Refresh models are going to mean 2 years in that new game you want to play might not run or look that great on your "old" console
Which is already the case, except everyone's talking about extreme times here instead of realistic times. The notion that a new refresh appears two years after launch and considerably more powerful than the old version is silly. New hardware after 2 years won't be powerful enough or a large enough target to warrant notably improved games. The real refresh cycle is more like 3 years, and at 4 years, where the old console is starting to struggle to run the games devs are wanting to make, you have the option of upgrading. It's absolutely no different to what we have now, other than the transition becoming softer. Early adopters can stay on top. The general populace can pick the hardware that meets their price and performance preference.
In fact it's a major win. Presently poorer folk waiting for console hardware to drop to <$200 are buying an EOL product. A progressive model means their machine can still run the newest games if at reduced quality. Consider something like FIFA, or Diablo 3. The same game on PS3 is actually a different game to that on PS4. The devs have to keep up two software paths, and of course they can't be arsed with the older machine (in the case of D3, Blizzard gave up and don't update any more) and it gets a weaker game. Diablo 4 will run on PS4, and then PS4.5 will run it without the framerate drops when things get really busy, and then PS5 will also run it and Diablo 5, which PS4.5 will also run. If you only have a PS4, you have the option to buy a $400 PS5 to play the best D5 experience, or buy a $200 PS4.5 and still play it.
Consoles are a complete outlier! The more I talk about, the more ridiculous consoles seem. Again, they have their own little universe outside the realms of normal product cycles simply because the nature of technology required it. I can't think of any other product that has these 5 year reboots. The console experience that people are fearing will be ruined isn't really what you think. The console experience is put in disk, play game. People weren't buying NES or Saturn because they could be sure no-one else was playing the same games in better quality - that's a 'reason' those resisting the idea are pulling up just as a counter point. Gamers bought the boxes to play the games. That'll still be the case! They'll just have a couple more options. Which is no different from having the choice of a $300 console from Company A or a $500 better console from Company B.
I can only conclude that the reservations are just basic psychology and fear of change. They really don't add up, and the arguments against the notion are appeals to things that really don't matter. If the boxes play the games, it's good, especially if it makes the job of providing games that much easier. But at this point it's all getting repetitive so I'll refrain from more arguments.
