No, it's not that ridiculous. What would be ridiculous would be for consoles to have the same kind of aging a PC has... A new console every (just to be a bit generous) 2 years? No way that's gonna happen. A manufacturer wants to get a return for their investment in technology and other factors before moving to something else.
And that's the right thing to do. If the PC just had a bit of that, things would be far better for the PC gaming area. Take that for sure. But it's not, and it won't be, hence... it's like it is. Not much to add in that sense.
And about the slim versions... come on... you can't be serious... you appraise Intel or AMD for improving their manufacturing processes (like going from 65nm to 45nm, or from 45nm to 32nm, and so on...) but you continue bashing consoles because they do the same?
A console is a FIXED platform... why can't you just accept that? In a fixed platform, the better manufacturing process and the higher yields you can get out of each wafer destined for the CPU/GPU, the better. And why?
Because it reduces manufacturing costs (so Microsoft or Sony or whoever can produce more consoles with the same initial ammount of money). And not only that, but also they can make their units perform even better (with less thermals) AND the chance to change slightly the looks of the console (Yes, the looks... why not?).
The first PS3 consumed around 200 watts of power at 'full-throttle', while it consumes 'just' 95 now. The first XBOX 360 consumed around... 180 watts (don't remember the exact ammount, somewhere near that mark?) and the 'new' S model consumes around... 80-something watts. Isn't it an improvement?
I don't pretend to say consoles are super-hiper-mega-yay! (not really...) but come on... it's not like they're the anti-christ or whatever... just because some developers decided to let the PC down for some games, it doesn't mean the consoles ARE the culprit for your personal disillusion...
Like I told you... come on Sean, you can do better than that