Jump to content

Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.90.78.3 (talk) at 17:44, 30 June 2011 (→Kinect & Move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Comments

Do not delete! Why?! This is truly the eigth gen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.40.44 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined. Article is sourced and seems to follow the same format as other articles about History of video game consoles No valid reason offered for CSD. Awaitng dialogue w/ tagger. Dlohcierekim 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

g4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (5th nomination). Creator avoided protection with a capital E. Dlohcierekim 02:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not substantially identical to the deleted version, G4 is unsuitable Kociak (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kociak. I was unsure, though I felt it was improved. Dlohcierekim 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pertinent link to discussion on my talk. Prior deletion was for WP:CRYSTAL. This seems remedied at present. Careful sourcing of content about the current status, rather than future status is required to avoid further deletion and drama. Thanks Dlohcierekim 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the definition we've used to define each "generation" in video games, this is absolutely the 8th generation. It seems crazy to me to want to delete it. 174.130.206.28 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors

The definition of what constitutes the eighth generation of consoles is quite nebulous at this date. Please be extremely cautious when expanding it, specially when making comparisons between consoles, to ensure that all content is properly sourced. All additions to the article that don't have a supporting source will be contested per WP:V. We don't need to have a big article at this point, but we do need one that is accurate to the extreme in order to avoid influencing readers. We must be careful to not promote wp:CIRCULAR sourcing at this stage. Diego Moya (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this page

History of video game consoles (eighth generation) → History of video game consoles (2010-present) – Per the AFD, I would like to suggest, to remove the contentious term "eighth generation", that we rename this article "History of video game consoles (2010-present)" to include the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U, as well as any statements on MS and Sony's next console, until such a time that the term "8th generation" can be shown to be an industry accepted term to refer to this group of consoles, or some other industry-wide factor that reassigned one to a different generation. The only change in the body would be to make sure that it is noted that some industry people have called this the 8th generation, as opposed to factually stating it is the eighth generation. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That actually sounds like the best solution to me. Though I don't see in the given resources that any video game industry people are among the some, just related industries. So it's probably important to differentiate on that as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I think this should be addressed through a requested move to gather more opinions. Diego Moya (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RM's are generally not effective for getting eyes to a discussion, given it lacks the structure of AFD or the like. I will be dropping a note at WT:VG, however, to gain more voices. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; these systems are being referred to as "next generation"; the next generation in our sequence is 8. Powers T 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the term "next generation" is not referred to the name of generations in Wikipedia articles, so that inference is original research. This in particular is against WP:CALC which only allows for routine calculations "provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources", something that doesn't apply here. Diego Moya (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on, this is a straightforward calculation. I see no reason to muddy up the concise and convenient system we already have in place. Powers T 19:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, he actually clarified the system we already have in place here. "Next gen" has been used as a marketing term for many, many years and does not always quantify a leap in actual generations. Which is why we go by actual industry (as in video game industry) declaration vs. WP:OR as you're suggesting. Honestly, this was already hashed out in the many discussions on topic in the previous delete threads for this article, and in the wikipedia video game project. Nothing new being stated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:V there are not reliable sources to call the topic eighth generation (it may be used for some consoles, but not for the industry of consoles in 2011 and later as a whole) and per WP:NDESC ("The title chosen should be worded so as to not insert an editor's viewpoint about the topic") and WP:NPOV#Naming the name is biased and is not even in common usage. Diego Moya (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on procedural grounds: This should be proposed as a multi-move request along with all the other "History of video game console (nth generation)" articles. If only this request was successful it would be inconsistent. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the 1st through 7th gens are at least now (after most of the systems in them have been out, and the media has had a chance to consider how to group them) well defined. The issue with the term "eighth gen" is that we have no idea if the media and gaming field will consider now the bleeding edge of it, or will wait until the MS/Sony iterations (there are several calling the Wii U a catch-up to the 360 and PS3, indirectly a 7th gen system). Until we are actually in the eighth gen will we know what the eighth gen is and when that happens, we move out anything not clearly eighth gen into a new (20xx-present) article and move this to "eighth gen". We are simply avoiding a neologism for the time being. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the same reasons as Diego and Masem. CWegner's reasoning doesn't make sense given the context of the call for renaming in the first place. As has already been hashed out, all the other nth generation articles are based on industry related sources. This generation has not been defined by the industry as of yet, hence the move. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support History of eighth generation video games consoles. Misplaced disambiguater. Marcus Qwertyus 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changing the name now to "History of video game consoles (2010-present)" would only get reverted back to "History of video game consoles (eighth generation)" every single time a news article says 8th generation - of which there are now many already. I'm also in the media myself and not calling this the 8th generation would sound silly to myself and all my colleagues. As for why many big sites use the term "next generation" instead of "8th generation", that's easy....it's key word search engine optimization. The term "next generation" is a buzz word that gets picked up by bots far more so than the "nth generation" terms. I understand that constitutes original research but I'm stating it from an industry point of view in here. I've also noticed that many of the previous generation pages don't have their consoles or "nth" moniker sourced yet they are well accepted and established. Why change it when it would only cause confusion to viewers who come looking for "8th generation" and find some ambiguous dating system for 1 generation only? ViperEmpire (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you admit its original research, then we have to remove the term. And again, there are actually scholarly articles for gens 1 through 6, and more than enough for seventh gen. We just don't have anything for 8th gen yet - in 2-4 years, sure, but not today. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh come on, is that really enough to not use the term? So, what, are we just going to wait 2-4 years to be confirmed what we already know to be true just because no one has explicitly said it yet? That's stupid and just reeks of unnecessary red tape. VinLAURiA (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you understand WP's original research policy, you'd understand why we have to wait. Furthermore, given that MS is now saying we're only halfway through the current generation,[1] it is becoming more and more premature to call anything the 8th gen. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was Microsoft talking about the Xbox 360 itself. As you may remember, the PS2 had a similar "ten-year plan" and yet we didn't see the seventh-generation being delayed simply due to what Sony had said. Wii, 360, and PS3 were not considered "generation 2005" just because of that. 3DS, Wii U, and Vita are no different. With those three and talks of PS4 by Sony themselves being made, there's a line between not doing original research and just beating around the bush for the sake of red tape. And besides, what you posted was one source. There are multiple sources against what you said in a lower section on this page. And on the subject of original research, I'd like to point out the "routine calculations" clause that has been accepted for the previous generations so far. And as I've said before, I see no difference between previous generations and this one that couldn't have been said about those generations when they first came out. VinLAURiA (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. On two grounds: 1) Reference to the present does not fix the endpoint of the range in a way that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. (More apt for an edition of a periodical that is date-stamped.) 2) The range should in any case be marked with an en dash (so "2010–present"; not "2010-present"), according to WP:MOS with agreement from most style guides. (Administrative note: This is not a matter involving a change from hyphen to dash or vice versa, so the move is not covered by the current ArbCom injunction.) NoeticaTea? 12:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MOS point is acknowledged, and yes, if moved, would live at the endash version but that's a minor point. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER, there's no way to set an end point until its clear that there's a potential next (read: 9th) generation, and we cannot be assured of that. Furthermore, because we're not paper, we're free to update this as time moves forward and gives us more information. I would even argue that this is a renaming that may only last 2-3 years until the term "eighth generation" is fully established, at which point, say, in 2014, we'll start a "History (2014-present)" article for the next iteration of consoles. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Naming conventions ought to be consistent, and there is and has been sufficient consensus for counting the generations of console hardware. As has been said, changing the name of only one article makes little sense. When we're all streaming video signals from the cloud and the processing power can be gradually updated on the server-side, it'll be another discussion. For now, there is little confusion over which systems are typically associated with each other. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is considerable contention over where Wii U belongs. And it is ok to have inconsistency in name titles as long as navigation between them (via a navbox for example) is clear. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only people unsure which generation Wii U belongs to are people that have an incorrect understanding of what defines a generation. Generations are defined by the predecessor/successor relationship of the flagship consoles from the major video game hardware manufacturers. In general, you cannot have a predecessor/successor flagship console as part of the same generation. The successor introduces the next generation regardless of performance against the current of previous generation. With that in mind, again, the only people unsure which generation Wii U belongs to are those that do not understand this industry accepted definition. ViperEmpire (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • [citation needed] 87.216.124.17 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not correct. The sources that talk about generations identify them by grouping them by distinctions in hardware and software capabilities; that's why some are also called 8-bit or 16-bit or the like. And by that definition, and our articles, we can have multiple iterations of the same manufacture's console in the same generation, we have that with the DS, DS Lite, DSi, and DSiXL; same with the 360 and 360 slim, and PS3 phat-vs-slim. So it's not just iteration on hardware. It is a movement as an industry towards a new paradigm. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Masem, the monikers 8 bit and 16 bit era are just another different naming conventions for the 3rd and 4th generation of video game consoles because the bit depth happened to match the majority of consoles at the time. After that period, bit depth never mattered. The PlayStation, DS and Xbox are all 32 bit system but do we group them as a generation? Of course not. The DS, DSLite, DSi and DSi XL are models of the same console. They are not flagship predecessor/successor consoles. Same with the Xbox 360 and the Xbox 360 Slim. Why then is this generation not just called the HD generation with the Wii being relegated to the 6th generation? Because similarities in hardware power are not the criteria for inclusion in a generation. Never have been, never will be. As I stated before, most of the people arguing against the naming convention are those that have an incorrect understanding of the generational naming convention to begin with. ViperEmpire (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reason they are monikers is because that was the definition used for that generation, describing the bit size of the processing path. Yes, that only lasted for a few generations as the bit size no longer was the most critical factor, but it is still based on hardware: the 7th gen, for example, is now characterized as consoles generally using optical media, robust online connectivity and services, and high-definition output (and yes, the Wii doesn't exactly have HD, but it DOES have the first). This is why there is some indication that the Wii U is being classified as a 7th gen, because there's no advancement of the overall hardware sense when compared to all other consoles. Generations are always based on hardware and software, and not just manufacturer's iterations. And we will not know what the 8th generation is until the hardware for the the MS and Sony successors are and if they are considered significant improvements. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Masem, I don't think the features the console boasts really matters. It's just a main Nintendo console that is coming out after Nintendo's 7th generation console. That's why it's an 8th generation console, that's really the only reason. We can look in hindsight and observe what characteristics these systems share in common and then say that this is a trait that was observed in consoles that came out in this generation, but that's not what makes them part of that specific generation, the observation is made in hindsight. ScienceApe (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • We can look in hindsight and observe what characteristics these systems share in common and then say that this is a trait that was observed in consoles that came out in this generation and that's exactly why we cannot be calling things the "eighth generation", because there is no hindsight yet. What if the next MS and Sony consoles aren't out until 2016 and Nintendo makes a new console in time for those? Where does that put the Wii U? The only way to judge where the Wii U will be considered is to see how the industry in a broad stroke places it, either with the 360 and PS3 and Wii, or as a future console. It is too soon to tell which is why there's no way we should be using "eighth generation". --MASEM (t) 17:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's the 8th generation because the Wii U is a new main Nintendo console that came out after the Wii which is a 7th gen console. Seems pretty simple to me. Well if that happened I would say the Wii U is an 8th generation console and Sony and Microsoft simply skipped the 8th generation and went straight for a 9th generation console. ScienceApe (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's original research to assume that, and why we need to remove this term from the title. We have to go by what the industry as a whole has stated, and they have not stated as a whole that the Wii U is 8th gen, because no one knows what the 8th gen is going to be. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm just telling you what I would think if Sony and MS did what you described in your little hypothetical situation. So even if it is original research it doesn't matter because that's not what is happening right now. As for your second point, while it may be true that they don't use these terms, it is the only way to organize the generations in an clear and well understood manner. You agree that we need these articles that describe the history of video games right? ScienceApe (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The years a generation lasts overlaps with other generations therefore using years to describe generations is inappropriate. Few things to consider here. We need to have articles that cover the history of video game consoles. That fact is not in dispute here. What is in dispute here is how to refer to the various generations of video game consoles. While it is true that video game generations may not be referred to as 1st, 2nd, etc, in third party printed material, we need to have a way to organize the generations and this is the only way to do it. There simply is no other way to clearly organize the history of video games without referring to them as we have been doing already. ScienceApe (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The year overlap is solved by asserting it is the year of the console's first release. So no, this isn't an issue. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consoles of the same generation are released in different years and last for different amounts of time. Your naming method is just inferior to what we are using already. ScienceApe (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's dealt with by using date ranges, eg, "2005-2009" would classify all the 7th gen consoles. But I am not suggesting renaming all the past history articles. I am saying that until we know what is 8th gen or not, we use a year range to classify it. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are still games being made for the PS2 which is a 7th gen console, so your date ranges don't mean much. Naa we should be consistent. It wouldn't make much sense to have all the previous generations listed by generation numbers, then have this one go by a time frame. ScienceApe (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not if we're engaging in original research and using a neologism that is not defined by the industry as a whole. And if you missed what I said, I said "console release". Games themselves are not classified in generations, only the hardware they're played on, it doesn't matter if there are PS2 games still being released today, the PS2 still is 6th gen and would not have anyhting do to with consoles released in 2010 or afterwards. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the numbering system we are using for the console generations is entirely original research. But I think not numbering it the way we are doing it, would be confusing and run contrary to what we are trying to do here: Make a good encyclopedia. We need articles on the history of video games, and this is the best way to title them. That's what I think. ScienceApe (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • What's wrong with labeling generations by date ranges, and how is using numbers better? All I see here is people that oppose the "eighth generation" term by citing the Wikipedia core content policies; and people which defend it by willfully engaging in original research all while saying that it's impossible to find a labeling system which is consistent with the guidelines - even when such a system has been proposed in a coherent way. Diego Moya (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I already told you what is wrong with labeling generations by date ranges and why using numbers is better. ScienceApe (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And it's been explained that as long as you explicitly state that we're dropping the consoles into the date range based on the year of introduction, that handles all the overlaps. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And how do you decide what date ranges to use? How do you decide what is in the same generation? You're grouping the generations using the same logic we are, but you are using a more confusing and less intuitive naming system. ScienceApe (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well, again, let me be clear: I am not calling for the renaming of the old articles as the various "generation" terms apply sufficiently well there since they have happened and are in the past. We don't know how to classify the Wii U yet nor how the press is going to compare it, so saying it's either 7th or 8th gen is original research. But it, like the 3DS and Vita, is a console released after 2010, and a undisputed fact. (If we were to rename the old articles, I would use the date scheme that does correlate to the generations, as to require minimal edits, but again, that's not my goal here) --MASEM (t) 18:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Below you can see that the press indeed does call the Wii U 8th generation, though I concede that that doesn't yet appear to be the case for the 3DS and Vita. On the greater issue, I remain largely agnostic: the move may be technically better in terms of following established WP guidelines, but it would be worse for the readers (remember, "ignore all rules"). This shouldn't be a huge deal either way, unless this is used as a pretext to change all the titles of the generations 1-7 articles.LedRush (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                              • As I mentioned in the AFD, the "8th generation" is not yet an industry adopted term (unlike 1-7th gen as I grant above, and to your comment below). It can only be defined once the industry has determined which consoles it will compare against, not just because manufacturer X has put out another iteration of hardware. And until MS and Sony actually have specs for what their next systems are, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. That's why it is original research. I've no problem leaving redirects, and keeping a line that say "some have suggested that the Wii U will be the first eighth gen console" in the lead, but we cannot assert that there is any 8th gen at this point. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You do realize that all of the previous generation names (Generation 1, 2, 3, etc) are all original research too right? If you aren't calling for renaming those previous generations despite their titles being OR, I think trying to rename this specific article based on that premise is rather weak since you probably understand the wisdom in keeping those names despite it being OR. ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • No, that view has been explicitly refuted. The use of the terms for 1-7 is so well established that it's almost impossible to argue against. We have definitions for what makes the different generations different in scholastic journals, generally excepted definitions for what comprises these generations, and general use of the terms in reliable sources. If you want to argue that we shouldn't use the term, you need to argue it a different way.LedRush (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I was talking to Masem, not you. I'm in favor for keeping the names "Generation 1-8" as it is. ScienceApe (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                • If you want to keep them, don't argue they are OR. Firstly, they clearly aren't OR. Secondly, if they are, they should be removed.LedRush (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I wasn't arguing they are OR, I was saying they are OR. If they should be removed for being OR, why did you say "the move may be technically better in terms of following established WP guidelines, but it would be worse for the readers (remember, "ignore all rules")". I actually agree with that statement. If it would be worse for the readers, then it shouldn't be changed. Making a better encyclopedia is more important than following the rules to the letter. ScienceApe (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • If a term is OR, presenting it to the reader as a supposed fact is harming the encyclopedia. That's why I have no issue, at a larger scale, with 1-7 generations, but "eighth generation" is a nebulous term with no meaning that we can assert at this time without engaging in OR. We won't know what 8th gen means for probably a couple more years. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • I don't think so. I think you're overreacting actually, or exaggerating to make your stance appear stronger. What we are doing is a very simple way of categorizing the various generations of video game consoles. We know what the 8th generation is for the same reason why this article exists in the first place. Because the Wii U is a main Nintendo console that is coming out after Nintendo's 7th generation console. ScienceApe (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • (edit conflict)Generations 1-7 clearly aren't OR. We have tons of sources for those. Generation 8 is different. I think CALC may allow for this, but it is more susceptible to OR arguments. Hence my statement. Also, I'm not sure why your playing a game of semantics concerning the words "argue" and "say". Totally counterproductive.LedRush (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • I guess I'm saying I'm not arguing that the names are OR, because I'm not. There's a big difference. I'm actually going to take your word that Generations 1-7 are not OR. If I was arguing the point, I would demand citations that prove it, but I don't mind either way. ScienceApe (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I'm not a regular in debates in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and far from an expert on the topic; I followed some earlier discussions on this after a mention of the 8th Gen was made on WP:ITN. Having looked at several discussions about the use of the term 8th Generation (which I have voiced support for), it seems to me that it would be more productive to hold this debate off for a while and come back to it when the situation is clearer. This issue has effectively been debated already at AFD and other places, and consensus in this debate and elsewhere clearly shows the WP community supports the use of the term 8th generation, though there is significant dissent. If we wait a few months we may be able to reexamine the sources and see if the term has become more established, or in fact died off. But right now it seems like we're rehashing an old debate. I understand the issue under discussion here is different than the previous AFD discussion, but it seems that many of the same arguments are being used, and a similar rough consensus is being arrived at. If I could make a few further points:
    • I see no problem with naming an article 'history of video game consoles 2010--' and keeping the old 1-7 generation articles. I think there many cases where similar inconsistancies exist. There may be a better analogy but the Crusades come to mind, where there are numbered crusades following the traditional numbering system and other named crusades that fall in between or afterwards such as the Children's Crusade or the Albigensian Crusade.
    • Why does the 'industry as a whole' need to accept the term 'nth generation' for it to be used? That seems like an unnecessarily high bar to me; is there a Policy on this? Otherwise the only requirement I am aware of is the existence of verifiable reliable sources.
    • For my own part I will !vote weak oppose for the time being and support keeping the article named as is, though we should monitor the situation. My feeling is that while the Wii U is probably not technically a generation apart from 7th generation, it seems to be in terms of the business and marketing cycle; some RSs do exist using the term, and a whole boatload of sources use the admittedly WP:PEACOCK term 'next generation'. I'm also convinced by the argument that the 'nth generation' labels are rarely used outside of Wikipedia anyway, though the serve as a useful labeling term here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. It's going to be confirmed to be this in later years, so why don't we just cut to the chase? It's the eighth generation, and I'm sick of seeing deletionists make the articles beat around the bush because no one has explicitly said it. You claim it's not an industry-accepted term? It might as well be, because I'm seeing no proof of the otherwise aside from what you're saying, and everyone outside of Wikipedia is calling it that. The debate shouldn't have even gone on this long. There is absolutely nothing that would set this generation apart from any of the others that couldn't have also been said for previous generations when they just came out, and they're all using the number system. The only people who have a problem with the term "eighth generation" is Wikipedia itself! VinLAURiA (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinect & Move

Don't Sony and MS consider the Move and Kinect as their next generation? (even though it's not, but it seems to be marketed that way) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are peripherals just as say Wii Balance Board or Wii Motion Plus is for Wii. They do not constitute as a new generation of consoles but peripherals for current consoles. The marketing of the peripherals is done so as to suggest they are new experiences to be had on those consoles of this generation but not so much as to actually be a new generation of consoles...given those are not consoles themselves anyway, just peripherals. ViperEmpire (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, they are additions to the main console.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

news articles discussing the eighth generation

  • Wii U is eighth generation [2] [3]
  • For N, MS and Sony[4] [5]

If someone has any issues with these sources, there are literally hundreds of others to choose from.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wii U's Graphics Card

It has not been confirmed, but the article states that it already has. The reference points to an article that confirms nothing. The card in question is a rumor and nothing more.

It should be removed to say unknown or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyPwned (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since a page move isn't likely going to have consensus...

I would like to rewrite the lead a bit here to 1) assert there is an eighth generation and most importantly 2) assert that while there is no clear indication of what the eighth gen will include, some journalists have considered the Wii U, Vita, 3DS, and MS and Sony's next consoles to be included in that generation.

This de-engages the exactness of calling these eighth gens (since that's still disputed) but still allows for the factor that they are being considered eighth gen in lieu of having a better definition for them. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO an explicit assertion that "there is no clear indication of what the eighth gen will include" in the article will require a reliable source to support it. Otherwise I wouldn't include that assertion. Diego Moya (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking that point, here's what we have now:

In the history of video games, the eighth generation of video game consoles is a term to describe new consoles released or to be released from 2011 onwards.
So far, the only eighth generation home console announced is Nintendo's Wii U in 2012. Sony also confirmed that it's working on its next home console; however, they say that they are sticking to the 10 year lifecycle for their Playstation 3 console. There is no official announcement regarding an eventual successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360; Microsoft executives have suggested that the Xbox 360 life cycle may last 10 years up to 2015 thanks to the Kinect accessory, and that the console is "about halfway through the current console life cycle".

How'd I rewrite it to address the issue that 8th gen is still a vague term:

In the history of video games, the eighth generation of video game consoles is a term to describe the next iteration of consoles that are expected to follow the current seventh generation consoles, Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PlayStation 3, and Nintendo's Wii. It also describes handheld game units released in the similar timeframe.
Presently, only Nintendo has announced its successor, the Wii U, for release in 2012. Several journalists have classified the system as the first eighth generation system. Through both Microsoft and Sony have discussed development of their next console iteration, both have stated that their current seventh generation systems have a ten year lifecycle, with Microsoft, Sony, and others stating that these units are only halfway through their current cycle in part due to the additional of motion controllers such as the Kinect and PlayStation Move.
Journalists have also qualified the handheld devices of PS Vita and Nintendo 3DS as eighth-generation units.

Still acknowledges the various sources that give the 8th gen name to Wii U (but not factually stating this is true), and emphasizing this is still a developing generation. No other parts of the article needs to be changed. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eighth_generation_of_video_game_consoles&oldid=437085161"