Talk:Second generation of video game consoles

How can all these consoles be classed in the same category?

I don't believe it is accurate to describe all of the consoles listed here as being in the same "generation".

The first consoles are little more than "first generation" as they are really just "pong" type consoles (Fairchild Channel F, RCA Studio II).

The consoles released during 1977 - 1981 (Atari 2600, Intellivision etc) are vastly superior to these and are definitely a later generation.

Similarly the consoles from 1982 onwards are vastly superior to these systems (Atari 5200, Colecovision, Sega SG-1000 etc), with games approaching the quality of the Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum home computers.

Should we consider splitting up this category? Gp100mk 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]

As far as I know these are the groupings commonly accepted outside of wikipedia. All the consoles in this article are similar in terms of overall design (use cartridges, have a cpu etc.). They are even 8-bit like the "third generation" systems except that they were released before the Video game crash of 1983. - Diceman 13:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The following website seems to give a much more accurate classification (in my view) http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141 They come from the book "A History of Home Video Game Consoles" by Michael Miller. It splits the consoles into the exact categories I have suggested Gp100mk 15:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)]

Well the classifications are the same as here (might need to move eg. "8-bit" to "third generation" etc.), except that he bumps up everything from the NES on up a generation, so the PS3 and Xbox 360 would be eighth generation. The only trouble is that '"eighth generation" colsoles' ran through google returns nothing.

As far as first and second generation consoles go the link actually confirms what is already here. - Diceman 12:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No - look again and you will see that the extra generation arises because second generation has been split into two, as I originally suggested (plus the very early second generation consoles are classified as first generation). However, I accept that this might not be what is "commonly accepted" Gp100mk 16:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)]

Might be worth mentioning the differences in the article as what's here is just a general rundown. I have to say that I don't think creating a seperate article just for the 5200 and Colecovision is the way to go. Or if you include more consoles, where do you draw the line. - Diceman 12:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are an awful lot of consoles in this category. Personally I think it would be more accurate to move the Colecovision, 5200 and Sega SG-1000 up to 3rd Generation. And move everything prior to the Atari 2600 down to 1st Generation MarkL 10:47, 05 April 2006 (UTC)]

Using a sock puppet is hardly going to bring credibility to your view. Don't forget that the console articles would have to be changed as well. I'm not against anything you're saying but everyone seems to have their own opinion of which generation is which. Check out this article [1], the author has an 0th generation. Still another one includes the NES in the first generation [2]. There aren't any generations really, it seems to be how people have broken them up since they started being released in a regular cycle.

BTW the console groupings were inherited from what was already here on wikipedia (I can't seem to find the original text, it might have been erased), I didn't come up with them myself. - Diceman 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

When the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 were current systems, there were commonly referred to as "Third Generation Systems" in the video game press, and perceived by most console owners to be significant upgrades over existing consoles.

Apparently Coleco used (invented?) the term "Third Generation" in their marketing. See this old FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.classic/browse_thread/thread/c5ad3d591db9bc9b/fd70bb2f80e1abec

Given that this was the only time that "generation" was ever widely used when discussing console history, the Wikipedia probably should follow this convention rather than collapsing these systems into the previous generation. 64.171.162.76 02:32, 31 May 2006

How would you group the later generations? - Diceman 11:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic would dictate that the later consoles would have to be moved up a generation. Consoles have been released on a regular cycle since the very first ones were released. The question is, does this article reflect that? Gp100mk 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)]

This console list is a cluser-f. For one, most of the early "consoles" are not considered console systems at all. They are PONG machines. Just because it was listed in a book this way doesn't make them right. Atari 2600, O2, and Intellivision (arriving late on the scene) are the major players in the 1st generation. 2nd gen = Atari 5200, Colecovision. 3rd gen = NES, Sega Master System, Atari 7800. 4th Generation S-NES, Sega Genesis 5th Generation N64, Sega Saturn, PSOne 6th Generation: Gamecube, Sega Dreamcast, PS2, XBox. 7th Generation: Xbox360, PS3, Wii. There are a few things that contribute to this "generation" classification. #1 is date released and #2 is direct competition against another system of another manufacturer. All the units I have listed are much more accurate than this article (i've left out many popular machines, but I know what categories they go in and can easily provide information as such.) The "Pong" machines as well as Magnavox's first Odyssey are often called "pre-generation" or "generation zero" systems because they preceeded what is known as the "video game boom" where the generations would have first started.

One day, when I have the time, I will break it down. I think the majority of classic game system collectors, such as myself, understand these things. There may be one or two "maybe" categories as some folks think the Intellivision should be a "generation two" but I think we can work through this. If you were alive back then, you know that the Atari 2600 and Intellivision were fierce competitors and not until the 3rd competitor arrived on the scene was there anything like it. That third competitor was the Colecovision to which Atari responded with the 5200 starting the whole "console generation" thing from then on out. I will be back after I register an account with wikipedia and cut through some of this garbage. I do have years of expertise in the field of video game console collecting and I'd like to help where I can. Thank you. -Badsyso —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.51.42.70 (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

That's just wrong. The 5200 was in development before Coleco released the Colecovision and was actually a response to the Intellivision, not the Colecovision. People assumed it was in response to the Colecovision because of their release times. Likewise, nobody of any familiarity says pong consoles are not game consoles - what they're not is programmable consoles. Claims of "pre-generation" or "Generation zero" are just that - claims and attempts at categorizing by a random few, hardly a standard and not accurate. Lastly, that logic of "date released" and "direct competition" is flawed by your own example of how long items were on the market, since most of these early consoles were all on the same market at the same time competing for the same dollars through '84 - that was actually one of the major contributing factors to the crash. Collecting consoles is all fine, and everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia articles, but that hardly makes expertise on the matter. And I strongly suggest you actually do the research before setting your self up as a source of "expertise" and calling previous Wiki editors contributions to this article "garbage" in one fell swoop. To paraphase your comment - "Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it right." And I would further suggest you get group consensus and factual resources on the matter before you try any major overhalls based on opinion. --Marty Goldberg 05:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that there's no standard for console "generations" and they are more or less original research. That being said "Third Generation" was an actual term used in the video game press and marketing to describe the ColecoVision and 5200. That is not reflected here on Wikipedia.

From the historical perspective, the actual technical difference between any 1980s consoles are very minimal, after all. The only difference is the rough period when they were released and the marketing. Sorry, 2600/Intv in one group, 5200/Coleco in the other. Anything else is just as wrong as putting the NES and SNES in the same "generation" 64.171.162.76 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddyssey (original) and the pong machines are 1st gen, and Channel F - Intellivision making up the 2nd gen. 3rd gen should be Atari 5200, ColecoVision and Vectrex. Set aside the fact that "third generation" was used in the marketing for ColecoVision. The fact is that 5200 was the successor to 2600, or meant to be. Doesn't matter that it didn't survive or that Atari was going to kill it off shortly after 7800 was released (in '84). It was still the successor to 2600 and thus cannot be in the same gen as 2600.

Someone mentioned that it was Atari's answer to Intellivision. No, it was a console meant to surpass Intellivision completely. It was meant to eventually replace the venerable 2600/VCS. It was the successor console. Consoles that are successors to other consoles are "next gen" console. If 2600 was 2nd gen (and it was) and 5200 was its successor and thus Atari's then "next gen" system, it had to be 3rd gen. And thus 7800, which was the successor to 5200, is fourth gen, as are the consoles it competed against (NES and Sega Master System). So this gen (2nd) needs to be split again. Not the way it was (early 2nd, late 2nd) but split in this way: Atari 5200, ColecoVision, and Vectrex as the "new" 3rd gen, and all of those that are currently in generations 3-7 moved up a number (so the current gen, 360, Wii, PS3 would be the 8th gen, not the 7th, and the "NES" gen would be the 4th, not the 3rd).

It's the only way that makes sense. This isn't about opinion, btw. It's about fact. The fact is that once a successor to a current gen console is released, it is a new gen. Atari 2600 was 2nd gen, 5200 was 3rd gen, and 7800 was 4th gen. And the consoles with which they directly competed and were released with similar power and around the same time are part of those respective gens as well.

Therealspiffyone 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Spiffy has got it down much better than this wiki does. The 2600 and 5200 is not in the same generation, period. Back in the 80's, many believed the Intellivision would be the "2nd generation" as to why the Colecovision was named "3rd generation". In reality, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision directly competed against each other and the Colecovision was a true "next generation" machine. If one was to break down these generations into the classifications based on the Colecovision being the 3rd generation, that would mean the Intellivision is 2nd gen and Atari 2600 is first generation. That's nearly ridiculous because these machines directly competed against each other. Pong machines are pong machines and I stand by this. They were not "first generation". The Atari 2600 ushered in the home console video game market. Pong machines were pong machines, and they were not the same. Is a pong game a "video game console"? What is a "video game console" and what is a "pong machine"? To me, they are different. Yet to others, maybe they feel pong should be first generation. Luckily, from the NES on there are fewer arguements. This is a mess. 76.229.220.103 08:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Me

One problem I have with therealspiffyone's argument is this: the atari xegs. Simply because one console came after another from the same maker does not make it next gen; by your argument, the XEGS should be the same generation as the Genesis/Megadrive, SNES/SFC, and TG16/PCE. IMHO, the 5200, 7800, and XEGS should be the same generation; two of the three just happened to flop. I do not like how the generations are set up now, but the numbers come from a general consensus, so we're stuck with 'em. --147.134.45.142 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

spiff would have a point if Atari had continued its dominance in consoles, but it didn't. I remember the 7800 as being a hybrid/wannabe home computer. There was an atari BASIC cartridge and pretentions to expandability. Also, the first answer to the spiffster has a point about Atari 2600 starting it all. However what is meant here by "pong game"? Studio II and other electronic "game systems" were not really "video game consoles" as we've come to know them. A fairly straight direct evolution from video arcade cabinet games to Atari 2600 can be made however. Space Invaders, Asteroids, Defender, Break-out, Pac-Man... There was a close relationship. Cuvtixo (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the XEGS. The 7800 was never a hybrid/wannabe home computer, unless you're referring to what just about all the consoles of the time promised (2600, Intellivision, Colecovision, 7800, Famicom), eventual "expandability" in to a computer. But it was never promoted as a computer or as a hybrid. And I'm not sure what you mean regarding the Studio II, that was a regular gaming console, same as Fairchild's and the 2600. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew someone would bring up the XEGS. Yes, it was released shortly after the 7800...but it wasn't really a game console per se. What the XEGS was was in fact an Atari 65XE computer in a different shell. This wasn't like 5200 or XBox where the consoles were BASED on PCs...XEGS was, in fact, an Atari PC. Came standard with a keyboard, could have a tape drive attached, and could run actual Atari 8-bit computer software. So it even differs from 5200, which was BASED on Atari's 400 series of computers, but differed in some key aspects (RAM, etc.). XEGS was a 65XE, same RAM, same peripheral ports, etc.

As for not having a point because Atari didn't continue it's dominance: when Atari 5200 was released, 2600 was still the best selling game console. So I don't understand that "counterpoint" at all. Atari was still dominant at the time of the 5200's release. 5200 failed to gain dominance over ColecoVision and even Vectrex, but that doesn't negate the FACT that it was Atari's successor to the 2600, and by that very FACT a next gen console. Hence, 5200, ColecoVision, and Vectrex were next gen consoles, and therefore not part of the 2nd gen but the real 3rd gen consoles. As far as the 7800 is concerned, by the time of its release, NES and SMS were out already. So the next gen after ColecoVision et al. had already begun. And since 7800 was Atari's successor to 5200, then 7800 was Atari's next gen console as well. Here it didn't matter that Atari wasn't winning. It was initially released to usher in a new gen (during the '84 test market) and then giving a true release in '86 to directly compete against NES and SMS.

Again, XEGS was a computer in disguise. 7800 wasn't. The latter was a game console, intended as a game console. The former was a full fledged computer in a different casing. There's a difference, and a reason why the XEGS is listed along with the other Atari 8-bit computers in the Atari 8-bit family wiki article. Therealspiffyone (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The XEGS isn't that different from the Sega GameGear or Nomad. It was previous-gen technology in a different format. Atari markeing literature of the time makes it clear: properly classified, XEGS would be in the same group as the Atari 5200.

Also I would love to fix this BS of conflating the 2600 and 5200 into the same "orignal research" generation. The problem is learning Wiki procedure to the exetent that one can rename articles and infoboxes. 71.134.252.36 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as to the Michael Miller article http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=378141 from the book "A History of Home Video Game Consoles", he gets it just as wrong as he gets it right. While he's right in that 5200 and ColecoVision are the real 3rd gen, with NES, SMS and 7800 constituting the real 4th gen (and everything moved down from there), he's wrong in thinking Vectrex part of the 2nd gen along with 2600, and just atrociously wrong in thinking that CD-i, 3DO and Jaguar were part of the same gen as TG-16/PC Engine, SNES/Super Famicom, and Genesis/MegaDrive. CD-i wasn't marketed as a game console, but an "entertainment device", and 3DO and Jaguar were the beginning of the "32/64-bit" gen that less than a year later saw Saturn and PSone (and which make up the real 6th gen, every gen having moved to one number higher).

And, yes, that'd mean changing all the articles. So what? I mean, honestly...aren't we striving for accuracy here? So the articles will have to change a bit. Again, so what? Accuracy is far more important than ease. Therealspiffyone (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the ColecoVision and Atari 5200 belong in the 3rd generation section, as technically they are almost as advanced than the NES. I think the reason for ths split is that North Americans like to class consoles as before and after the Video Games Crash of 1983 - something that means absolutely nothing to people here in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.197.36 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While the Crash didn't really have as much of an impact on Europe and Japan, I wouldn't say it meant "absolutely nothing" to non-Americans. For one thing the Crash effectively ended the American stronghold on the video game console hardware market, and to a lesser extent software development as well. Although Japan and Europe were on equal footing in the latter before the Crash, they began to surpass US developers after the Crash because, well, the American developers were going belly up left and right. On the hardware front, that void was filled by the Japanese companies like Nintendo, Sega, and later, Sony.

Going back to the other point, ColecoVision and Atari 5200 are almost as advanced as NES...but not quite close enough to be among the "peer group" of that generation. Frankly, both are closer to, say, Sega's JP only SG-1000 rather than the SG-3000 (aka Sega Master Mystem) that directly competed with NES. Besides which, one really can't group Atari 5200 with NES as another NES competitor was the 5200's direct successor, the 7800 (and thus Atari 7800, NES, and SMS are all part of a different gen than 5200, ColecoVision, and Vectrex). I do agree that 5200 and ColecoVision are 3rd gen consoles, but that really doesn't make them the same gen as NES and its competitors, as, looking at the facts, NES and its competitors constitute the 4th gen. Therefore the current generation labeling (with the current gen being 7th) is wrong. We're really in the 8th gen. 5200 and its competitors are the real 3rd gen, NES and its competitors the real 4th gen, and each subsequent gen moved up one in number. It's the only logical placement.Therealspiffyone (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the Bally Astrocade? Shouldn't it be included in this generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.202.253 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note: I already covered this on a few other talk pages. I began rewriting the "history" pages and the related, to match the technology rather than the year. I gave up. It's more than a lot of work! Those who keep asking for changes because it "wouldn't be that hard, and so what" etc. expect others to do it. If you want it changed, create a /sandbox page on your user page, and do it yourself. Post the link when you're done and we'll see.... Until then!Lostinlodos (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Games Computers

Shouldn't early games computers such as the Commodore Vic-20 be mentioned alongside these consoles, for completeness? Gp100mk 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]

I've thought about that, it does seem slightly odd that this series of gaming articles are console-only. Maybe they should all be renamed "History of video games consoles" to reflect this. - Diceman 13:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Early handheld / table top games

What about the early LED handheld & table top games from this era, such as "Astro Wars", "Scramble", "Crazy Kong", "Caveman", "Invader from Space" etc. These types of game were incredibly popular in the UK. Not sure whether they were released worldwide or not.

These kinds of games are covered in the History of computer and video games article, though you may want to add examples from the UK that are missing. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~) since that will list your screen name and record the time and date. Thanks! Coll7 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing images

For anyone wanting to upload an image of a console which they do not possess themselves, this argument by SteveBaker was successful in keeping Image:SG-1000 II.jpg on wikipedia. - Diceman 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Determination Of Game Console Generations Must Be Hammered Out

I have always believed the Intellivision along with the Atari 2600 to be in the 1st generations of video game systems. Due to their direct competition and relative time release, they (along with the Magnavox Odyssey 2) were the first of the real game consoles. The previous pong machines are even classified as pre-generation or generation 0 many times. The Colecovision and Atari 5200 were 3rd generation, NES 4th, SNES 5th, N64 6th, Gamecube 7th, and now you have what is viewed at the 8th generation machines coming out. I have not the time to list them now, but I wish I could. This is one subject I am partly an expert on. The next generation not only is upgraded in technology but are direct competitors to others in the same generation on the most part. One would not argue against the nintendo line NES, S-NES, N64, Gamecube, and the next one.... follow that line of thought. Please discuss more!

• The "Generation" tags are arbitrary (and, I suspect, made up by someone outside the industry/press). For the sake of clarity, they should probably be replaced with years within the articles. --Colage 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have their own system for grouping consoles into generations. However the last two "generations" (6th and 7th) are widely referred to by those numbers. The earlier consoles are left up to the individual to determine which generation they belong to. Wikipedia has acceptable enough boundaries and it's not worth changing the later generation pages to fit one's own personal grouping in my opinion. - Diceman 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much that it should be changed to fit a personal grouping, it's that it should be changed from someone's personal grouping. I've heard "next generation" consoles referred to, but never specific numbers. The problem with categorizing this topic specifically is that there is a wealth of lay historians, and it's recent enough to not have anyone talk to each other or establish consensus on the generation criteria. I think that naming these pages as such passes off as fact (or consensus) something that's not agreed upon widely, and just using the years would placate everyone involved.. --Colage 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the generation numbers are arbitrary, not very widely used, and vary depending who is counting them and when. I would with agree changing them to year ranges and/or descriptive names.

For example: "Pong and fixed function systems (197x-1980)", "Early cartridge systems (1977-1981)", "Crash era systems (1982-1984)", "So-called 8-Bit Era (1985-1990)", "So-called 16-Bit Era (1988-1996)", "Early 3D systems (1996-2001)" and so on. 64.171.162.76 09:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this. For one, the "generation" numbers ARE widely used. The 8-bit era is going to cause trouble as many machines weren't "8 bit" and calling it the "so-called 8 bit" seems just weird. I think it is easy to hammer out the console generations. I know them! If you lay it out in years released, they almost all line up. And placing "years" behind the era is terrible as the Intellivision's life extended from 1981 through 1989 with INTV still releasing games. By the way, these were not "home-brews" but authentic intellivision games that are amongst the highest valued ones today. God, I wish I had them all. I am going to lay this out for you all and we can all discuss the matter reasonably. I can see where you want to lump the systems into "so-called 8-bit" but then would that put the intellivision in there, since it is so-called 8 bit? No. Also the Atari Jaguar poses a problem in this setup as well as other machines that used unique processing. We need to go by year & competition. It is easy to figure out the later generations as the NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, and Wii made it easy. The first two years are where the trouble comes in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.51.42.70 (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Again, personal opinion i.e. "You know them" does not make your opinion any more factual. And using length of sales time to disqualify someone elses view on generation grouping is just not logical. The VCS was on the market in to the Genesis/SNES era, but nobody would argue that it belongs in an earlier generation. Likewise, nobody would consider them a major player - most of INTV's "market" was mailorder past the crash. --Marty Goldberg 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If Generation numbers are as widely used as you say, surely you can find a long list of citations. 64.171.162.76 07:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Atari 5200 and the Colecovision were referred to as the "next generation" of consoles after what was considered the first wave. There probably are "2nd generation" citiations available in Electronic Games Magazine. Home computer systems did not follow this, but console video games certainly did get put into "generation" categories. I don't know how to make it more clear. The Atari 2600 was the "first wave" which would put it in generation 1 along with the intellivision. When the Atari 5200 was introduced along with the Colecovision, you could say that's when generation 2 started. The NES was in 3. The systems listed in "generation 1" are considered PONG MACHINES, not console gaming devices. The article is quite laughable by the standard's I've come to know in my years of collecting classic videogames. Pong machines along with the Magnavox Odyssey are usually considered pre-generation or generation 0 (zero) consoles. What defines a console system? Pong? I don't think so. 75.51.11.243 02:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ColecoVision was apparently said to be "third generation" in advertisments and or reviews at the time of release, according to the link provided in another discussion topic above.

Regardless, if 2600 is 2nd gen, and 5200 was the successor to that console, it was Atari's "next gen" console. So it would be 3rd gen, which means all gens currently numbered 3-7 are wrong and should be numbered 4-8. The very fact that, before this article was changed, the 2nd gen was split into two ("early" and "late", reflecting Atari 5200 being the successor to 2600, or Atari's "next gen" console) should tip people off. Again, if it's a successor console, it is a "next gen" console, and so cannot possibly be listed in the same gen as its predecessor.

The article needs to be fixed. And so to do the groupings of the other generations.

It's not just opinion. It's opinion based on facts, and indeed is common sense.

Therealspiffyone 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Generations mostly correct except for THIS Generation (TWO)

The accuracy of this article is highly questionable. How can the Atari 2600 AND Atari 5200 be a "generation two"? That defies logic. The problem is in the first generation of consoles. They are pong machines and NOT game consoles. Then the TRUE generation one and two consoles are lumped together in this mess. It is not accurate in the least bit, really. The first generation of "consoles" MUST contain the Atari 2600 as this is the first true "CONSOLE" that started the whole industry. Yes, there were others before the Atari 2600, but they were failures. The Atari 2600 sparked the home video game craze. I'd have to look back on some old Electronic Games magazines, but I'm pretty sure they do call the Colecovision the "next generation" of videogames along with the Atari 5200. Since that magazine came out in the early 80's, I think the source would be more accurate. I'll dig through my collection and see what I can come up with. --Badsyso 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. There was an entire console industry long before the 2600, and nowhere is the PONG console industry considered a "failure" - with 150+ seperate competitors (manufacturers) of this generation of consoles world wide across its lifespan (1975-1978). And they are all considered "game consoles", that's what they're for - playing games on a television. To call PONG consoles "not game consoles" is simply way out of touch. Perhaps you meant to say they're not programmable game consoles? That would be a little more accurate. But I don't think you're going to find people taking this conversation seriously by saying they're not "game consoles" and taking old marketing out of game magazines out of context. Traditionally among historians, 1st generation refers to the PONG era, i.e. pre-VES and VCS. The Magnavox Odyssey was the first console, and started the industry in 1972 (and contrary to popular regurgitation, was actually a success on the world market). The Sears branded Atari OEM's PONG and Magnavox Odyssey 100 and 200 exploded the industry in '75, though usually the original Odyssey and the pong generation consoles get lumped in to the same generation. The 2600 itself was a hard sell when first introduced. Didn't start selling well until around '80. And quite frankly, "Next generation" was a marketing term frequently thrown around by press releases and marketing at the time (and even now) and must be taken as a grain of salt. The confusion is that within generations (or "era's" if you will), there are sub-generations and multiple ways of counting them. For example, you could do multiple generations of 8-bit consoles I.E. the Fairchild VES, Atari VCS, RCA Studio II, Odyssey2 and Bally Professional Arcade belong to the first "wave" or "generation" of 8-bits). Then the "second wave", i.e. Intellivision, Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex, etc. Then third wave of this era, the Atari 7800, Sega Master System, NES, NEC Turbo Grafix, etc... The problem is that not everything fits neatly in to that - the Intellivision is not an 8-bit console for example, it's 16. So some people try and do generations by release groupings as well. I find a mixture of both and a dose of common sense works best. --Marty Goldberg 05:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think pong belongs in the console gaming category. It belongs in the PONG machine category. I have plenty of the machines you speak of. They belong in a category of their own and I think the problem is solved. The Atari 2600 and the Atari 5200 in the same category is wrong, wrong, wrong. The 8-bit, 16-bit thing is flawed due to some machines using two processors and not exactly fitting that category "officially".

From the NES on, everything is good. Generation 1 and 2 is screwed up because of these pong units. Many "console units" are considered to have interchangeable cartridges/games. Well, I do know there was at least one pong machine that had games like this. Pong = Own Category. That's the way to clear everything up. I don't think this insults the memory of "pong" machines as gaming consoles. While pong was popular, it was no Atari 2600 or Intellivision. 75.44.59.102 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Hal

Generation one and two aren't screwed up because of the Pong units (or the orginal Oddyssey) It's screwed up because somehow 5200 is listed in the same gen as 2600. 5200 was released as a successor console. As such it was of a new gen. In this case, the 3rd gen. All console gens labeled 3rd to 7th currently, are wrong. They should be 4th to 8th (we would currently be in the 8th gen).

And, no, 7th gen is NOT widely used. "Current gen" is widely used, as is "next gen". Actual generation numbers for video game consoles are only used by a select group of gamers. The mainstream press doesn't use gen numbers, and neither do the majority of "professional" video game journalists.

Prior to them all being grouped in the 2nd gen, the 2nd gen was split into "early" and "later". It should have been split into 2nd and 3rd, with the gen currently listed as 3rd (NES, SMS, 7800) and the rest currently listed 4th through 7th moved down. So NES, SMS, 7800 would be 4th gen. TG-16, Genesis, SNES, and NEO GEO 5th gen. And so on and so forth until the current gen consoles, Wii, 360 and PS3, would be listed as 8th gen.

It is the only listing that makes sense logically. Again, the problem isn't the Pong machines being listed as 1st gen. It's Atari 5200 and consoles released at a similar time with similar "power" being grouped in with Atari 2600 and the rest of the 2nd gen consoles.

Why? Because 5200 was killed off due to the Crash? Because it was due to be replaced after only 2 years on market with 7800? Because 2600 was still being supported and manufactured? So what? If PS3 were to be killed off this year or next, but PS2 still produced, it doesn't make PS3 any less of the successor console to PS2 in terms of "generations". It was Sony's next gen successor to PS2. Same deal with Atari 5200 being Atari's next gen successor to 2600. So why the hell is 5200 placed in the same gen as 2600? It doesn't make any sense and thus needs to be fixed. And the best fix would be to put 5200, ColecoVision and Vectrex as the "new" 3rd gen, and move all consoles currently listed in gens 3-7 down a gen (so they'd be 4-8).

Therealspiffyone 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WAT ABOUT ENTEX SELECTAGAME?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entex_select-a-game

ITS NOT IN 1ST OR 2ND GENERATION AND IT CAME B4 ENTEX ADVENTUREVISION. EVEN THE FAILED ATARI 5200 GOT A SPOT NEXT 2 ATARI 2700 SO MIHT AZ WELL ADD IT 4 COMPLETENESS N SHIT

Fair use rationale for Image:Epoch Game Pocket Computer.PNG

Image:Epoch Game Pocket Computer.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ENTEX IZNT EVEN ON HERE NEMORE

ENTEX SELECTAGAME and ADVENTUREVISION RNT EVEN ON HERE NEMOR. DUZ SOM1 HAV SOMN AGAINST AMERIKAN SYSTEMZ OR WAT? I ONLY REMEMBERED CUZ I HAV A GOOD MEMORY. HU KNOZ WAT ELS IZ MISSING BCUZ PPL KEEP TAKN SHIT OFF THE PAGE WITHOUT DISCUSSION 4 NO FUKN REEZON? I FEEL SORRY FOR HUEVER GOZ ON HERE 2 FIND THE OPPOSITE OF THE SUM OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE: THE SUM OF HUMAN IGNORANCE. IMA ADD KNOLEDJ PAGEZ WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND EVEN UP THE SCORE!!!!

No, but someone obviously has something against spelling and not having the caps key on. --Marty Goldberg 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is probably the must ignorant and obnoxious thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. Termin8er850 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

IF this guy is going to drop F bombs, I certainly should be able to call him a jackass. This crap has no business being here. Can you be "elite" on an Entex Selectagame? I think someone needs to quit sniffing sugarcane ethanol fumes. 76.229.220.103 08:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Me

DONT WORRY ABOUT WHAT I TYPE. OR HOW SAD IT IS. NOT HAVING MY CAPS KEY ON? OVER SOME BITCH ON WIKIPEDIA. ALRIGHT I'LL GET RIGHT ONIT. FUCKING IDIOT. IM NOT IGNORANT. OO YEA IM TYPING IN CAPS LOCK THAT SHOWS MY IGNORANCE. LMFAOS. YEA. LOL. GETTIN OBNOXIOUS ON WIKIPEDIA. LOL. EITHER WAY, YOU ADDED ENTEX ADVENTURE VISION BACK ON. NOW TO REVERT TO LISTING SELECTAGAME ON HERE

BOTH ENTEX SELECTAGAME AND ENTEX ADVENTUREVISION SHOULD BE LISTED AS EARLY HANDHELD CONSOLES

ENTEX SELECTAGAME WASNT A TABLETOP AND HAD 6 AS OPPOSED TO ADVENTUREVISIONS 4 DESPITE SELECTAGAME BEING DROPPED FOR THE MORE ADVANCED ADVENTUREVISION IT WAS STILL JUST AS IF NOT MORE DELICATE AND JUST AS LITTLE UNITS SOLD SO ID SAY THEYRE ABOUT EQUAL IN WORTH AND NEITHER IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER AND IF WE HAVE 3 GAMEBOYS ON THE SAME PAGE UNDER HANDHELDS ON SOME CONSOLE GENERATION ARTICLES WHY CANT WE HAVE 2 ENTEX EARLY HANDHELDS ON THE SECOND? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Apf.jpg

Image:Apf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adventurevision.jpg

Image:Adventurevision.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

From my reading of the talk page, there seem to be 2 opposing sides: one wants to move some consoles up a generation number, since there is something about the 5200 & colecovision (and maybe vectrex) that is clearly different from those before them; the other is concerned with changing the generation numbers since no one talks about the current gen as '8th generation'. Also, the 'pong clones' were important to the development of consoles, and should be considered the first, and not say, '0th'.

So, the best way I can see to fix this is to divide the second gen into 'early' and 'late' periods; the early period would include the 2600, channel F, Inty, and odyssey, among other things; the later period would consist of the 5200, coleco, and vectrex. This way, those 3 consoles are marked as newer than their predecessors, and the generation numbers don't have to change. --147.134.45.142 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

possible criteria for separating early and late second generation:

1) date of release.

Nowadays, 'next gen' consoles are usually introduced 4 to 6 years after the first entry from the last gen. the famicom came out in 1983; the pc engine came out in 1987, 4 years later. The Jaguar and 3d0 came out in 1993; 6 years after the pc engine. The dreamcast came out in 1999, 6 years after the previous. the 360 came out 6 years after the dreamcast, in 2005.

let's assume an average of 5 years. This would suggest that the latter second gen began 5 years after the introduction of the channel F in 1976, which would be 1981. meaning that the later second gen would consist of the Atari 5200, MB Vectrex, Emerson Arcadia, ColecoVision, and Sega SG-1000.

2) features.

this one is harder to pin down. Most of the later second gen consoles were marked by more buttons on the controller, more memory, and more colors on screen. However, several of the later second gen consoles fail to meet one of these requirements; the vectrex is black and white, and the arcadia doesn't have much memory.

Assuming we set the bar at 1 kilobyte or more of memory, the list consists of that listed above, minus the Arcadia and possibly including the much older Bally Astrocade (assuming the specs listed at that page are correct.)

--147.134.45.159 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision of this article

I saved this revision to this article by rewording information that was already there, and adding some information found in the articles on some of the consoles of this era. (To demonstrate my good intentions, please see the other CVG History articles other than the first generation to see what I have been working on.) Please note that I did not add citations to the added material because I am still relatively new here and I'm not very good a programming citations. My revision was reverted and the person who reverted suggested that I discuss the changes here. If you could look at my changes, and tel me what you think, I would GREATLY appreciate it because I spent almost 45 minutes working on that page and I would hate to see all that work and time wasted. Thank you Thingg (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting your good intentions, so please don't take it personally. As I mentioned on your talk page there's still a problem with adding that because, regardless of the source, the content still violates NPOV and OR. What you did uncover though was the pages here on Wikipedia you took those from are rampant with those violations themselves and need to be worked on. I thank you for that.

Regarding citations, there are Citation templates already created. So for a book reference, you can clip and paste the code under "Common Usage" column and fill in the values. Then you surround your citation with reference tags (you'll see the option for that at the far right of the editing menu bar). The only problem is, Wikipedia can't reference itself as a reference. I.e. you can't use another Wikipedia article as a reference. Refer to WP:V for more info on Verifiability. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn Thingg (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give up on trying to contribute content though. I think you have the potential to really contribute well here once you get familiar with the policies and how to find verifiable sources, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about me leaving, you'd have to drag me away with an aircraft carrier ;-). Anyway, I was wondering if this site would be ok to reference.
Thanks Thingg (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't give advice on that site (since its mine), but I will say its well known and content from that site is used as a reference in other articles here. I can't use it as a reference because Wikipedia also has a policy on self-referencing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your website? Wow, I didn't realize that. (I just googled "Atari 2600") What I meant in my question was does (I guess, your) website meet the requirements for citations, but I guess you can't answer that. Is there anything wrong with me citing your website for these articles? If not, I think the fact that your website came in as number 3 on the google list (and Wikipedia was number 1) would make it good enough to cite. (I'm still freaking over the fact that that's your website...what a coincidence...) Thingg (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I could lay out no less than 3 reasons why the first two generations are wrong and provide proof via 80's era magazines and newspapers to validate a couple of those reasons. The fact is, if ColecoVision called itself the "third generation" in ads, why is it in the same category as the ones they tried to distance themself from? Either the Colecovision is truly 3rd generation and pushes back every console generation, or it is 2nd generation and the Atari 2600 is 1st generation. I think one could easily classify those early machines as pong and the true programmable cartridge machines as the true first generation of home console gaming with a nod to that predecessor. I suppose a compromise could be made and have an early 2nd generation and late 2nd generation article. But those pong machines are almost as out of place as the Atari 2600 and 5200 in the same generation. Everything falls in place if you move that first generation to pong machines, and the early second generation units (Fairchild Channel F-Intellivision) into the first spot. Oddly enough, nearly all the other machines were introduced in 1982 and then it follows the pattern of console introduction all the way to the 7th generation. Wave, gap, wave, gap...etc. I looked up the U.S. release dates of all the generations and most all fall into a 3 year window with a 2 year gap in between them. All the generations except TWO. One may have to face facts that this article mislead others to take it as fact and that's why there are so many people who believe this is written in stone. Meanwhile, anyone who was alive and old enough to remember the early 80's knows that the ColecoVision was definitely "next generation" and doesn't need to be in with the Intellivision and Atari 2600. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.118 (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Table of Console Comparison

Hello. I think that this page should have a big table that compares the major consoles of this generation, similar to that of other generations of video game pages. This would make it easier for viewers to access information they want without reading many paragraphs of data. Stevv (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

1292 Advanced Programmable Video System (Acetronic, Radofin, Grandstand)

Why has this console been removed from this article? Previously there was a picture of this console and it appeared in the list of second gen consoles. I know the console wasn't very good, but it was still quite popular and deserves to be listed. The games for this console were very "pong-like" (although it did have a Space Invaders type game as well) making it more First Gen than any of the other consoles listed here - it was released in 1976 after all. Perhaps it belongs in the First Gen section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.197.36 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the Fairchild Channel F and Nintendo Color TV Game are also very Pong-like. What makes these differnt to the consoles listed in the First Generation section? Don't they belong here? It can't be because they use cartridges, as some of those listed as First Gen use cartridges as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.197.36 (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Color TV belongs in first generation. Fairchild belongs in this one not because it uses cartridges (that's not really a generation defining characteristic), its because its the first of the 2nd generation - it is microprocessor based. The previous generation used discrete technology or "pong-on-a-chip" ic's, even those that later tried to move those ic's in to cartridges and use the console portion as a glorified tv signal generator. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)