Talk:Console wars

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (May 14 2005 to Dec. 20 2005):

Generation names

These generation names are really terrible. I can see why you've done it for the PS2 et al onewards as there is no '128 bit' but prior to that the generations do have definate names. They are the 8-bit and 16-bit consoles.
Read anything on the console wars not based upon this wikipedia article and you will see talk of 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit consoles. This 'third generation' stuff is purely a wikipedia creation and not a very good one.
At the very least we should give the eras with proper names their proper names (8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit). Ideally we should have better names for the generations after too- Wii et al is the 'current generation' so we don't have to worry about that for the next few years. For the PS2 et al though...I think we should adapt a desciptive name. Maybe the 'DVD era' or 'enter Microsoft' or something of the sort- with the current gen likewise being renamed a few years down the road depending on what defines it (maybe it'll be HD, maybe motion sensing, who knows). But thats irrelevant.
The main point for now- 8 to 32 bit eras deserve their proper names!--Josquius 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't the proper names on Wikipedia, and at the very least this article should follow the format set forth by the other articles this one summarizes as to not be confusing. Beyond that, in things like your "32-bit era", we see a 64-bit game console. - ZakuSage 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the main 'hub' articles however. This is a article that sets the trend. If we only followed what was 'correct' on wikipedia then nothing would ever get changed as articles are all inter-reliant.
The current naming structure despite being terrible also goes against this rule.
The N64 doesn't really belong in the 32 bit console war. As I said ages ago there were two seperate console wars there- the main one between the PSX and Saturn and a lesser one when the Saturn was a non-issue between the PSX and the N64 several years later.--Josquius 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article to set trends, this is one that follows a scheme set many months ago after deliberation in the respective articles for the console "generations". This article was brought to properly match such articles way back on September 16th.[1] Basing the naming on "bittage" is seriously a horrible idea, and for stylistic purposes at the very least there should be a consistency between articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, please stop removing all references to the American dollar on this page, it's a very childish thing to do. Furthermore, you edits to the Seventh Console Generation, while constructive (the previous version was far to verbose for a summary in that it was longer than the article it links to...), is non-neutral, contains un-encyclopedic opinions (Edge magazine?), contains weasel words, and for some reason makes use of HTML when you don't need to be causing poor formatting. As such, I've re-written much of it. - ZakuSage 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edge is the industry magazine. Very well known and respected. And weasel words? In favour of whom? I have little interest in next gen consoles right now and have yet to get involved. Feel free to rewrite it though, the previous version was just on totally the wrong thing.
Again you are using the argument that as it is the current standard it is right. That is not the way wikipedia works. We had this sort of naming structure a year or so back and then we decided to change it back to bits once more. Bits is the standard unit of measurement for consoles back when bits mattered. Go and read anything on past consoles. The NES is 8-bit, not '3rd generation'. This current naming structure is original research.
And yes there should be consistancy, it all has to start somewhere however.--Josquius 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here just look, google tests don't always work but in this case I think they prove my point.

• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=consoles+%22fifth+generation%22&meta=

80,700 hits for consoles "fifth generation". And if you'd notice most of the early ones seem to be wikipedia clones.

• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=consoles+%2232-bit%22&meta=

1,460,000 hits for consoles "32-bit". A few seem not to be about computer games though so...

• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=consoles+%2232+bit%22+playstation&meta=

277,000 hits for consoles "32-bit" playstation. Even with a extra qualifier its got quite a bit more there--Josquius 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that Wikipedia should simply go by the current standard, however this argument has already been had, and the version I've again brought back is the one chosen as a compromise on other articles. Seriously, other then being as a summery for those articles this one has very little purpose other than to simply to define what a console war is (see below for more details). Also, blindly reverting will get this going nowhere. - ZakuSage 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it really doesn't matter what Edge magazine or analysts think, their opinions shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZakuSage (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

You realise flatly reverting isn't the way to go yet you still do it...
And Edge's comments certainly do belong in a encyclopedia article, they are what classifies as 'leading analysists'.--Josquius 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who's been consistently reverting over constructive edits. Your most recent one now just brings back those improper inconsistent names names, once again adds the opinions of Edge magazine (non-encyclopedia information), and adds false information (PS3 came out 2 or 3 days before Wii...). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZakuSage (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

You are the one who started flatly reverting constructive edits.

And your information is incorrect- the PS3 came out before the Wii if we look at the earliest available anywhere- 11th of November for the PS3, the 19th for the Wii. And if you consider that the PS3 is not due out until March in Europe I think enough of a case can be made for the Wii being first (it only being second in the US).
And how the hell do you figure that Edge is not relevant to wikipedia? It is THE games magazine in Europe. Its in the league of Famitsu, perhaps even more relevant as its a industry magazine as well as a standard games magazine. What it says carries a lot of weight, go look around computer game articles on wikipedia and you'll find a lot of references to what Edge has to say.--Josquius 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone lives in Europe. The PS3 has come out on the 11th in Japan and the 17th in North America, that's more than reason enough to say it came out first. And it really does not matter if they are respected or not, the opinions of a magazine, person, or other entity do not belong on an encyclopedia and should be removed from any article that has them. - ZakuSage 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Blah, got my words mixed up on which came first there. Yeah not everyone lives in Europe but a lot of people do. A few days difference either way in Japan and the US doesn't make much difference, PS3 was first in one and the Wii in the other. Half a years difference stands between them elsewhere though which certainly does mess up the averages.
You seem to be failing to grasp the concept of sources if you don't think something written in a popular magazine on the subject in question is relevant. The entire point of sources is they are good, if it was just me saying this then fair enough but as it is its a major authority on the subject in question. Why are you so against that being in anyway? I think its a rather good theory consistant with established facts about the way computer games are heading.--Josquius 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when do you look at averaging all the release dates for a console to determine when it came out? The sentence from Edge magazine, besides not even being directly sourced, as I have already said is of a matter of opinion not fact, which makes it un-encyclopedic. It's also speculation! - ZakuSage 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are really being quite ignorant here. Europe exists you know. Theres about 400 million people here. Perhaps if instead of flatly reverting everything I write you let the article MENTION that the PS3 came out first in Japan but second elsewhere? And no its not speculation, its deducted reasoning. And how can I properly source a paper-based source?--Josquius 00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case it literally doesn't even matter if Europe did exist; the PS3 saw a release before Wii, and besides that it's in alphabetical order. Again, regarding the Edge thing, if you can't find a proper source then it definitely shouldn't be in there. - ZakuSage 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to know why Edge would not be considered a proper source. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? I was under the impression that newpapers and magazines were considered proper sources. I admit that I am not sure, and I am quite open to any evidence that this is not the case. It seems like the easiest way to settle this dispute is to cite a source for this rule. I would agree that from the exchange above, PS3 came out first and "it literally doesn't even matter if Europe did exist", but what is the objection to including the suggested clarification that it only came out first in Japan but second elsewhere? It seems like information people who are researching the topic might like to know. LFAS 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers and magazines can be used as sources for factual information, but not for speculation as it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia in the first place. As for specific dates of PS3's release, if someone wanted to know that they'd go to the PS3 article - ZakuSage 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Possibly the use of generational titles is misleading, but much, much less than the use of bit counts to describe them. If the industry still uses this convention, then it's shockingly out of date for an industry that renews itself every few years. Wikipedia is not obliged to reflect some magazine's shortcomings, no matter how many insider connections it supposedly has. For one thing, using bitcounts oversimplifies the hardware differences-- what of the nintendo 64? It's not a 32-bit system, but putting it in the 'next generation' category pulls it out of its historical context. It also overlooks significant differences between, yes, eras of hardware-- To lump everything since the Playstation into one "next generation" category is woefully uninformative. In fact, the very existence of so nebulous a term shows how uninformative the '8, 16, 32, everything else-bit' categorization is.

Finally, to imply that the use of bit counts is 'objective' terminology is a joke; singling in on bit counts as the defining characteristic is purely subjective. Why not focus on memory size, clock speed, or storage media? The focus on 8-bit, 16-bit, etc. is not an especially useful distinction; if anything it is a hangover from console marketing campaigns past. For all the fuzziness between the eras-- and there is a significant amount, particularly in the vastly important Japanese market -- it is a far more useful distinction than arbitrary selections hardware differences. LFA's suggestion of timeframes might be more useful, though even that neglects the differences in release dates between regions. --Gastric leperlicker 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That I believe we should call the PS2 et al the 128bit era is a strawman created by Zaku that I have never once agreed with. I've no idea why they use bits to define consoles, they just do. Its the way it has always been. Nintendo even went as far as to call their console the N64 to draw attention to this.

I suppose to take a wild guess the reason it was done as its something that competing consoles have in common with each other. Clock speeds, memory sizes, etc... are usually pretty big numbers and competitors rarely (have they ever?) have the same number as each other so you couldn't have say the '133mhz processor wars'. But thats not impotant, its done and its the convention whether it makes sense or not.

The N64 does not fall under the 32 bit war. That was purely between the Saturn and the PSX. When the N64 came out many years later there was a new less intense (due to the PSX already being utterly dominant) war between it and the Playstation, it never really competed in a console war against the Saturn.

I agree with your assessment of lumping everything post Playstation into next generation...Where is it someone said that? Has it since been removed? That would be silly as there has been at least 2 wars since then, maybe more (N64 vs. psx, DC vs. PS2) --Josquius 15:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Might be best to bring that up here. - ZakuSage 01:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

As means of solving the current dispute, I am conducting a straw poll on the changes proposed by Josquius with regards to section names the bulk of which can be found here[2]. This should be left open for a week at the very least, and the page revert war should end (IE I will stop, you will stop until we can get some other users input). I realise this is not the most frequented page on Wikipedia, so it may take longer than a week. - ZakuSage 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Such naming is inconsist with other articles on Wikipedia which have had their names set through community consensus and deliberation. This article acts as little more than a quick summary for those other articles, and it is therefore imperative that there is consistency between them. - ZakuSage 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Could you link to the discussions which led to the consensus? That would greatly affect my opinion. Right now, I'm tending to side with Josquius on the OR point. We can't make up new names for things just because the established ones aren't as accurate. But your point about consistency is definitely important. Perhaps this should be brought up at CVG, instead. Dancter 21:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The immediate moving of the articles then labeled along "bittage" generation resulted out of a discussion from the talk page of the second generation article[3]. The choice to simply list the generations chronologically followed after a realization that commonly consoles in certain generations didn't have the right bittage, and were merely placed there because of their release dates (example: Turbografx 16 has an 8-bit processor yet was in the "16-bit era", the aforementioned N64 being placed in the "32-bit era"). The idea was backed up by a similar idea found in a book and subsequent article, although the numbering was one off because of the "golden age"[4]. There have also been plenty of confusion and discussion over this before these moves were done way back on March 14th[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. - ZakuSage 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment- I don't support that naming structure in any way even though it wasn't entirely arbitrarily invented (being based off one existant book rather then the entirity of literature on video games) however the arguments for that naming structure seem to revolve around out of place consoles such as the PC Engine- fair enough in a article discussing just what consoles existed however it was not a part of the console wars. The console wars were only between the big companies which generally did follow a established pattern of having the same 'bit'ed consoles out and competing with each other at the same time.
      • Also looking at those links I fail to notice a concensus, just discussion and a bunch of mms and ahs over what's what--Josquius 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment- What about using the current terms referring to numbered generations but having "8-bit" or "16-bit" in quotes in parentheses to give partial consideration to the terms?--Crossman33 22:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment- There is a suggestion earlier on this page of using "Console Wars 2001-2003" (These years are off, I know nothing about console wars beyond what is in this article, so imagine a more appropriate time frame). I think it would be easier for people to find the information they want in the article if you use this sort of naming structure, or the brackets with "8-bit" or "16-bit". LFAS 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I basically agree: I really don't understand why this is not simply resolved by making the generation name headings to include both the generation titles and the 8-bit or 16-bit names (or other useful designator). Gepstein 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
          • sorry: I just noticed ZakuSage's comment.Gepstein 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support- If every article edit had to be consistant with what was already established then no progress would ever be made on wikipedia. The current naming structure constitutes original research which has no place in wikipedia.--Josquius 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight it may have been best to structure this poll differently. I think it's safe to say that this survey is not going to reach any sort of consensus or even a majority when more people are commenting than voting, and as such it should be considered closed. - ZakuSage

Moving discussion to CVG project talk

Since any changes to generation names here would have to far reaching effects on many more wikipedia articles, I'm opening up further discussion on this topic at CVG project talk. Refer there from now on. - ZakuSage 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge this article into Video game console

Why do we need two different articles that essentially deal with then exact same thing, and in most cases contain the exact same information? - ZakuSage 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They shouldn't deal with the same thing. Video game console should deal with what a video game console is. Console wars deals with...well the console wars. It seems to me that someone over at video game console decided to rip this article off to improve that one thus sending it in totally the wrong direction.--Josquius 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, either merging these articles together or simply gutting this article down by removing all the individual console wars and placing a "see also" section at the bottom to link to those individual console wars articles is really the only useful thing to do with this particular article. Perhaps this should just be put up for AFD even. It serves no purpose other than to reiterate and add to redundancy. - ZakuSage 03:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Definatly not. Console wars is fine as it is (well not really, it needs improving but the general subject matter is fine), it discusses the consoles in the real world, market competition and fanboyism and the like. The video game console article should just deal with the physical attributes of the consoles (i.e. the old next generation bit) not the console wars.--Josquius 09:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I found this a useful resource for knowing who 'won' in a neutral tone, and this was under the first possible title I searched for with the information I expected. It is sufficiently different from Video Game Console to warrant its own article. 86.146.76.132 10:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so... "Console Wars" describes the event. "Video Game Consoles" is an article with information on what a video game console is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.242.3 (talk • contribs).

Strongly agree with the above statement, I definitely think these should be two seperate articles. Cogswobble 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, as other have said, that this should remain a separate article fron the "Video Game Consoles" article. Some redundancy is unavoidable, and, I'd argue, not always detrimental (e.g. when the flow of the article benefits from the background). Gepstein 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

They are two seperate things. Video game console is about different consoles, and the console wars article is about the competition. Both are long, detailed articles and merging them would be a mess - • The Giant Puffin • 12:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the two articles should be merged. Console wars and video game consoles are distinct though related topics, so I think it is useful for Wikipedia to have an entry on both. LFAS 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that merging these articles may have not been the best of ideas, but something still needs to be done about the massive amounts of redundant information between both. - ZakuSage 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with redundant information, even if it's "massive": as long as each article details a sufficiently independant subject (as consensus seems to be indicating that "Video Game Consoles" and "Console Wars" do) and is internally coherent and accurate, it seems like redundancy just increases the ease w/ which people can find the information that they're looking for. Zhall 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that with such closely related articles, a certain amount of redundancy is unavoidable and even desirable. However, where information is not closely relevant to both topics, it should be limited to one page or the other.Alfort 06:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this whole revert editing war...

I think that this whole revert editing war is dumb. On the page, originally the page read "first generation," "second generation," and so on. Renaming them to "8-bit," and "16-bit" and so on only implies that previous versions were not as important and that future versions will be "128-bit" or "256-bit," which they are not. It also makes for a discontinuity in how you would name console wars prior to NES/Master System (what I would call "the third generation war"). Plus, the terms "first," "second," "third," and so on are used as the parts of titles of articles related to this and also on the information bar on individual consoles' articles as well. Also, I agree that the term "next-gen" is a term that changes with time. For example, right now it refers to Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3, but should not be used as a permanent description of any generation of game consoles.--Crossman33 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

128-bit and 256-bit doesn't come into it at all as such consoles don't exist.

The article originally followed standard computer game industry conventions and read 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit and next generation. Problems only arose when next gen was no longer next gen and no definate name emerged for it. Naming 'first generation', 'second generation' and all that is just wrong over most of the world and only works for America. In Japan the MS vs. NES was the first generation to have a war, in Europe it was the second.--Josquius 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just read through the comments in this section. It seems like people disagree about which was the original generation war, second generation war, etc. What are the objections to naming each section more descriptively (8-bit, 16-bit, etc.), and next generation, then when the next generation becomes something else with time, renaming it and adding the new next generation? LFAS 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Any objectively verifiable terminology would be better than "first" "second" etc. WAS 4.250 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What do people think about LFAS' suggestion--it's in the Straw Poll section of this page--about giving each era some kind of chronological name? There may be complications with this, but it would be objective, specific, and would seem to accurately identify at least the relevant periods of conflict (without having to rely on new or existing conventions that people obviously find to be confusing/inaccurate). Zhall 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All three consoles need updates

They just announced that they sold 10.4 million through the 2006 year...about half a million over their expectations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.186.152 (talk • contribs).

The PS3 and the Wii are not as updated as their wiki pages, they should be updated too.

If someone could please update the 360/PS3/Wii total sales numbers, it would be much appreciated. I don't know where else to go to get this information.

Technical evaluation

I think the bit about the BBC Micro having "superior technology" over the Commodore 64 definately has to go, since it is more than debabable: The BBC Micro had no hardware-sprites, no scrolling, less colours (8 max at the same time compared to 16 on the c64) and a Soundchip that could not come close to what a SID can do (no Filter, no Ringmodulation) . The only superiority i can see is a faster CPU, twice the RAM (only in the B+128 model though!) and that it also supported higher resolutions, albeit only with 2 colors monochrome, rendering it unsuitable for comparable game graphics quality. Since the BBC Micro did not have hardware sprites and scrolling, the faster CPU is not really noticeable in most games, as these extra MHz are quickly eaten up by having to calculate software sprites. Rare examples like well-suited Games such as Elite being better on the BBC Micro do not mean general technical superiority, it's the same with the ZX Spectrum... deekay64