Talk:Home video game console generations

Incorrect statement, proven with logic, and math.

"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)

Except the entire point of the sentence was that later generations (7 and later), (as with other computing areas), Moore's law lost traction and the generations became more spaced out. -- ferret (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Typically" does not mean a hard and fast rule. --Masem (t) 23:11, 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)

Generations are based on how sources see the consoles group via competition, not purely by "one console follows the next". There is still a good likelihood that the Switch is both an 8th and 9th generation console given that it has been seen to compete both with the PS4/Xbox One sets and with the PS5/Xbox X/S sets. --Masem (t) 14:45, 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)

This would be fully.original research and not supported by sources. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The notion that the Switch is an 8th gen console isn't supported by sources either. May I remind you that there is no cited source for this claim? 2001:4455:63F:8A00:EC2F:D735:16C0:27CA (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Consemsus on switch gen is wrong

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)

Generations are not based simply because one console from a manufacturer comes after another. --Masem (t) 04:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes they are. It makes 0 sense that switch is in 8th gen. many generations often has a outlier on release year. Calling switch gen 8 is objectively wrong

I am curious what arbitrary made up reason you have to consider it 8th generation though, because I promise you you will find a precedent for that reason to not apply (such as saying the switch competed against the xbox one and ps4, as did the mega drive with NES with the super famicom for 2 years before or the PC engine for 3 years before super famicom released (which is the length between switch and ps5/series x)

there is absolutely no precedent for having 2 completely different consoles count as the same generation while there are plenty of precedents for any type of outlier reason to not make the switch 9th generation Mimiwah (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We are going by what we have for sourcing, which currently supports the Switch in 8th gen but not yet in 9th. --Masem (t) 13:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I do want to point out that since May, there’s been a Citation Needed tag on the claim that the Switch is 8th generation, so I’m not sure what sourcing you’re referring to. Swissnetizen (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Add extra generation, circa 1982

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)

I think creating "2.5/lost generation" between 2nd and 3rd might be beneficial. Had it not been for the (USA) video game crash of 1983, those systems would most probably be considered the 3rd generation. Jorengarenar (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources to support this. We can't make generation distinctions without sources. Masem (t) 20:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Colecovision is indisputably a Third Generation console.

https://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/Third%20Gen/Gamermagazine1983_zpsfbc8c06c.jpg

https://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/Third%20Gen/TVGamer1983_zps1b9e74ad.jpg

https://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/Third%20Gen/VideoGamesmagazineJan1983_zps6c3c77eb.jpg

https://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/Third%20Gen/Colecothirdgen_zps6cfdc993.jpg

https://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/Third%20Gen/TelespieleReport84CBSColeco_zpsdc2e4001.jpg

https://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/Third%20Gen/videogamesplayerfall82_zps24b6db23.jpg

https://imgur.com/a/E86Lh (Atari 5200 and Colecovision described as "third wave")

I don't think there needs to be a "2.5 gen" or whatever. I think the issue is resolved by bumping up the Atari 5200, Colecovision, and Vectrex to Third Generation. That's really where they belong. The only reason they're lumped with Second Gen is because for whatever reason people seem to categorize things based on the Crash of '83. But that crash has nothing to do with console generations. It was mostly a sales thing with the effect being those systems died early. It's functionally the same thing that happened to the Dreamcast. The SG-1000 and Colecovision are practically the same machine but the SG-1000 is in Third Gen, exactly where it belongs. 47.16.172.103 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Throwing another article out there that makes a convincing argument forr integrating the Crash.

https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141

This posits that the Crash ended the Third Generation and ushered in the Fourth. This makes logical sense if the Crash is absolutely relevant (which is debatable since it was not a worldwide phenomenon, with the primary effect being killing off the 5200/Colecovision and delaying the introduction of the NES for a couple of years). I think it's more reasonable to treat the Crash as disruptive to the Third Generation rather than a dividing line (again, since it was a very North American phenomenon), but regardless of where the chips fall on that issue, it's pretty ahistorical that Wikipedia does not call the Colecovision Third Gen. It seems fairly obvious that there's an NES bias (not even Famicom but specifically NES) in how the lines are being drawn. Generational numbering predates the NES. And I don't think there's any rational basis for splitting up the Colecovision and SG-1000 no matter how the generations are numbered. 47.16.172.103 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Add Steam Deck

Add Steam Deck GTRus (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Steam Deck is not a console, its a portable computer --Masem (t) 13:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)