This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Home video game console generations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Home video game console generations" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of History of video game consoles was copied or moved into Home video game console generations with this edit on 25 January 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
"A new console generation typically has occurred approximately every five years, in keeping pace with Moore's law for technology, though more recent generations have had extended periods due to the use of console revisions rather than completely new designs."
If this is true, then Switch would be 9th generation, because 5 years after November 18, 2012 is November 18, 2017, meanign Switch fits into that "approximate 5 year" span. This needs to be rewritten to say 7 or 8 years, because approximately 5 is too close to Wii U's lifespan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:B551:602D:FB82:96AC ( talk) 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The Switch is 9th generation. Putting two generations of consoles in one "generation" in the article doesn't make any sense. Especially when they were released 5 years apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.72.60.172 ( talk) 08:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree with that previous poster. "Sources" for this subject are generally not authoritative, and really this whole topic is a kind of (crowdsourced) original research. The huge overlap in dates between "generations" shows how much the topic needs refinement. I'm thinking back to first and second generation here. Atari 5200 should be considered a new generation over Atari 2600, and the new machines of its time (Colecovision, Vectrex) were a big leap beyond the machines of the late 1970s. The 1st and 2nd generation articles are too inconsistent. If Magnavox Odyssey (1972) even merits its own generation (generation zero is probably more appropriate), it should not be classified as it currently is with a Nintendo system from the Atari age of the late 1970s. Systems from 1976-1979 (i.e. through Intellivision) were in direct competition and should be in the same generation, which I would argue should be 1st generation (with Atari 2600 at its center). The next wave of competitive releases, right in the middle of the video game peak boom, should be second generation: Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex. I think earlier editors were just reluctant to account for the substantial gameplay differences between 8-bit machines when pondering classifications for that time. But having lived through it, these differences were clear. Then, the Atari 7800 should be a third generation console, competing with Nintendo (NES), etc. There is room to fix these problems, as it stands. I doubt that the sources could ever agree without starting inductively and generating clear definitions based on actual patterns. This feels like it was theorized ad hoc by persons who were caught up in later generations, then tried back-dating the concept to a time they were unfamiliar with. First generation article should not include any system (e.g. Nintendo) that post-dates the second-generation Atari 2600. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B10E:A2BA:2DA4:7A18:580F:BEB6 ( talk) 17:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The Nintendo Switch is a 9th generation console because the Wii U is 8th generation and released in 2012, five years before the switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyIsBest ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Nintendo switch is of ninth gen, it started it. it's a architectural leap over the wii u and a advancement in innovation. Wii u is a gen 8 console and a failure, switch is defacto an early ninth gen console, it's technically.more advanced than ps4 and xbox one despise the lack of power. Consensus is non existent and should not governe the reality that the sqitch align with ninth gen. This is misleading people researching the subject on wikipedia and mistaking the switch next to the wii u gen when it shouldn't be . May as well call the wii gen 6 because it's only a modified gamecube with an innovative concept (the controllers). 70.53.173.172 ( talk) 02:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The Atari 5200 should be one of the clearest examples of a new generation, being released over 5 years after its predecessor (and causing that earlier system to be renamed as the Atari 2600). To squeeze so much time into the second generation is simply not accurate to the advances during that key time, nor to the marketing and actual competition between systems. Atari "2600" was a direct competitor with Odyssey 2 and with Intellivision. The new wave of consoles in 1982 involved direct competition between them: Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex. These newer, latter consoles also needed to compete with the boom in home computer games/systems such as Commodore 64. Even though Atari "2600" (and Sears VCS) were the biggest seller for several years after they appeared in the late 1970s, they were definitely clunky and weak by the standards of 1982. The generation numbers should accommodate this extra generation, perhaps by making Generation 1 into Generation 0 (or a pre-generation period when the entire industry was primitive) and the real start should be with the earliest set of what is currently called Generation 2. This also approximately matches up with the difference at that time between video arcade games before and after Space Invaders--quite undistinguished before, quite large afterward. To place Magnavox Odyssey in one generation and Odyssey 2 in another makes sense, but the difference between the late-1970s consoles and the 1982 consoles was also very large. Even a Generation 2a and 2b would help illuminate this vital historical distinction in this article. There are numerous reviews in magazines that make clear how great this difference between systems was perceived at the time. The playability of console games was finally becoming comparable with arcade games by 1982, as shown by Colecovision. 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Add Steam Deck GTRus ( talk) 08:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Both Sony and Microsoft have now offered their perspective that a new generation will happen after 2027/around fall 2028. Should this be mentioned in the article for future generations i.e. 10, or is industry speculation out of scope? ZigZagZoug ( talk) 20:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Having now read it, I STRONGLY recommend removing "Winners-Take-Some Dynamics in Digital Platform Markets: A Reexamination of the Video Game Console Wars" by Kemerer et. al. as a reference on this page, or anywhere on Wikipedia. The paper itself is not about console generations, it is about how prior to the internet, the game console market exhibited a strong "winner-take-all" behavior, and multi-platform games and download games have changed this. This would be fine for use as a reference. The problem is that the console sales per generation (their chosen metric) exhibit strong duopoly behavior instead of winner-take-all. Instead of being a professional researchers and modifying their thesis based on the data, the authors stooped to manipulating the data in very dishonest ways.
For instance, the authors wanted to show winner-take-all behavior in the late '80s to early '90s, but the SNES and Genesis do not show this. They instead show a 5:3 split. So, the authors split the Genesis and SNES into separate generations and claim that they did not compete, therefore both dominated their generations. That would be bad enough, but the authors did it again with the original Playstation and Nintendo 64. Since they did not compete, they dominated their respective generations.
Given the level of data manipulation, the other references in the paper should be used with care, as they were very likely chosen to support the paper's thesis while omitting conflicting references. I have not dug into the references, so this is just a suspicion. UrQuan3 ( talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Home video game console generations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Home video game console generations" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of History of video game consoles was copied or moved into Home video game console generations with this edit on 25 January 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
"A new console generation typically has occurred approximately every five years, in keeping pace with Moore's law for technology, though more recent generations have had extended periods due to the use of console revisions rather than completely new designs."
If this is true, then Switch would be 9th generation, because 5 years after November 18, 2012 is November 18, 2017, meanign Switch fits into that "approximate 5 year" span. This needs to be rewritten to say 7 or 8 years, because approximately 5 is too close to Wii U's lifespan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:B551:602D:FB82:96AC ( talk) 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The Switch is 9th generation. Putting two generations of consoles in one "generation" in the article doesn't make any sense. Especially when they were released 5 years apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.72.60.172 ( talk) 08:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree with that previous poster. "Sources" for this subject are generally not authoritative, and really this whole topic is a kind of (crowdsourced) original research. The huge overlap in dates between "generations" shows how much the topic needs refinement. I'm thinking back to first and second generation here. Atari 5200 should be considered a new generation over Atari 2600, and the new machines of its time (Colecovision, Vectrex) were a big leap beyond the machines of the late 1970s. The 1st and 2nd generation articles are too inconsistent. If Magnavox Odyssey (1972) even merits its own generation (generation zero is probably more appropriate), it should not be classified as it currently is with a Nintendo system from the Atari age of the late 1970s. Systems from 1976-1979 (i.e. through Intellivision) were in direct competition and should be in the same generation, which I would argue should be 1st generation (with Atari 2600 at its center). The next wave of competitive releases, right in the middle of the video game peak boom, should be second generation: Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex. I think earlier editors were just reluctant to account for the substantial gameplay differences between 8-bit machines when pondering classifications for that time. But having lived through it, these differences were clear. Then, the Atari 7800 should be a third generation console, competing with Nintendo (NES), etc. There is room to fix these problems, as it stands. I doubt that the sources could ever agree without starting inductively and generating clear definitions based on actual patterns. This feels like it was theorized ad hoc by persons who were caught up in later generations, then tried back-dating the concept to a time they were unfamiliar with. First generation article should not include any system (e.g. Nintendo) that post-dates the second-generation Atari 2600. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B10E:A2BA:2DA4:7A18:580F:BEB6 ( talk) 17:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The Nintendo Switch is a 9th generation console because the Wii U is 8th generation and released in 2012, five years before the switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyIsBest ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Nintendo switch is of ninth gen, it started it. it's a architectural leap over the wii u and a advancement in innovation. Wii u is a gen 8 console and a failure, switch is defacto an early ninth gen console, it's technically.more advanced than ps4 and xbox one despise the lack of power. Consensus is non existent and should not governe the reality that the sqitch align with ninth gen. This is misleading people researching the subject on wikipedia and mistaking the switch next to the wii u gen when it shouldn't be . May as well call the wii gen 6 because it's only a modified gamecube with an innovative concept (the controllers). 70.53.173.172 ( talk) 02:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The Atari 5200 should be one of the clearest examples of a new generation, being released over 5 years after its predecessor (and causing that earlier system to be renamed as the Atari 2600). To squeeze so much time into the second generation is simply not accurate to the advances during that key time, nor to the marketing and actual competition between systems. Atari "2600" was a direct competitor with Odyssey 2 and with Intellivision. The new wave of consoles in 1982 involved direct competition between them: Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex. These newer, latter consoles also needed to compete with the boom in home computer games/systems such as Commodore 64. Even though Atari "2600" (and Sears VCS) were the biggest seller for several years after they appeared in the late 1970s, they were definitely clunky and weak by the standards of 1982. The generation numbers should accommodate this extra generation, perhaps by making Generation 1 into Generation 0 (or a pre-generation period when the entire industry was primitive) and the real start should be with the earliest set of what is currently called Generation 2. This also approximately matches up with the difference at that time between video arcade games before and after Space Invaders--quite undistinguished before, quite large afterward. To place Magnavox Odyssey in one generation and Odyssey 2 in another makes sense, but the difference between the late-1970s consoles and the 1982 consoles was also very large. Even a Generation 2a and 2b would help illuminate this vital historical distinction in this article. There are numerous reviews in magazines that make clear how great this difference between systems was perceived at the time. The playability of console games was finally becoming comparable with arcade games by 1982, as shown by Colecovision. 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Add Steam Deck GTRus ( talk) 08:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Both Sony and Microsoft have now offered their perspective that a new generation will happen after 2027/around fall 2028. Should this be mentioned in the article for future generations i.e. 10, or is industry speculation out of scope? ZigZagZoug ( talk) 20:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Having now read it, I STRONGLY recommend removing "Winners-Take-Some Dynamics in Digital Platform Markets: A Reexamination of the Video Game Console Wars" by Kemerer et. al. as a reference on this page, or anywhere on Wikipedia. The paper itself is not about console generations, it is about how prior to the internet, the game console market exhibited a strong "winner-take-all" behavior, and multi-platform games and download games have changed this. This would be fine for use as a reference. The problem is that the console sales per generation (their chosen metric) exhibit strong duopoly behavior instead of winner-take-all. Instead of being a professional researchers and modifying their thesis based on the data, the authors stooped to manipulating the data in very dishonest ways.
For instance, the authors wanted to show winner-take-all behavior in the late '80s to early '90s, but the SNES and Genesis do not show this. They instead show a 5:3 split. So, the authors split the Genesis and SNES into separate generations and claim that they did not compete, therefore both dominated their generations. That would be bad enough, but the authors did it again with the original Playstation and Nintendo 64. Since they did not compete, they dominated their respective generations.
Given the level of data manipulation, the other references in the paper should be used with care, as they were very likely chosen to support the paper's thesis while omitting conflicting references. I have not dug into the references, so this is just a suspicion. UrQuan3 ( talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)