses were actually fun, too, instead of this. Ni no Kuni was one of the best RPGs to come out last gen, and certainly one of the most gorgeous. Tales of Zestiria looks like it'll kick the pants off of Tales of Xillia as far as actual gameplay goes, though we still have to wait for its release.

To put it bluntly, they were finally figuring out how to focus on making good games with the engines they had. Now they have to start all over again. Even if the learning curve isn't as big this time around, this gen better be as long as the last, because maybe by the end of that we'll have some real masterpieces.

I think the PS4 will have an even longer lifespan than the PS3, I'm not sure about the Xbox One and PS Vita (the Vita's not doing bad at all in Japan) but I think the Wii U and 3DS will last shorter than the DS and Wii did.

Crossbuy between Xbox One and Windows 10 would be interesting (I hope the January 21st announcement is something like that).

I am not sure what they are going to do. (But I am interested).

I think it will probably last at least 7 years and possibly more. I think 9-10 is a definite possibility, and I hope it'll last that long. I don't new a new console coming out a few years. Then I'll be getting on my feet in the wolrd an may not be able to afford a new $400 console plus another $60 for a game.

@Caniswolfred I disagree about inFamous 1, as I thought it was a fantastic game, but I do agree about Sasha though. Ehhh, she freaks me to this day, and I still have have absolutely no desire to know was she is trying to do in the picture you linked. I also don't get why so many of the evil side-missions involved helping her. I didn't want to help her, I wanted to slowly turn her into fried chicken, and the game sets up that feeling on purpose. Helping her came out of nowhere and is just like why? Can't I kill her instead?

I actually meant the boss battle itself. That was one of the worst boss battles I've ever played. I was ready for the game to be done long before that, too. The writing was bad - I had no context for what was going on or even what I was doing in the missions and why at least half the time. The pacing was awful - I seriously thought I was almost done with the game by the time I hit the 1/3rd mark, because I had most of the unlockable powers and had played every mission type several times already. And when I got to that new area, did I get brand new mission types to do? Not really. It was just more of the same 4(!!!) missions to do over and over and over again. The basic combat was great, but not enough to pull its own weight. Searching for shards - the only major collectable in the game - became tedious, too, since they were generally in the same areas of similar looking buildings, and you needed over 20 of them before they actually did anything. The abilities had very wide gaps between levels, and you only got a tiny bit of xp from killing enemies. So you could got 4+ hours very early in the game before you actually got to upgrade a power. And by then you're probably sick of the ones you already use...freakin' Spider-Man 2 on the PS2 was waaay better at doling out new powers and generally keeping the game fresh than inFamous 1. We're talking about a 40+ hour game when it should've been half that long when you look at what's actually in it...

My guess is that its going to be a couple of annoucments xbox wise

1.Cortana, windows 10, and the new browser on xbox one.
2. Same app store between all three platforms.
2. Xbox One to PC streaming (Think remote play or the steam streaming)
3. Microsft's version of PlayStation Now for OG xbox and 360 games.
4.Probably a reel or a few announcements of games built to work on all three platforms.

@Caniswolfred The boss battle was okay, but I personally thought the pacing was fine. I thought the story was great. I have no idea how you thought you were almost done 1/3rd way through. That would have been way too short a game. I don't remember it being too repetitive either. There was also another major collectable in the game, the dead drops (data drops? Maybe I heard it wrong) that you get from the dish recievers on the rooftops. And how is it a 40+ hour game? I beat it in like a week (two at the max) if I remember right, and I messed around in the game (a lot), and did some side-missions. Unless you try to get every shard which I don't see the point of. I know I also put more than 40+ H into the game overall. I spent hours upon hours running around after I beat it. And on the power upgrades, I don't remember having too many problems with it, but I don't remember it well enough to make a good reply for it.

The boss wasn't that bad,it wasn't perfect but it wasn't terrible.

They were still pretty expensive for the first couple years PS3/360 were available. What also helped last generation was the switch from analog to digital signals which forced a lot of people who owned the much older TVs to upgrade.

I find it interesting how most of you doubt Nintendo's ability to "quickly" release a cutting-edge console (4k, more powerful than PS4/One).

Rewind even just 6 months and most people on this board were whining about Nintendo's inability to have an online structure much like Live: can't download when the system is off, can't que to download remotely, can't preload games, 3DS/Wii U accounts not connected, etc. Look how quickly all of that was fixed. Have a bit more faith.

Taking into account some of the comments made by Nintendo concerning hardware limitations, I actually think it is quite probably their next system will be a beast. They will still have a couple years to gauge whether or not 4k is sticking (and it is, but you know), and their next console will launch in 2017 and be infinitely more capable than One/PS4.

Or not. I'm just another internet person spouting opinions lol

They still don't have an account based system that's not tied to your console I believe. They still are noticeably behind on in the online game. Which espcially for the aforementioned problem they have is unexcusable for a system released post PS360.