We're not talking new consoles here, but updated ones. 2 years later, playing the latest games at smoother framerate and better IQ and more stuffness (more/better grass, particles, lighting, etc.). The correct comparison is PC - smartphones just shows an example if high product refresh rates that works for both developers and consumers. On console, the development tools and targets are more sophisticated than touchies, so the game can be scaled up with minimal effort.
Because I'm assuming the status quo, that the attitudes shown by consumers in upgrading other items in their life would spill over into wanting to upgrade their console experiences too. You're suggesting consoles are uniquely positioned in that consumers buy them and then don't want to improve their experience at any cost for 5 years. Given a choice, I expect a fair few gamers would love the chance to get the same games only better - that strikes me as logical based on observation of people talking about games (the framerate in this game is terrible. It's subHD. The jaggies hurt my eyes). I'm not seeing a reason to believe that the response of 100% of gamers when confronted with a chance to upgrade their experience and solve those issues to be, "but I want fixed hardware that the devs max out, even if the results are low framerate, sub-HD jagfests!"
I'll go so far to ask what other industry doesn't have tiered experiences for different budgets? You can buy entry level, mid range, and enthusiast TVs, cars, sound systems, tablets, food blenders, etc., all compatible with the high-end versions just providing an inferior experience at a lower price. It's only consoles where there's only one to choose from and no cost/benefit variety. Console gamers are the only mass-consumer market I know of where there is no provision for high end, more lucrative enthusiast products.
You have created your own logic and wrapped it around an argument which is somewhat anecdotal. Whereas you ask me to bring up an investigation, you brought up your gut feeling. Using the opposite gut feeling for example I would like to point you that while some people wish their consoles played games at higher framerates and better resolutions there are also many that complain that their PC is never getting maxed out and hence not their money's worth since developers dont deal with a closed box. There are many that dont like having to upgrade to get the best available experience and many who dont like dealing with driver and compatibility issues.
There are many that appreciate the stability of the console and the fact that the console they got is the best available version for years to come until the next version is released.
Not all console core gamers, especially the first adopters who paid premium would like to know that a better version will be out in 1 or 2 years. They will be wondering whether they should wait or not to buy the console if buy at all. Its a convenience that many of us appreciate even though we would like better framerates and HD. I would have been pissed if me who was an initial adopter will have to upgrade my console to get the best LAST OF US experience. I dont mind as much if I play a game on my android that runs better on another though
If someone is not satisfied with the console anymore, he has a solution available already. Its called PC and will immigrate there. The rest will stay on consoles. Its a natural way to make the market decide who will remain on which.By the time that consoles continue to have a strong demand in the market enabling them to last for 7+ years is a great indication right there that consoles dont need to be forced your "upgrade" solution. The market has demand for the console market as it is even if some wish they got better framerates or resolution. Let the market decide.
You are later comparing different markets different products bought for different purposes and upgraded for different reasons. It looks like it makes sense, but it doesnt once you take the facts in.
People dont upgrade their TV's every 2 years because a better version was released. A TV investment like a console is destined to last for far more even for a decade, whereas an android device is upgraded by many even in a few months.
All TV's that now have the standard features (HD, hdmi, Digital Receiver) regardless of model regarding their primary purpose have a much clos
er image quality between each model than from android device to android device, or from console game to console game.
Both TV's and android devices have the ability to segment the market because they have multiple devices at varying performances at varying prices released simultaneously by multiple vendors. Unlike those your proposal suggests one console that continues to have a single path, every 2 years instead of every 7 years. In addition android devices do not include just one type of product. There are multiple devices that have android, bought for different purposes that people upgrade for different reasons. Because there is a clusterfuck of android devices around, there is no hardware target but many customer profiles. Regarding when it needs upgrade, you buy an android device and it will start feeling slow and sluggish after some time as there are more and more demanding software releases. So many consumers are forced to upgrade. At the same time you can buy a new state of the art android device that runs software that look or play like crap because the developer of said software was targeting a bigger market that included weaker devices. Some upgrade for games, some upgrade for work, some upgrade because its trendy, some upgrade because they like to have the best version available despite not using fully its potential (see smartphone fashionability) etc.
Unlike consoles people have less demands on the performance of an android especially when it comes to games. Whereas you may see some people wanting better resolution or textures or framerate or what not on a console release you will see people caring less about their android devices. So once again using TV's or android devices as an example does not fit