Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Apple Pippin

• I've removed the Apple Pippin section again, as it consists of very ropey speculation, original research, and repeats the information in the intro. If you wish to re-add it, discuss here first. Sum0 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• this is not original research as it has sources for the claims. and it does not simply repeat the information in the intro as it gives the reason some people think that apple is planning to produce the "pippin 2". 22:40, 16 December 2006 User:J.L.Main

Apple Pippin 2

Apple has recently begun hiring game designers which has lead some people to speculate that Apple is trying to enter the video game market. They may decide that it is too risky to let Microsoft become a dominant gaming company and release their own video gaming system so as to prevent this. At this time no official word has been released concerning these speculations, and even if Apple does create a Pippin2 it may not be for the Eighth Generation. Sum0 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason this page should be kept on for now

The Nintendo 3DS has been announced, but since one video game console has been announced so far, I placed this article in the "Stubs" category. However, I do feel that this page needs to be kept on a little longer.
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 12:02, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Then it should still be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL if not through speedy then through WP:PROD or WP:AFD... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I don't see anything in the cited reference that says "eighth generation" in any way. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Couple of points

1) Should the article start with "eight generation era," I am going to change this to state "eight generation" only which seems less redundant (Please revert if I'm mistaken). 2) It seems that defining the difference between the 8th and 7th generation will be a challenge. While 3D gaming does seem to be the next "major wave" that will hit video games, existing consoles from the previous generation are being adapted to it, rather than having new consoles created (i.e. PS3). Similarly, Project Natal for the Xbox 360 is a new, innovative way to play video games along with PS Move. Do new technologies for older systems fit into the new or older generation? allan (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For the time being I've added Natal and Move here. allan (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Eighth Generation is still up in the air

There has yet to be any announcements for an eighth generation of gaming consoles, as such this is a hypothetical slot for a future article that won't have nessicary information beyond speculation for a few years.

3DS might qualify, though the hand-held gaming systems tend to follow a different pattern than the standard consoles.

PlayStation Move and Project Natal probably shouldn't be included, as they are only add-ons to the current seventh generation systems and not entirely new systems in themselves

--voodoom (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

article

Discussion about the Eighth Generation of Video Games.

Don't Delete!

Don't delete it, please! This information is all referenced and is written in the 3rd person non-fiction style wikipedia uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.11.177 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

This page is not substantially identical to the deleted version, G4 is unsuitable Kociak (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kociak. I was unsure, though I felt it was improved. Dlohcierekim 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Renaming this page

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. That was a lot to read, and quite reasonable arguments have been given for each option. Ultimately, it came down for me to this: (A) Some sources are using the term, and we don't have to wait for an industry-wide consensus to start talking about something. (B) In cases where the generation of a console isn't explicitly established, but it seems obvious based on historical context, we can mention the console and note that it's hasn't yet been assigned a generation, but that it succeeds a seventh-generation console... or something like that.

Titling the article "eighth generation" and allowing discussion of consoles that are likely to be called eighth generation, based on an established pattern, isn't what Wikipedians were thinking about when they first wrote down "No original research". - GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Support History of eighth generation video games consoles. Misplaced disambiguater. Marcus Qwertyus 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• 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.) Noetica^Tea? 12:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 87.216.124.17 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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)
                    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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)
                    • 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)
                      • 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)
                        • • 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)
                            • 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)
                              • Perhaps the industry hasn't adopted the term (I don't know), but I have demonstrated conclusively that the press is calling the Wii U an 8th generation console.LedRush (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
                                • Again you're showing selected sources, but its not industry-wide. It is a neogolism and should be avoided until it is clear what the meaning of "8th generation" is. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
                        • 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)
                          • 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)
                            • 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)
                              • 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)
                                • 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)
                                  • 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)
                                    • 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)
                                  • (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)
                                    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• The problem with this debate is the lack of understanding behind the naming convention itself. Many WP editors are still confused and this is leading to senseless debate. Some editors believe a generation has definable time frame and/or requires all the inclusive entities of the generation before it can be named. This is incorrect as to my understanding as a member of the video game media industry. The generation is defined by the predecessor/successor relationship of the flagship consoles from the console makers. Therefore the 8th generation began when the Nintendo 3DS was launched in Japan back in Feb. The 8th generation by default would include any successors to those consoles from the 7th generation which will likely include what will become the PS4 and Next X. I present this definition here because you will not find a definition in a news article. IGN isn't going to write an article about what defines a generation just so we can end this debate. So stop waiting for it. The 8th generation is a collection of successor products from a previous generation. It is not a time frame that should be dated. This has been valid for the previous generations. Contesting it now seems fruitless. Tell me, for the 2012 page, did anyone actually source what constitutes or defines a year or which year comes after 2011? The introductory paragraph only sources other Wiki pages because defining something already established isn't necessary. ViperEmpire (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation needed. Every source that I'm aware of that attempts to compare generations is based not on iteration, but grouping by common hardware features, such as the bit wars of the earlier generations. They have also historically ignoring portable systems, so whatever the 3DS and Vita may be, they don't influence this. To determine the generation, we need to know what grouping of consoles are coming to be compared and contrasted in terms of sales, hardware, software libraries, etc. This is clearly the case for 6th gen PS2/GC/Xbox 1, and 7th gen PS3/Wii/Xbox 360, but we cannot classify the Wii U yet, period. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • And please note the section below: we can't lose the term "eighth generation" by consensus, but we can clearly state that it's coming, and several have already called the Wii U an 8th gen, but as long as we don't state the fact that Wii U is an 8th gen, then I'm satisfyied without a name change. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• 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)

Exactly, they are additions to the main console.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is I don't see Microsoft creating a new Xbox before 2015, since the Kinect was a great move forward (as the Wii was back in 2006). If they added simply a Wii sensor and remotes to the GameCube, we would still call it 6th generation? We should ask ourselves what makes a 6th, 7th or 8th generation, and don't tell me it's the number of bits. 24.202.146.149 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it since it would simply be a addition to an existing console and not a new console.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seems a great improvement and accurate description of the sources. Go for it! Diego Moya (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So now that's it's been discussed... is the 8th generation truly existing the consensus? Or is there more to be discussed? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always been uncomfortable with the "n^th generation" descriptors - because I don't find them often used - the terms appears to be a fan-made term, eg ign, gamespot etc don't seem to use it (it's common in their forums) - this raises some issues about accuracy eg Wikipedia:Article titles quote: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. (forums aren't usually considered reliable) (I see the links to game journalists - I'm not disputing those - but "rock solid" examples eg from the big sites would be much better) - however there don't appear to really be any alternatives. I don't actually associate a generations number with a set of consoles - and I would bet I'm not alone in that - the terminology is probably not going to be that helpful outside the key-gamer-base.. Using dates is an alternative but that is a minefield in itself. So I don't really like or approve BUT I can't think of anything better .. so..

Important Note: It's not clear if people are getting the whole "7th gen" thing from wikipedia (ie using WP as their source)- that would be wrong - though it is possible that it has happened - if true that is interesting - if anyone can prove it either way that would be really helpful - it would be relevant for other articles abouts wikipedia's impact... it could be a bit of self perpetuating original research. No use crying over split milk

The replacement lead section is good. I can't complain about that. It's important to note it's terminology.

Re the other consoles - I couldn't find reliable sources - but the names are in common use by fans eg [6] [7] so it shouldn't really be a big deal, though Imgaril (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:EVO 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:EVO 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

EVO 2

This is why we really need to be waiting for sources - the whole addition of the Evo 2 is based on pure speculation (not even a journalist source) that the unit will be eighth gen just due to when it will be released. This is, of course, a bogus argument. If journalists put it as eighth gen, then we can include it here, else it should be back in seventh gen.

But this exposes the entire problem with the generations, and why year-based divisions are better, simply because then the evo 2 would clearly be categorized here. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. That same user readded Evo 2 information, and I have removed it, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that I'm not trying to say that the Evo 2 cannot be put on this page, but it is being give way too much predominance despite the fact that the first Evo isn't even listed on the 7th gen, and nor would be put in comparison to the Wii/PS3/360. Furthermore, the argument "it was released after the 3DS, and therefore must be 8th gen" is not an impressive argument. Generations can overlap - it is how the hardware and other components are compared between each other, not just become there's a new iteration of the hardware. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. There is something I want to say. Can I just ask you: have you ever seen 2 consoles from the SAME company in the same generation? No, and this has never and will never happen. For example: Sony's PlayStation series: PS1 is from the 5th gen, PS2 is from the 6th gen, PS3 is from 7th gen. Can you see the pattern?

Let's try Nintendo: NES is from 3rd gen, SNES is from 4th gen, 64 is from 5th gen, GameCube is from 6th gen, Wii is from 7th gen. Again, you can see this. You can do the same for Microsoft, Sega and all others. As I said at the start, there are NO 2 consoles from the SAME company in the SAME generation, and that will never happen.

So... the EVO Smart Console was from the 7th gen, so that means, its successor, the EVO 2, will be in the 8th gen (following the same pattern as the ones above). That's a proof why it's in the same gen.

2. And also... this is another proof. (Let's take generation A and B as examples). Generation A has just finished, and the first console of gen B just came out. A new console will be released AFTER the first console of gen B, but will be a gen A console. Is this possible? Again, no! Here is a real example: In December 2004, the first two consoles of the 7th gen came out (PSP and DS). All consoles that were released AFTER that were in the 7th gen, and NOT in the 6th gen. See? Proof 2.

3. This is the third message to prove that EVO 2 is in the 8th gen. (This is linked to proof 2, above). The EVO 2 will be released ALMOST A YEAR after the 3DS, which was the first console in the 8th gen. So just like I said in proof 2, the EVO 2 WILL be in the 8th gen.

4. This is particularly a message to User:Masem. Masem said, above my proofs: "and nor would be put in comparison to the Wii/PS3/360". Can I just ask, why? Just because the EVO 2 is from a smaller company, doesn't mean it neccessarily can be put into comparison with those other three ones. I guess you said that because it isn't good or something? Well, here is one feature: the EVO 2 has 3D gaming and motion. Not even the Xbox 360 has that, so there you go.

These 4 proofs have been made by me, --Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but none of your points overcome your lack of reliable sources. Everything you just said falls under original research, which is not acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Mate, they don't need a source. The source is Wikipedia's articles. For my proofs, you need to look at the articles of previous generations to see what I said was right.

Using that same kind of logic, if what you say is so absolutely correct, you shouldn't have any problems supplying some reliable sources on it. >_> Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Addressing these points:

1) Yes: Nintendo DS and DSi. Also, technically Famicon/NES

2) Generations overlap. PS2 games still came out, and the console was one of the best selling ones, during the initial onset of the 7th gen. Today, sure, I think most agree that the 6th gen has long since ended, but the 7th gen is still going. Right now, if you follow industry rumors, the Wii U will be out while MS and Sony are still looking at revisions and additions to their 7th gen consoles. Assuming the Wii U as 8th gen, this is a clear sign of overlap between generations.

3) Doesn't matter when Console X is released relative to Console Y in Gen N. It is how that console is compared to other consoles, how the grouping is put into the generation. I've already seen people arguing that the Wii U finally meets the specs of the 360 and PS3 and thus tempted to classify it as 7th gen.

4) Look at the 7th gen page: notice there's about 7-10 more settop consoles floating in sections below the table, which is where EVO 1 would likely fit. Not every game console is going to be compared at the most general levels of reporting, and we have to recognize that if the media only recognizes three consoles as the core ones for the generation, we can't add these comparisons ourselves. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify things a bit, Wikipedia's policy is that, quote, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (see:WP:V). Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, and as such is a tertiary source, that is, it re-publishes that which is already accepted by primary and secondary sources, nothing more. Also to quote from WP:V, "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". If you (Gaming&Computing) cannot come up with one then your text cannot be included.

Even if that weren't the case though, you are giving the EVO 2 undue weight. It may deserve a passing mention (like the EVO in the 7th gen article) but given its relative obscurity it does not deserve to be placed in the specs table (for example). Such info may be useful in the EVO 2 article, but not here, as this article is here to give an overview, nothing more.

Oh, and by the way, the image you uploaded to commons of the EVO 2 is a blatant copyvio and doesn't belong on commons. It may be re-uploaded here and used under fair-use, but you have no right to release the image under any license, Creative Commons or otherwise.

P.S. when making lists of numbered items, you might want to consider using Wikipedia's built in ordered list functionality (see: Wikipedia:List#Numbered lists).

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. That's not what I meant. When you said DS and DSi, let me just explain this. The DSi is an UPDATE of the DS, not a seperate console. Here's the proof: go to History of video game consoles (seventh generation). Why is then the DS listed together with DS lite, DSi and DSi XL? Because they are updates. 3DS for example, is NOT an update, and therefore is listed seperately.

2. With generations overlap, as you said, again, what I meant was the RELEASE DATE of each console, not their lifespan.

3. But the Wii U is 8th gen...

4. Yes, but it doesn't neccessarily have to be 3 consoles. For example, it was 4 consoles in 6th gen, 6 consoles in 5th gen etc. Also, what you said by "general levels of reporting", I would like to reply, that we never know if a console will or will not be "general levels of reporting". Like, MAYBE the Xbox 720 or PS4 or whatever the next consoles would be, MAYBE they would be a big fail and sell a million or something; we never know. That's what happened in 1995. My older brother told me once that back in 95, he had a Sega Master System, and wanted to buy something new. And then he told me that it was 'so sudden' that the PlayStation became popular.

See? If this was December 94 or the start of 95, we would've put the PlayStation in the "7-10 more settop consoles floating in sections below the table" list. But now, we wouldn't.

But generally, the EVO 2 does seem like a professional console to me. It has 3D gaming, which the Xbox 360 doesn't even have yet, so that's something that MAY make it 8th gen. Ok, I would be happy for a reply. By the way, us three can't just keep on discussing all the time. Why won't we have the other Wikipedians to vote if they agree on you or me. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem is that there is no evidence that the Evo 2 is going to be compared in the same breath to the systems from MS, Sony, and N in the 8th gen by the general population of video game journalists. We can safely assume that MS, Sony, and N's console releases for this generation will be discussed and compared at length since they have dominated the last 2 generations. Those consoles may fail miserably, but they will still be compared at the highest level. On the other hand, EVO 1 is a relative unknown unit, and there's no indication that the EVO 2 is going to have a wider distribution, particular to rival the millions of consoles from the big 3. If it does, hey, great, we'll add a column to the main console comparison table, but to presume that this will be the case based on such limited information now is too much original research. We can still mention the EVO 2 as an alternate console of this generation, but we cannot group it with the Wii U at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On your (Gaming&Computing's) "reporting" point, I didn't really pay attention to the gaming media back in '94/'95, so I cannot really comment on how widely the PS1 was reported on. However, that is fairly irrelevant. If a console isn't widely reported on before launch (as you are suggesting the PS1 was and as the EVO 2 has been) then it should be treated as an outlier, as that is how it is seen. If after launch it proves to have been a success and is reported on more widely, it is then promoted to a more prominent position; this is how due weight works. I think this is pretty much what Masem is saying too, but I wrote this before they posted so I'm just throwing it out there.

Also, it seems pretty clear that Masem, Sergecross73 and I agree on this, at least generally speaking (citations required, doesn't deserve to be compared on the same level etc), and until someone else arrives to discuss this, that seems like a pretty strong consensus. (If I have misread anyone here please correct me on this.) Also, regarding "Why won't we have the other Wikipedians to vote if they agree on you or me", you may want to read WP:NOT#DEM and WP:PNSD. In a nut shell, voting is generally avoided on Wikipedia as discussion is preferred, and is usually only used to either stimulate discussion or show a clear existing consensus.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't edit war on the page. WP uses a Bold Revert Discuss cycle, in that we applaud you for taking the initial initiative to incorporate the new material into the article (that's why WP is open), but if someone reverts it, you don't edit-war to keep it in place, you discuss it to see how consensus feels the material should be added. No one here is saying we shouldn't mention the EVO 2 on this page, but it shouldn't be placed alongside the Wii U as a major console of the generation. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to verify that Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita are eighth generation consoles? "To be compared in the same breath to the systems from MS, Sony, and N in the 8th gen" is a really weak criterion for defining a console as eighth generation, and it's closer to WP:OR than to WP:V. "Being released in the eighth generation timeframe" and "being the successor of a seventh generation console" are better criteria for the current article status and more consistent with the criteria chosen to call this article "8th generation". I agree to reduce wheight for the EVO 2 and not have a full specs table, but it should be included (the first EVO is currently listed as seventh generation, so it's at the same position than the other successors). Otherwise there's no coherent reason to keep the 3DS and Vita - they're held to a double standard right now. I have found sources positioning the EVO 2 with respect to the current and next generation, I'll use them to reinstate this console to the article ("to play next generation PC games", several comparisons with the "current generation", explicit sourcing as a "next gen console" and successor of a previous console by the same company). Add to this that the EVO 2 is targeted to the Android gaming market and it fits into the "stiff competition from the smartphone and tablet gaming markets" that will play a part of the eighth generation. This brings sourcing to the same level of coverage that is currently used for the handhelds. Diego (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A thought regarding the "Evo is on the 7th gen article" argument -- As you can see with this edit, EVO 1 was just added to the 7th gen article less than 2 weeks ago, against consensus on that page's discussion page, by the same user who keeps trying to add Evo 2 to this article despite consensus also against it here as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. I still agree with User:Masem that there's no reason to not include the EVO 2 on the basis of its release date as long as it's not added to the specs comparison table. I think I can use the sources above to create a new section describing the competition that the "official 8th generation" will have from tablets, online services like OnLive (that was also requested to be included) and the EVO 2 which is based on Android. With this approach there's no need to have these services described as "eighth generation" as there's enough reason to mention them in this context. This section can be similar in spirit to the other systems in the seventh generation article (which BTW does mention the EVO 1). Diego (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Diego, as Sergecross has pointed out, the section you see in the 7th generation article that contains the EVO 1, was added by the same editor that added EVO 2 to the 8th generation article. It has been removed and reverted a couple of times, but the editor continues to add it back in different ways. Using the 7th Gen article as a basis for inclusion in EVO 2 is invalid since it was only added to the 7th Gen article recently, and by the same editor, against consensus. It should either be removed from the 7th Gen article, or added back to the 8th Gen article. Consensus seems to lean towards removal from both. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was confused about that as well; Diego, your response started with "Point taken", but then ended with a "BTW" comment/stance that totally went against my point. The fact that EVO was put on the 7th gen against consensus does not help your argument, and/or falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

I still stand by my stance of if there's a source that calls it 8th gen, fine, if not, remove it. (That goes for any system. Remove 3DS if there's no sources for it...but be prepared for backlash...) I'm not sure your sources you've given for EVO 2 work though. I don't know if sites like "Thuderboltgames.com" consistitute as a WP:RS, or if a press release from the company that says it'll play PC games makes it part of the 8th gen... Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry maybe I'm a bit thick today, for some reason I thought the consensus was against the EVO Smart Console infobox displaying the Seventh generation era, not for the whole Other systems section at seventh generation (not that I would call this conversation a strong consensus, though). Anyway as I said my arguments for including EVO 2 (and other systems) do not depend on it being cited as 7th generation nor existing in other similar sections, I only included that final bit as illustration. As for removing content, having source naming something 8th gen is really useful as the single criterion - if it was, we should trim the whole collection of generation articles, since the numbered generations are an artifact of Wikipedia's organization and not a convention used by the industry. I prefer a more constructive approach where content that is relevant to the topic can be included as described by reliable sources, instead of trying to define one single clear-cut criterion that is impossible to met even for the systems already included. Diego (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that our 2 arguments have boiled down to a "I think we should" and "I think we shouldn't" type stalemate. Lets see if any other people have any input on this. <font color="greenSergecross73 msg me 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

EVO 2 is part of the 8th gen. It might not be viewed as a 8th gen console but it is. It's released in the 8th gen period, so it must be and obvious 8th gen. Also, the EVO 2 doesn't have ANY link in Wikipedia. It needs to have a link so people can know it [the EVO 2]. So, if you think EVO 2 is not part of 8th gen, then where should it belong to? See? There's nothing else except 8th gen, so I think it should belong here. It needs a link anyway! Generations are the period of release dates! So it MUST belong here!--Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, remember, I am not saying that the EVO 2 should be added next to Wii U for comparison, I'm just saying that the EVO 2 should be mentioned in the article, and placed in the Other systems section. There's no problem with that eh? And BTW as I said before, the EVO 2 needs a link. The problem is, EVO 2 is not known by a lot of people: reason? because it's not linked with another article. It should be mentioned on this article.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of "should be" in that. Does EVO2 actually meet notability guidelines? It's own article seems to have a single joystiq article, a PR release, and a local paper. Is that enough to establish notability? Remember, verifiability is not notability. -- ferret (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can at least understand Diego's line of thinking and what he's getting at. However, arguments like "Evo 2 needs more wiki-links to it" and "We need to put it somewhere, why not here?" type arguments are not valid. There's no rule or obligation that every little tech gadget that can play a game needs a place in these generation articles. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lemme make it clear: it needs a link! It should be at least mentioned in this article or a similar one. Even that will be good enough.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the position some of the rest of us are taking. I'm personally not so sure Evo 2 itself should even have an article. It isn't very notable on it's own, and inclusion in this article doesn't add notability to it. -- ferret (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe that needs to be explored more. I'll look into cleaning up that article, seeing how much coverage it's getting in third party sources, and see where it stands at that point. Feel free to assist if you like. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the article, while it is pretty messy, there are enough sources out there probably for it to survive an WP:AFD. However, the article probably could/should be shrunken down into 2 small sections once all the speculation and unsourced junk is removed; one section containing Background/History, and one with the specs from the main site.

Additionally, many of the third party sources cast doubt on the product, for what its worth... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

So guys... still no solution for the EVO 2 yet? That's not good is it?--Gaming&Computing (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to not list it. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus to include it, as there are at least 2 people who actively are against it, (Ferret and myself), not to mention there was no consensus to add it last August or whenever, the first time it was discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OnLive

It's a gaming machine, it's contemporary with the 3DS .. Even if it's not considered a console it's definately relavent, and should be mentioned somewhere in the article - anyone willing to do that? They call their hardware a "MicroConsole TV Adapter"(Onlive#OnLive_Game_System) - I think it's reasonable to include it as a new type of console (purely for gaming unlike a PC), not a "conventional console" - but that might be - it's clear some people are calling it a console, or "micro-console" eg [8] [9] Imgaril (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a source calling it "8th gen"? Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is neither 8th gen or a console - OnLive is a service, which can be used via the "microconsole" (technologically, this is closer to a cable box than a console, as all it does is take the video stream and output it to the TV, while sending controller signals "back to base") or a computer (where the software does the same thing). Is it relevant? Probably, but not as an 8th-gen console. It is relevant in the same way as the iPhone and PC games are relevant - for comparative purposes and to show how the consoles fit with the rest of gaming. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you how you cover it. I think whether or not it is a console is subjective .. I gave sources above where the dedicated harware option is described as a console. I don't have a source describing it as 8th gen.

I note that there aren't currently any reliable sources stating the 3DS or PS Vita are 8th gen either. I slightly modified the lead.Imgaril (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I added it to a "see also" section, if people decide to include it in this article later on, feel free to modify that.Imgaril (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a new section called Gaming on demand should be added where OnLive should belong (just like 7th gen article). But BTW, OnLive is released during the 7th gen period, so doesn;t belong here anyway.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2012?

In the little box on the right of all the "history of video games" articles, if you click on "consoles" and scroll to the 8th generation, it says "(2012-)". Now, if the 8th generation is from 2012 on, then that doesn't include the 3DS or the Vita. That can't be right, now, can it?206.248.167.220 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is right. See the lengthy conversations above. Portables have never defined console generations, and there have been no officially released 8th gen consoles yet. Hence the structure of this article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The 3DS or PS Vita isn't even mentioned in the 7th generation. As they clearly succeed the DS and PSP, and must be mentioned in some generation, I've put summaries here. Note that the comparisons were here first, by someone else. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Regional lockout

Look here: NO is NO, and YES is YES! You think it's bad to have Regional lockout. Why?! Do you not get it?! you made the other people confused!? You are a critic! You think you have the right to give your opinion on Wikipedia! You are wrong! It's not a fact, it's an opinion! Now do NOT edit this until you give me the reason why. Then maybe I can believe you. But for now, do NOT edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.248.208 (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're going against an previously established convention. Seek consensus before changing it. Editors are feel to use this section to state their view on the topic. You should not change it again until other editors have chimed in. ferret (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Regional lockout means that some games cannot be played on the system. That's a restriction, leaving the system unable to do desirable tasks. I fail to see how that is good. Please wait for consensus to be reached before reverting the page again: WP:Three revert rule. Mamyles (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok Mamyles, So what your saying is that if there is no Regional lockout that means every game can be played? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.248.208 (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the gist of it. Please also sign your comments, and do not remove SineBot. ferret (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. Regional lockout means that, for example, North American users could not play Japanese games. Lockout is a restriction that limits use of the console, which is bad. Mamyles (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So judging by the edit history, people are still arguing about this. I feel like both yes and no should actually should be displayed in neutral colors, like white or gray. I think it's a WP:NPOV issue to declare either value postive or negative. While a video gamer may see "no region lockout" as a positive trait, because they can import games from other regions, perhaps people like stockholders or game developers may see it as a negative trait, because it could hurts sales in a given region. We've got to remember that we're supposed to be writing these articles for general audiences, not just the scope of video gamers, or our personal viewpoints. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair to me (your proposal I mean, not the current setup). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor added this back, and I've removed it again. Just throwing my comment up that I agree with Sergecross's reasoning. -- ferret (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping demonstrate a stronger consensus about this. I didn't notice the editor make the change until you had already reverted it, but in the future I'll try to help enforce it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Having now read these comments, I agree with your assessment and apologize for re-adding positive "no" and negative "yes". However, in my opinion, the positive "yes" and negative "no" for "3D enabled" should also be removed, as some people (myself included) do not enjoy 3D. Personally, it gives me a headache, and I know I'm not the only one. It does not adhere to WP:NPOV, in the same way the "Regional lockout" does not. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that as well. Can we get 1 more editor (Serge, Alpha?) just to make sure there's a clear consensus to point to if it's added back. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Segrecross about WP:NPOV on "Regional lockout", it's not about a "good" or "bad" trait to gamers and sellers, it's more about handheld's ability. If player want to play imported games on PSV, it can. 3DS can play games in 3D (and it can be turned off for people who have headaches from playing games in 3D), whereas PSV can't play 3D. "inability" is a bad thing. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I meant to say that Sergecross thought wrong about WP:NPOV. red/green based on gamer/seller's preferences IS bias. yes/no in "Regional lockout" and "3D enabled" is colored for different reason. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

someone reverted my changes recent - don't think he did read this, though. I don't to be against you editors. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Posting a disagreement doesn't mean you can go against the establish consensus. Having regional lock out or 3d simply is. There's no negative or positive about it except in the eyes of a particular consumer. To some regional lockout is bad, to others it doesn't matter, and to others depending on their beliefs about IP and copyright, it's good. We cannot assume the reader's position on these issues, so a simple Yes or No is most appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed... Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 13:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In general, I think it's best to stay away from the colors in these scenarios if there's any doubt at all. While NPOV issues can be brought up with colors, they really can't be at all if only white is used. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody having prob with yes/no in green/red and it was just you who started it, thinking it broke NPOV. And congratulation, you've convinced enough editors to establish consensus about why yes/no shouldn't be colored. And maybe someday template:yes and template:no will become white according to NPOV. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 17:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you can see from the beginning of the discussion (and the edit history), people did have an issue, but it was which colors should be used. I just used a policy, WP:NPOV, to explain why there really shouldn't be any colors applied at all. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I kinda see your point... but what about "3d enabled"? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally find 3d a negative, so. There you go, differing consumer views on the feature. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You can turn it off anyway... Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do see what you're getting at about "3D enabled" being different, since it's more of a feature of the system, and can be ultimately not used/ignored. But it goes back to what I said above, if color is divisive at all (Trut challenges it, for instance, so it is), it's probably better to just go with white, which can't really be challenged on any subjective grounds. It's kind of like when two people are arguing whether or not a source is needed. If there's an argument, it means someone is challenging it, and if someone is challenging it, then it's means it probably does, in fact, need a source. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should white out "3D enabled" because I see something little bias in "yes" too because 3DS don't alway play games in 3D, and maybe everything not sourced will be deleted out of Wikipedia because of little bias in them. We would have gone too far for that. Whiting out yes/no is little too much of works if consumer's POV is to be concerned. I think Thrut-h-hurts man tried to defend colored yes/no in "regional lockout" by removing colored yes/no in "3D enabled" to see if you would disregard on whether is yes/no in color against NPOV or not. And then you said yes it still does. Well, to be honest that's little too much. That's what made me want to discuss about it here... And hey I do see your point for yes/no in white in "regional lockout". It really meant to prevent confusion about yes/no in opposite color. Isn't that correct? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see a problem with making any/all section white, just so we can stop these debates. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate complaints about NPOV with using all white, so we may as well just go with that. Leave it white and we can let the readers decide personally whether or not it's a negative or positive trait... Sergecross73 msg me 05:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes/no in white is fine with me too, I guess. I just want to say that yes/no in color hardly go against NPOV. Should we still enforce this when someone added template:yes and template:no to yes/no in the table? I don't think so... Remember, we shouldn't have gone too far for that. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think it needs to be enforced all the time, just when it's challenged, because again, there's no negative repercussion for having it be just white. Again, I'll relate it to sourcing: We don't necessarily source every single sentence, but it is necessary if someone challenges whether or not it's true. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Vita Sales Figures

Now that the PS Vita has been released worldwide, how long before we can update the sales figures to worldwide from Japan, ie when will data probably come out.Guyb123321 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No talk about the rumored used game ban?

One thing I don't get here is why no one's talking about the used game ban. Don't worry I'm not about to go screwing around with stuff I don't understand (i.e. posting this to the article), but to me this seems like a pretty big issue:

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/121/1218051p1.html

At the least, I was expecting to see this mentioned on the talk page even if no one wants to post it to the article itself since it's still a rumor (which Microsoft doesn't seem keen on discussing). Am I wrong? Nonetheless just thought it may be a point to consider bringing up.

• Note: I originally titled this "NEW game ban" not "USED game ban." Sorry about that.

It is a discussion point in the video game community, yes, but right now it's just a rumored feature for a rumored system. Couple that with the fact that the next Xbox system has neither it's own article, or even a subsection on the 8th gen article here, and I think it's basically that there's very little to write about it, and nowhere to write it, at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, 2 of the systems mentioned the 3DS and the PS Vita do not employ this feature and there has not been any rumors suggesting that the 3rd system mentioned the Wii U will. We should at least wait until there is an announcement of the Xbox 720 before addition is even considered and even then it may be best to wait until that specific feature is announced.--70.24.209.52 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Xbox 720

Why does xbox 720 redirect here? It isn't mentioned anywhere. Eomund (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think someone put the redirect in after the last AFD completed. -- ferret (talk)

I thought it was supposed to redirect to "Xbox 360#Successor" or something like that. But yes, that's probably want someone did... Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Xbox 360 doesn't have a Successor section. Is there somewhere else it could go? Or should a section for it be added here? Eomund (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume there's no successor section because no verifiable information has been released about it. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we not have it redirect anywhere then? So as to not confuse readers? Eomund (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which state that it is under development and that it has a project name: Durango. http://kotaku.com/5885539/the-next-xbox-is-code+nameddurango LedRush (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The reliably of Kotaku has been in doubt for some time, I'm not sure we can use them for this. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I subscribe to the Official X-box Mag and they heard roumers about the new system, but they have no concreat evidence for or against such roumers.Shadow Android (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this leaked presentation count as verifiable? --12.42.51.27 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

About new Xbox and Playstation 4

In Xbox 360 article there's written about unnamed sources claiming that Microsoft's new console would be slated for release in 2013 holiday season.

And in Playstation article there's written about successor to PS3 --82.139.5.13 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait until it's officially announced by the respective company. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New console Ouya.

The prototype codename is Ouya

http://gry.interia.pl/ps3/news/ouya-nowa-konsola-od-tworcow-xboksa,1818219,4047

Because i used non-English source, so someone must translate it --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's official/real, then I'm sure it'll be all over the internet, not just on obscure, foreign ones. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have 3 English sources.

http://legalnews.findlaw.com/article/06x70b2eabfjj?q=Sony http://dvice.com/archives/2012/07/ouya-is-a-100-a.php http://www.psxextreme.com/ps4-news/47.html

From what i've saw the console isn't made fully by Microsoft --82.139.5.13 (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the PSextreme source, it's not connected to MS or Sony. I have read about this before, and it is interesting, but probably shouldn't be in the article until it's officially confirmed as a real thing, and a video game console. Right now it's all just rumor/leak stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's rumour. It cannot be fake --82.139.5.13 (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

While the console is not a rumor Microsoft did not make this. I found English language article that clearly states that this is not made by Microsoft would cost less that 99$, built to be hacked and Android based [10] I think we can safely conclude that Microsoft would not build a console like that. The only connection to the Xbox I can find is a statement that that [[Ed Fries] is an advisor. Since this has nothing to do with the 720 or any established video game company I see no reason to mention this console unless it starts to get more coverage and is specifically stated to be a part of this generation (Ie like the Zeebo for the last generation).--174.93.167.177 (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that console wasn't made by Microsoft. I wanted to say that the console cannot be fake, when good sources confirm it. This i wanted to say. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Even Youtube videos (non-satirical and non-spam) confirm it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2afa2pkQtM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vb6fNGGLY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1eZxrJO3n4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwF0brk4Rs0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fYihDviXE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhfb_24ANug and many more --82.139.5.13 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confusing people (myself included) because you literally named this section Microsoft made a new console. Anyways, all the sources are still calling it leaks/rumors/teases etc, so it doesn't really belong in the article yet. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the section. But it cannot be really rumour.

I have many many sources that confirm it. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/2/3134004/ouya-a-99-hackable-android-game-console-designed-by-yves-behar http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/04/99-dollar-android-game-console-ouya/ http://liliputing.com/2012/07/99-ouya-hackable-android-game-console-in-the-works.html http://www.geek.com/articles/games/ouya-a-99-android-games-console-2012074/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/ouya-the-99-google-android-game-console-backed-by-ed-fries-the-man-behind-xbox/ http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-03-USD99-android-console-ouya-is-a-real-thing http://www.lifeofandroid.com/news_detail/announcing-ouya-the-affordable-android-app-games-console/ http://gamepolitics.com/2012/07/05/report-tech-luminaries-backing-99-ouya-home-console http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173624/Open_and_inexpensive_Android_home_console_Ouya_detailed__report.php http://www.redmondpie.com/99-android-game-console-named-ouya-on-the-way-images/ http://www.slashgear.com/ouya-android-device-will-be-a-99-game-streaming-box-05237385/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/digital-blend-the-android-powered-ouya-console-throws-a-gauntlet-down-for-the-big-three/

Look at google search. It has 1,500,000 points and majority of them are saying about the console !!!!

Even article about Ouya can be made, if there are thousands of sources confirming it. I don't name it rumour. Even sources i used aren't from satirical, nationalist or spamming websites.--82.139.5.13 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be closed since a discussion here is not necessary to create an article for this proposed console. Whether or not we should is another matter but that would best discussed on the talkpage of the proposed article, WP:VG, or WP:AFD if necessary. Also even if this console was notable and deserving of an article info on that console would not be placed here unless there are reliable sources saying that the console is part of the 8th generation. For example the EVO Smart Console is notable but is not listed on the 7th generation page due to a lack of sourcing calling it a 7th generation console. In short, the discussion should be closed since this is not the relevant place.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually EVO Smart Console is mentioned as 7th-gen console in both articles about console and about generation --82.139.5.13 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has been removed in the past, and probably should be removed now too. That's not an valid argument to put Ouya on this article. Not to mention, there's a clear consensus on this talk page keeping systems like that EVO 2 off the 8th gen page... Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is just a normal discussion, not AFD or RfC or anything, so it doesn't get "closed" really, but otherwise you're right. Probably shouldn't be in the article until it's called 8th gen. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the number of sources (Arstechnica made an article today as well [11]) I'd definitely say you should start an article at Ouya. Whether or not it becomes part of this article can be discussed later, but the materials for a stand alone article seem to be all in order. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ouya - inclusion or exclusion from 8th gen

So, I'm sure this is going to be brought up again, so I wanted to have an area that shows a clear consensus on this. Is Ouya part of the 8th gen of video games? Or not? Or is it too early to say? Thoughts?

• Oppose inclusion - It sounds rather different than conventional video game consoles, and per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't know what exactly it will be yet. It may be classified more as it's own thing, or more with Tablets or something. I don't think there are sources literally calling it 8th gen either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - Its an Android based device with a pad, presently as much of a console as any other Android device with a pad is, which is potentially all of them. Once it actually exists and is out then depending on its SDK and stuff it my merit inclusion somewhere, but not yet... Adycarter (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - I think we need to see the final form before it's included. There's dozens of devices on the market that "play games" (Roku 2?), similar to Adycarter's point. The open nature or the platform sounds like it may be more akin to an home media PC kind of setup. -- ferret (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - Oppose inclusion at this time. It appears to be designed as a home console (HDMI Audio/Video), has a dedicated wireless gaming controller included (dual analog stick, d-pad, action buttons, motion, the works), and is designed specifically with videogames in mind... which is why a bunch of indie game developers are talking it up (Madfinger Games being most notable to me, seeing as how they already have a sick Tegra3 (which the Ouya is based on) game released, Dead Trigger.) And Minecraft is already confirmed, which I've never played but I hear is popular. Yes, it is not "conventional" because they're not an established player in the market, but come on now. Comparing it to a tablet (which has a screen, and I've never seen one bundled with a controller)? A Roku 2 (where the top of line model that "plays video games" doesn't even have a dedicated cpu or gpu of any sort)? Not even in the same league. This belongs squarely in the eighth gen console category. -Kai445 (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Updated my !vote. -Kai445 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean in regards to the Roku not having a 'dedicated CPU' ... it certainly does, though it might not have a discreet GPU. However, it has the other features you mention as being important, such as a dedicated wireless gaming controller. -- ferret (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. When I referenced it to being "like a tablet", I meant it in a "it plays games but isn't necessarily considered part of the generations as a video game console" kind of way, not like it was literally tablet-like in it's function. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Very mild support I wouldn't be opposed to a link to Ouya at the bottom under a see also heading. But nothing further than that for now.Tehw1k1 (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) In addition, the 7th gen consoles have media functions. The lines are blurring, which is in itself interesting and perhaps worth documenting. Tehw1k1 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is really the crux of the matter, perhaps. I'm not convinced that Ouya is really a dedicated gaming console. But on the other side of the fence, the dedicated gaming consoles are quickly moving into media center territory. -- ferret (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the lines are blurring, but they're not they're yet though. Per CRYSTAL, we're supposed to be documenting what has been verified to have happened, not determining what we think the future will bring... Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also the matter of game consoles being defined as closed systems rather than open. Also, I meant document in a long view after-the-fact way. I'm not really demanding more Ouya coverage. I prefer to hedge against the irrational exuberance of these kickstarter projects. Since a tiny mention might encourage expansion (which I'm opposed to) on further consideration I vote for no mention. But I do consider it an 8th gen console. Tehw1k1 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. If you are in fact against inclusion, I was wondering if you could strike out your old stance and put a new one, if you would, just so it's easier to see the consensus forming. (ie, make it so it looks like this: Very mild support Oppose inclusion. If I'm misunderstanding your stance, then ignore this comment. Thanks!) Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• • In regards to the no-CPU-in-Roku, I did some more looking around. Obviously it has some sort of CPU, but I recall reading somewhere that it was integrated with the network card or some other weirdness (in fact it does have a dedicated CPU, the Broadcom BCM2835, which is an ARM architecture chip, albeit not a speed demon). There's still no GPU of any sort, so it would clearly not fit in the 8th gen "video game consoles" category, nor is anyone (that I know of) suggesting that it be.
    On the other hand, the OUYA is clearly outfitted for gaming and its main scope is that of a gaming device.
  • WP:CRYSTAL does not say something has to have happened. It says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Yes it is clearly notable, because in addition to the WP entry, it is breaking Kickstarter records left and right, and getting plenty of media coverage. Yes, it is almost certain to take place, they have a team of people who are familiar with the gaming industry (their CEO worked for IGN as head of digital distribution) and real designers (Yves Behar designed the console and controller, after all) and indie game developers are behind it.
  • The "Well I'm not sure what it's meant to be" argument is patently ridiculous. It is clearly designed as a video game console. There is no requirement that I know of that it needs to be a closed-environment game distribution model in order to have inclusion in a Wikipedia category. Further, it is not a "media center". It has no Cable/Satellite/Terrestrial tuner card of any sort, no built in method of capturing or timeshifting video, and as of yet there is not even any news that Hulu or NetFlix will be available at or after launch, which eliminates streaming at the moment.

--Kai445 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Until it is actually built and sold, and thus can be assessed alongside other 8th gen consoles, we can't say much about it here. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That particular yard stick would knock out the Wii U as well, for now. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • True, although at least Wii U can be definitively defined as a video game console. There is still much undefined about what this Ouya actually is, and/or what it will be grouped with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Not to mention that the Wii U is made by Nintendo a company with a long track record of making dedicated video game consoles. That is not the case of Ouya.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Also while the Wii U is not commercially available yet Nintendo has produced demo units and people have actually played both the system and its games. In short, I don't believe that we need to wait for a system to be sold but I do think that it is too soon for Ouya. That is not to say that Ouya can never be listed here because reliable sources could very well at a future time declare the Ouya to be an 8th generation system (that was the case with the Zeebo so it could happen) but that time is not today.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What about it is undefined? The Kickstarter literally spells out that it is a video game console: "OUYA: A New Kind of Video Game Console". If anyone has confusion, you should read and re-read the aforementioned quote. A long history of a company making a product is not a prerequisite for inclusion in a category. Additionally, the Ouya also has pre-production units, clearly shown in their pleasant introduction video. -Kai445 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Furthermore, as it is still in a Kickstarter phase: no money has changed hands to actually start development; the developers could abandon it mid-KS; they could take the money and run; or it may be a long-delayed piece of hardware. Once we have confirmation that mass production has started with some anticipated release date, then we can talk about inclusion. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the existing VC's would take objection to such unsubstantiated claims. They already have money, prototypes, and code. They are clearly using KS to generate buzz and sell a ton of units. The KS is essentially a presale and free advertising. -Kai445 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It is no means to slight the VCs. The unit is certainly notable, so its own article makes sense. On the other hand, it is not yet a final product, it is "vaporware" for the time being. Hence we have no idea how to classify this within the generation. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think [Ben Kuchera] probably sums this up correctly: "There is a reason that the press around the newly-announced OUYA game console is based almost exclusively around the amount of money being raised by the product’s Kickstarter, and that reason is simple: There is very little else to report on." -- ferret (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, it seems the video game media is catching on to this some. Here's another one. Another reason why it's too soon to be including it in the 8th gen article... Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ouya Is Indeed An 8th Generation Console

Welcome Wikipedia. After Surfing The Web Countless Times, I Have Concluded That Ouya Is Indeed An Eighth Generation Console. Talk Back If You Disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis55789 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many people describing their thoughts against this in the section right above this. It'd probably make sense to keep all the discussion in that section, to keep the confusion to a minimum. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

8th gen vs "games" on mobile devices

From the article: "It is anticipated that the eighth generation of video game consoles will face stiff competition from the smartphone, tablet, and Smart TV gaming markets." This is untrue because they appeal to different markets. Titles on cell phones/tablets and the like are not games, they are trivial distractions with no depth. These appeal to the casual player who wants to pick up something, play for 10 minutes, then put it away when the boss starts coming down the cube aisle. Full-blown consoles actually have titles with depth, background, stories, tactics, and so on thus they quality as games proper. You won't be carrying these around in your pocket or on your desk at work. They require time to get into and succeed in. Because of these reasons, I contest the inclusion of this sentence in introduction portion of the article. Also, WP:BALL. Sincerely, Anonymous. 71.195.36.205 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Casual games are still games, and to say that games on mobile devices etc aren't games by virtue of the fact that they are "trivial distractions" is simply false.
2. Non-casual games exist on mobile devices. I don't own a smartphone (yet - I plan to get one soon) so I don't know of that many, but N.O.V.A. 3 seems like a good example of a slightly deeper game (Halo-style FPS for iOS and Android devices).

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's an endless number of analysts and industry leaders who would say otherwise. The fact of the matter is, it's something similar that compete's for people's time and money. You can't say that a $1 version of Tetris for iPhone isn't going to affect $30 boxed version. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"These appeal to the casual player who wants to pick up something, play for 10 minutes"; I could say the same thing about the Wii in the seventh gen, which appeals to casual gamers more than the hard/core gamers. "They appeal to different markets"; "... are not games, they are trivial distractions with no depth"; I could say the same thing for Wii games like Wii Sports-SCB '92 (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC) But the Wii also is a "Full-blown console that [has] titles with depth, background, stories, tactics, and so on thus they quality as games proper."-SCB '92 (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input. Sincerely, Anonymous 71.195.36.205 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Reconsideration?

Now that some more details have been fleshed out regarding Ouya, and I think that most fears of vaporware have been allayed, I think the console appears deserving of a second look at inclusion in the 8th generation list. (Here's my take on what the table would look like)
Anyone out there change their mind? -Kai445 (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what details have been fleshed out, and what fears of vaporware allayed? I watch both articles and nothing new has been added to the Ouya article. -- ferret (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they have Muffi Ghadiali, Principal Product Manager at Lab126 (the guy responsible for bringing the Kindle Fire to market) is in charge of getting the hardware made and out to the public? [12][13]-Kai445 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Very little has changed, beyond a few staffing details (not concrete info on the system itself or anything) and there's a pretty clear consensus, found very recently, to keep it off the page for the time being. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds very much like a double standard. The Wii U is included, yet we don't know "concrete info on the system itself". -Kai445 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's no different than the previous discussion. It doesn't appear that anything important has yet happened with the Ouya project that truly warrants reconsideration at this time. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The initial discussion began two days after the Kickstarter was started (and discussion from sources prior to the KS launch happened even earlier). Since then there have been multiple KS updates, numerous articles written about it (mainstream coverage), and interviews. To say nothing has happened isn't exactly accurate :). But it seems to me that the opposing opinions are largely rooted in WP:JDLI. -Kai445 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me in the direction of where anyone mentioned "not liking it". Because to me, it looks like most of the opposition was rooted in WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Yes, there's been a ton of coverage in it, but it's mostly all just staffing updates and journalist's editorials on whether or not it can succeed. It's still just a hypothetical machine idea with almost zero games confirmed for it. Just calm down, there is no deadline. It can be put in eventually if things change and consensus changes... Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So you do like the Ouya? Your original !vote is essentially "we don't know what it will be yet" which is bordering on farcial. Who is disputing that it is a gaming console? I think exactly zero people, yet you bring up the straw argument to show a CRYSTAL issue. Absurd. You also have not addressed my double-standard comment in regards to "concrete information" that you are looking for. -Kai445 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt its a "console" but so is OnLive, My android tablet, pretty much any of the 1001 android devices that can be used for gaming, including things like the JXD501 and the current laughable mess that is the http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-droid-x360-blog Droid x360. No one is doubting that the Ouya will "exist" and what have you not, but the issue is if its an 8th gen console, when existing devices already do EVERYTHING it does Adycarter (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I will readily admit that there is some blurring of the lines occurring with the advancement of technology, and you make some fair arguments. We certainly need to address each of the concerns before inclusion.

Key issues:

• Will the Ouya exist?
  
• If so, is the Ouya a video game console?
  
• If so, is it part of the Eighth generation of video game consoles?
  

Is it a fair assessment, or are there other concerns that I have missed and we need to address? -Kai445 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To me that is a fair assessment, my main sticking point is the third one. There is arguably an entire larger issue to deal with in that the lines are not as clear cut between what is and isn't a console and even less so as to what counts for inclusion in any of these "new" generation articles. Heck I'm typing this very message on a device with almost identical specs to OUYA (right down to the Tegra 3 and the fact I have a controller for it) yet I wouldn't think of expecting to list that device here. Previous generations too have seen many of these "next big things" come and go, usually without inclusion on the "generation x/y/z" page on Wikipedia Adycarter (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual hardware looks about as powerful as the Wii U. I would be hard pressed to see your device being plugged by nVidia as a video game console. I think the Tegra 3 platform, in the packaging of the Ouya (controller, AC power, HDMI out, no screen, no cellular, no battery), and the expected release date in 2013, puts it right in the 8th generation console category. -Kai445 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, Nvidia seem to class the entire T3 family as "console quality" and arguably consoles - http://www.tegrazone.com/about - I'm sure theres a little bit more to being "8th gen" than just the release date too, I personally think as per there is no deadline give it a couple of months and things will become clearer, hell its only got what, one "properly" announced game so far judging by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ouya_games I personally think its too early and too much is up in the air for this to get included, as seemed to be the consensus above too. Its not a case of WP:JDLI I even have one ordered but I personally feel as of right now its just too much of an unknown quantity in many respects to be considered for entry onto this article. Adycarter (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I also want to address an earlier point regarding a claimed double standard regarding the Wii U since the case with these two consoles are not comparable in any way. The Wii U has been officially unveiled, has a functioning controller, games have been announced and shown running on the hardware, and people have played the games during live events. In the end there is no double standard since there is a big difference between a system that only had a prototype and a system that is already playable.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing here is some people think we'd know more about Wii U than about Ouya. IMHO Ouya clearly is a video game console. --bender235 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems pretty easy to think that when one has been shown at Expos and played by people at special events, while the other supposedly has one working prototype behind doors. Also, judging by the fact that you decided to start commenting here, in the middle of the discussion, makes me think you probably didn't read all of the arguments against it, most notably the ones below it, with the fear of it becoming vaporware, like Phantom (console) or EVO 2. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it will become vaporware, but who am I to say. I do think that Envizions is non-notable though, I have asked for input on the matter, so check out their talk page. I am borderline considering the same for the EVO 2. -Kai445 (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Durango confirmed

IGN confirmed the Durango codename for the next xbox but that's about it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your source isn't anything new. In fact, the new information in it just refers to it as the "new Xbox". The mentioning of "Durango" in this article was just IGN's way of linking to their article on the article regarding code-name rumor last February. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be unreasonable to include the PS4 as the "Unnamed 8th Gen Sony Console" with whatever we can reference for it, and likewise for the next Xbox? -Kai445 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anything is reference-able other than the fact that they're working on a system someday. Not even the names are nailed down. I mean, there's even a retraction on the link that the guy above gave. (http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2012/08/07/microsoft-backpedals-on-new-xbox-quote/) Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "PS Vita primarily competes with the Nintendo 3DS, as part of the eighth generation of gaming."

I'm beginning to think portables should be treated as separate from consoles and have their own "portable generations". After all: The release dates for consoles all line-up within 1-2 years of one another, but the portables arrive on the scene seemingly random & often right in the middle of console generations. ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that with the cross functionality between Nintendo's offerings (eg Wii/DS connectivity, and the Wii U/3DS connectivity), and same with Sony (Vita/PS3), it sorta requires the consoles and handhelds to be discussed together. It would also be confusing as, if we continue to set the standard for naming generations, either the handheld #ing will be off from the consoles, or we purposely match them up and ignore the fact there was no "first generation" of portable consoles, which doesn't make sense. Instead, the grouping avoids that issue altogether. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem I've come across is that there's so much of a disconnect between editors that deal with video game articles and their viewpoints regarding the "generations of video games", is that there's rarely any consensus to make any major changes... Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Neo Geo X

Neo Geo X, aka Neo Geo X Gold is the new SNK handheld console and it will be released on December 2012. The Wikipedia article of the console says that it's an eight generation console, so, do you think the Neo Geo X should be in this article?--Apolo13 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly within the eighth gen where timing is concerned, but it appears to be a re-release/clone/whatever of the original Neo Geo (preloaded with original neogeo games). I would be unopposed to inclusion so long as it is in some new category, such as "Other". -Kai445 (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This console (including any other similar one) I think must be shown below the handhelds in a new section called 'Others'. I think I'll work on it now. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Neo Geo X isn't clone of Neo Geo AES, it's new console. Information about Neo Geo X was confirmed by SNK, so why not writing about it? SNK also confirmed it wouldn't compete with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Xnxn390 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like it's a clone/repackaging. Also it needs a source calling it 8th gen. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does sound like a clone. "Includes all the original games!". It does merit a mention for inclusion if it is a new console released during the eighth generation timeframe, period. -Kai445 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Neo Geo X article still calls it an eight generation console. Does anyone object if I remove it?--174.93.165.157 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd support it. Sergecross73 msg me 06:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed it, we will need to see if it sticks.--174.93.165.157 (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

this source names ouya as eighth-generation

http://digiex.net/content/361-ouya-new-kind-video-game-console.html --82.139.5.13 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that's a reliable source. Not only is it not a well-established website, but it literally says This article was originally published in forum thread: OUYA: A New Kind of Video Game Console. So it looks like an unreliable source that used a forum post as their source. That violates WP:SPS. You may want to read up on identifying reliable sources or looking into Wikiproject Video Game's list of sources commonly seen as relaible or unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the point is not so much whether its 7th or 8th, but the fact the console has yet to be released to mass market and there's no history of previous performance (as with Nintendo and the Wii U, which is pretty much an assured thing). --MASEM (t) 13:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"History of previous performance" is not a bar that needs clearing for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nor is actual release. -Kai445 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless though thats totally not a reliable source Adycarter (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -Kai445 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OUYA and MiGen

Ouya is not the only candidate to come to the 8th gen page, another Android console, MiGen, is also proposed by me. What you guys think? --Gaming&Computing (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, source? Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it at all notable? The article MiGen doesn't give a very good case. Consisting mostly of primary sources, these cannot be used to show any kind of notability. Яehevkor ✉ 00:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a reliable vote for deletion if it comes up for MiGen. -Kai445 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the deletion template was removed, I created a proper AfD request. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiGen. -Kai445 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipad

Wikipad is a Android tablet with a detachable controller. Almost any Android game can be played on it. It also has Gaikai (game streaming via the internet) as well as PlayStation Mobile games.

Do you guys think Wikipad belongs here? (I'm also considering the Archos GamePad). --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you discuss these things first, but you realize every time you vaguely suggest one of these obscure platforms, we always ask if there's any sources calling it 8th gen. You may as well start there every time, because if there aren't sources, you know it won't be included... Sergecross73 msg me 22:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find any on the web... However, as these are released during the same [8th gen] period, I think they should be included, as well as NEO GEO X and the Ouya, in a new section called 'Other systems', just like the 7th gen article. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's no sources verifying it, I'm against putting them in. Sergecross73 msg me 04:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be an element of common sense used with regards to the console generation articles. Clearly there are defining consoles for each generation, which are the primary focus of the article (Console, Handheld, and Other [if applicable]). Aside from that, we have things like clones (which weren't necessarily released in the generation of console they are cloning, the FC Twin for example), which are best classified as within the generation but in a separate category of Clones (or something similar). Since the Neo Geo X is essentially a clone machine, it should probably be within the current article, but inside either an "Other" or "Clone" section, with a note to specify it is a clone of 4th generation hardware. On the other hand, I do not believe the Ouya would be a proper inclusion into an "Other" section, nor is a "Clone" section applicable. -Kai445 (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Also!) I think it would be appropriate to have just a list or passing mention of possibly more obscure consoles, perhaps below or at the bottom of an other section. Not to give them undue weight, but to at least acknowledge their presence. -Kai445 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "common sense" is extremely subjective, what makes sense to one is mind-boggling to another. Couple that with the fact that no one can come to a concrete definition of what exactly makes a "generation" (There are pages among pages of discussion of people arguing how they should be defined and/or if they even exist.) and it's even harder to define. That's why I like to stick to "If a source verifies it, put it in. If it doesn't, keep it out." Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we will only ever have a couple of consoles, mainly from the big three/four of their respective generation, and nothing else in each article. I think that isn't *quite* inclusive enough. Additionally, the generations here seem to be grouped primarily by year, they are nothing more than a name for console releases in a given span of time (Eighth is shaping up to be 2012-Onward). -Kai445 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thought

Shouldn't Xbox 720 and PlayStation4 be mentioned on this page?

Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not at least until they have real names and/or are announced... Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Prices

Should probably be removed on grounds of WP:PRICE, particularly item #5 that we should not list and compare prices on competing products. -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. One of exceptions to that is if there's some sort of significance to the price. For example, while not shown in the chart, the PlayStation Vita's price is noted in it's article has a notable aspect of it, because it is common cited as a reason why it's not doing so well. I thought WP:NOPRICE was more applicable to why we don't put in every PS3 game article that the game is $60, nor do we put anything when GameStop drops it down to $40 later on or something. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes/No templates in 8th Console Generation

About those yes/no templates...

For those who say that the presence or absence of some features are not clearly defined as negative/positive, yes you're absolutely right and I understand what you're trying to say. But that only applies to the "region lock" feature since that can minimize the experience for some. Unlike region locking, 3D is an optional feature that the other consoles don't have. So even if the user doesn't like the said feature it's optional so he/she can turn it off, but it's still there an it's an added bonus that the other consoles doesn't have. What I'm trying to say is: let's leave "Region Lockout" the way it is and revert the "3D enabled" feature like the way it was. -- Arkhandar (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkhandar (talk • contribs)

I think it should be as follows: Region lockout (No - Green, Yes - Red). 3D Enabled (Yes - Green, No - Red). -Kai445 (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: I just looked in the Archive and saw the consensus. I'm alright with the neutral colors, too. -Kai445 (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Per the original discussion/consensus, I'd like to keep colors out of it altogether. Simple version: if there's colors involved, there's some people who think there's a WP:NPOV issue. If no colors are used, there's no one who thinks there's a WP:NPOV issue. No one's yet to raise a valid NPOV issue regarding not using any colors. So I think we should stick to the way that has no opposition in that area. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting out of control. You're getting this "Yes/No template" thing all wrong, seriously. Someone at my talk page said the following: "To use an extreme example: "Does the console kill people?", the answer is "No", which is a positive.". So by your philosophy would you color it with green because it's a good thing? Wrong. No, consoles do not kill people and yes, it is POSITIVE, but this does not invalidate the fact that it still is something NEGATIVE related to the question. Even the the templates themselves have by default the green color for yes and the red color for no, and that must already mean something by itself. The purpose of Wikipedia is objectivity, not subjectivity. But what the reader does with the information is entirely up to him. Which means that if he thinks that something positive/colored green is a negative thing for him, that's his problem. He can think whatever he wants of this information. I hope this clears things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkhandar (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at this another way. You've made it very clear you want to change the colors. But you haven't really said why. Why is it so important what color be added? What exactly is the benefit of this? Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why use traffic lights? From time to time it goes green and nobody cares, they're just there right? May I ask you what is the benefit of archetypes / symbols / signs too? I suppose you don't know that do you. Because if you did, I seriously doubt you would say that. --Arkhandar (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why use traffic lights? To catch people's attention, to prevent accidents. Is this the problem you're trying to solve with your color-coding? Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, because consoles don't kill people. Then again, why does your name emanate a green color from it? Why is it so important what color be added? What exactly is the benefit of this? And in case you didn't catch what I said earlier, may I ask you what is the benefit of archetypes / symbols / signs? --Arkhandar (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't have a clue what you're getting at here. Can you stop with the riddles and just say why you think color is needed? Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The same reason your username has color to. It all come down to archetypes / symbols / signs theory - better reading experience. None other than that. Like I said, according to Wikipedia Yes=Green, No=Red, it has nothing to do with something being positive or negative in terms of what is the opinion/position of a subject to the matter. --Arkhandar (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So then, the problem remains, that your stance is rooted in personal preference in aesthetics, while the otherside is rooted in the policy WP:NPOV. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you're getting it wrong. This is not a personal preference but a use of the tools available here at Wikipedia. I'm not disobeying the WP:NPOV policy, since I'm being neutral in relation to both systems. By adding the color green to a positive answer (a "yes" for example) or red to a negative answer (a "no" for example), like its default use, I'm not stating that a system is better than another in a certain aspect, I'm simply using the tools available without breaking any Wikipedia rules/policies. --Arkhandar (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like both really: it's a personal preference about using tools available at Wikipedia. Anyways, what I am saying is that there are absolutely no policy-based concerns regarding keeping it both white, and that's why I'm inclined to favor that option. Let's see what other people have to say on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Arkhandar, I had a bit of a laugh when I read that line about "neutral in relation to both systems". Most people who claim to be neutral dont have a "Proud Nintendo 3DS Owner" userbox on their userpage. In addition these two edits (here and here) to the PlayStation Vita page don't exactly scream neutrality on this issue. The use of green/red "yes" and green/red "no" in this case is a matter of opinion in relation to 3D capability and Regional Lockout. Because neither of these can be seen as a 100% positive or negative, it is just better to leave the colour out all together. With regards to your edits on the Vita page, please post the location of the consensus which you claim was reached regarding this topic. My stance is that any form of backward compatability should be listed, so if consensus was reached to the negative I would like to know where and when, so I may voice my opinion there. I'd really like to continue assuming good faith on this issue, but its getting more challenging to do so. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My stance of being a "Proud Nintendo 3DS Owner" has absolutely nothing to do with me taking a neutral position or not in the discussed article. Or can't a video game journalist for example, not have his/her personal preferences and do unbiased journalism at the same time? As for the colour code, I advise you to read the entire conversation before going in to bold assumptions. Like I said in a previous post: "Alright, this is getting out of control. You're getting this "Yes/No template" thing all wrong, seriously. Someone at my talk page said the following: "To use an extreme example: "Does the console kill people?", the answer is "No", which is a positive.". So by your philosophy would you color it with green because it's a good thing? Wrong. No, consoles do not kill people and yes, it is POSITIVE, but this does not invalidate the fact that it still is something NEGATIVE related to the question. Even the the templates themselves have by default the green color for yes and the red color for no, and that must already mean something by itself. The purpose of Wikipedia is objectivity, not subjectivity. But what the reader does with the information is entirely up to him. Which means that if he thinks that something positive/colored green is a negative thing for him, that's his problem. He can think whatever he wants of this information. I hope this clears things up.". To sum it up: Yes=Affirmative=Green / No=Negative=Red, personal preferences don't come into account. Again, as for the Vita issue, this has already been discussed with other editors and there has been reached a consensus in the following page: [14]. If you're not satisfied with the consensus, feel free to discuss away. But next time, please do a little bit more research before you start pointing fingers here. Remember, we're here to help! --Arkhandar (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Trut-h-urts was involved in the first discussion on this (See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_video_game_consoles_%28eighth_generation%29/Archive_1#Regional_lockout) so you don't need to lecture him about doing his research. (He also didn't say anything that would show that he hasn't done his research anyways. All he did was give his stance, which is different than yours. That doesn't mean he wasn't paying attention to you, it just means he doesn't agree.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Not 100% a positive or negative" is absolutely and patently ridiculous. Does anyone actually arguing here, right now, think that "region lock" is actually a desirable or positive feature? We should not entertain the hypothetical, and focus our energy on the actual. -Kai445 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As brought up in the last discussion, you're just thinking of it from a gamer's perspective. What about the business perspective? Developers/publishers/stockholders etc may find it to be a positive so that the company doesn't lose out on money due to exchange rates. It's not like region locks are made because evil corporations hate fun or something 1 dimensional like that... Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The hypothetical opinions of uninvolved third parties are not germane. Stockholders/publishers/developers all have a conflict of interest and shouldn't even be editing the article. -Kai445 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Using that warped interpretation of a COI, gamers wouldn't be able to edit the article because it's in their best interest to pay less in region-free scenarios. But that's not how a COI would work anyways, since I'm not talking about them literally editing the article, I'm just showing that a counter-argument exists. If you need it to be less hypothetical,

• Here's a reliable source reporting Atlus's stance on it here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-07-atlus-launches-impassioned-defence-of-persona-4-arena-ps3-region-lock
• Or, there's also people, like me, who are wholly indifferent to it. I don't import, so it doesn't affect me. As such, adding color values that made indicate positive or negative connotations, is not something that makes sense on those grounds either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, for the fifth time. This coloured templates are not supposed to show if something is either good or bad to the eyes of someone. The true use of the said templates is to indicate if an "answer" is positive or negative as in Yes=Green or No=Red. It has nothing to do if a feature is good for the eyes of some and bad for the eyes of others (like region locking for example). I hope this clears things up, again. --Arkhandar (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of your stance, and I'm saying that what you say is but one of many interpretations of the colors. In many instances the green/red relationship is shown to represent "green=good, red=bad", "green=pass, red=fail", etc etc. Considering that keeping it white has absolutely no possible connotations either way, I don't understand the problem with keeping it without color. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Then, what I propose is to leave the "Regional lockout" category alone and to either to apply the Yes=Green/No=Red to the "3D enabled" category or ditch it altogether as well as other articles containing similar coloured cells for 3D products. This is the only way we'll make a consensus I suppose. --Arkhandar (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. I, as a reader, do not consider 3D ability to be a plus. There's many cases where the function results in an overall performance degradation, as well as raising the unit cost. It also induces headaches and eye strain in many consumers. Therefore, I view 3D as a negative. So again, why can't it stay white? The bottom line issue is that the positive or negative, good or bad, context of these features is dependent on the reader. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: If you feel there's a wider issue regarding the existence of colored templates for Yes and No, you should take that to those template's pages. This page simply deals with their usage within this article. -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In your case, even though you prefer 2d-ness, you should view it as a "neutral", certainly not a negative. Being an optional (not forced) capability, and all. -Kai445 (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So, to summarise a little (correct me if I'm missing anything here), basically there are two ideas here: green means good and/or affirmative, while red means bad and/or negative/no. Additionally there are a few options:

1. use green = affirmative and red = negative throughout;
2. use green = affirmative and red = negative for 3D only;
3. use green = good and red = bad throughout;
4. use no colour coding at all.

The "good/bad" one is completely subjective, which is not what Wikipedia is about (for example, regional lockout is potentially good for publishers, but not for players); as such I cannot support its usage.

"Affirmative/negative" on the other hand is objective, and thus those options actually have a leg to stand on. They also have the advantage of allowing at-a-glance viewing: one doesn't need to read the labels, since the colour represents them. However there is a problem in that using it throughout may be interpreted as the "good/bad" version. The use of red and green are also a tad problematic in themselves, since a) red and green for yes and no is a cultural norm, not an objective one and b) red-green colour blindness exists, so there are accessibility problems there. Now both of these are probably better suited for discussion on the template page (as Ferret suggested in a more general sense), but should probably be taken into account. Regardless, given the ambiguity they should probably also be avoided. Also, given that there are only two yes/no rows, it seems a tad unnecessary to colour-code them; things like this are most beneficial when they are used with many different things being compared (such as all the pieces of DVR software on Comparison of PVR software packages, or the 360 models on List of Xbox 360 retail configurations#Comparison of features).

Other than using no colour coding at all though, there is another option: colour coding, but using different colours (maybe yellow and blue or something). I tend to favour using no colours, since any colours chosen would essentially be arbitrary, and like above is probably unnecessary, and is possibly confusing. Using other colours would be a fair compromise though.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we decide to not use colour coding on the handheld table at all, we should probably do the same for the home console table (especially since it only has one item in it at present; we can always change it back later if it becomes necessary). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I find your comments on using alternate colors interesting, and if that's what it would take to end the arguing, I would agree to it. I still "no color" is still the best option though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your point about color coding primarily being for longer tables that are colored in all/most rows is very relevant as well. It's to help focus and show difference across many rows, which may not be visually apparent otherwise. In this case, we have no such issue to solve: We have at most 3 rows that could be color coded in a meaningful way. That meaning happens to easily introduce apparent bias. To step back to the yes=affirmative/no=negative, I'd like to point out that positive/negative are biased by their very nature. At least culturally in the US, positive=good and negative=bad. "Negative feelings" would be a good example, such as sadness/anger. Even viewing it instead as yes=present, no=absent, there's an inherent sense of bias to "absent", as they are opposing terms. -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Negative can mean "characterized by the absence of distinguishing or marked qualities or features". Red = no feature, green = feature. Just because "I dont like it" doesn't mean something is not a feature, as much as it seems people would like to argue that. -Kai445 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Region lockout vs Region free

Since I am meeting resistance in using the terminology "Region free", lets hold a discussion. Who supports what way of saying the same thing? -Kai445 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter either way? Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Matter of preference, I suppose. Is the glass half empty or half full? -Kai445 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arkandar is the one who opposes this, right? Has he given a valid reason? Sergecross73 msg me 04:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit notes for his first revert read "Always use terms by its names when you can. No need to change "Regional lockout" to "Region free"." Region free is a perfectly acceptable term (quite commonly described as a feature in DVD players, for example, where regional lockout is used on most production DVD titles), and I think is a reasonable change. -Kai445 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this but I guess I'll pose the question another way: What's the reason for changing it from "region lockout", which it has been for some time? Region lockout is the relevant article's name, and "region free" is a redirect. I would think we could lean on WP:COMMONNAME and use the article's name. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd be leaning on a shaky structure. Do a quick ghit comparison of both terms (in quotations) and it will be plainly obvious. I have a feeling that the wiki article was more about finding a convenient neutral sounding term for wikipedia than finding a title dictated by common usage. Even an en.wiki search yields a gigantic disparity: Results 1–20 of 83,412 for region free, Results 1–20 of 294 for regional lockout. -Kai445 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The frequency may be partly due its use on actual media though - it makes a lot more sense to call a blu-ray or game region free (even though the former are usually all region rather than strictly region free, but you get the idea) than it does to label it as "this disc has not region encoded on it" or similar. To me anyway, region free refers to something which may have been encoded with a region but hasn't (such as a region free blu-ray), while region lockout refers to the base technique. In that sense, the Vita is not region free, since it is not media, but instead it merely lacks region lockout. However, I'm not sure whether (or to what degree) these definitions are simply personal ones. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"Region free" DVD's would be sometimes known as "Region 0", but more often called "Region free". But on the flipside, a DVD player that can play all regions without regional lockout is known as a "Region free" DVD player. In neither case would you commonly see it advertised as "regional lockout free" or "without regional lockout", because it is convoluted. -Kai445 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would think we should follow WP:COMMONNAME and use the article's name. A certain device is not "region free" positive or negative per say, since "region free" is an attribute given to media and not a device itself. In the other hand, a certain device can have or lack "region lockout", so that's why I'm proposing to leave things as they were: using the article's name and not a redirect. Let's keep things simple.--Arkhandar (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You are simply and utterly wrong. See here, here, here, and a news article about "region free" players here. And lets not forget the list of region free consoles right here on wikipedia. Parallel_importing_in_video_games#Region-free_consoles -Kai445 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Media can be region free; playback devices (read: console) will or will not have regional lockouts. Subtle but important difference. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it? Because it is extremely common to find playback devices marketed as region free. Yet no such luck for "regional lockout supported!" Additionally, this: Parallel_importing_in_video_games#Region-free_consoles. And a joystiq article calling the PS3 "Region free" here. I can find approximately 9000 other examples, perhaps even over 9000. -Kai445 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why either side cares either way. Come on, concentrate on something more constructive... Sergecross73 msg me 04:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, if I am told in an edit to start a discussion, and nobody wishes to engage in one, I'm going to just go ahead with the change. I am not going to participate in a slow motion edit war perpetuated by someone with seemingly no intention to edit in good faith, it is patently ridiculous. -Kai445 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I start a discussion and no one's really commenting much, I sometimes notify Wikiproject Video games, and see if anyone there has any input. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try it out. Thank you. It just bugs me that the user that I had been in conflict with didn't feel the need to take it to the talk section, then suggests a discussion within an edit log reverting me without even seeing that I had already attempted to do so weeks prior, then when they finally comment they don't care to back up their opinion with any examples to support it, and when I respond they don't bother to reply to me (they've been editing wikipedia every day since, so I guess this article isn't that important!). -Kai445 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, while I don't really take a side on this issue, I've had similar issues discussing things with Arkhandar... Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Without further objection, I will be making the aforementioned change. -Kai445 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with it for the same reasons I did before. Looking over this talk page, it doesn't seem like anyone has taken up your position. But I don't feel invested enough in it to fight you on it. It doesn't seem like you utilitized WP:VG for further comments as was mentioned earlier. -- ferret (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually did contact WP:VG (see: Archive 96). Nobody replied, unfortunately. -Kai445 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Sometimes I wish that page didn't archive so quickly. -- ferret (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Echoing what Ferret said, I don't really have a stance either, but reading over the conversation, it kind of seems like you've already got some passive objections. Usually, in situations of WP:NOCONSENSUS, no action is taken. There's always WP:RFC if you really want to keep persuing and discussing this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If one or two people say "well, I don't think so", then I say "but look, here are examples of that very usage", then I wait over two weeks for a reply that doesn't come... is it reasonable for the one or two passive objectors to carry the day? -Kai445 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically... Yes? You posted "Without further objections" and then immediately made the edit. Immediately after, I posted further objection. And I'm sure it'll be undone within a week or two. You don't carry the day by default just because people haven't restated their unchanged position either. I think you should go tackle this at the region lockout article. Get it renamed, then adjust this article. Until then, this article should reflect the Wikipedia common name. -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, but it's not consensus either. Beyond that, my concern is that Arkhandar still seems to pretty actively monitor the article, so if you act on this before there's real agreement, he'll likely just revert it, which will either lead to 1) being exactly where we are right now or 2) edit warring between you two. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to restate their opinion. "I still disagree with it" is not a counterargument to evidence to the contrary. Lets get continuity on this issue across the gaming articles. I'll institute an RfC and publicize this across WP:VG, and each and every generation article talkpage, and we'll see what kind of discussion we can generate. -Kai445 (talk)

I still have no idea why you're pursuing this. As long as you're doing things the right way, through Wikiprojects, RfC's, etc, and not edit warring, I suppose it's technically fine, but don't you have something more constructive to focus on? It seems like a lot of time and energy with virtually no payoff... Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that if the term "regional lockout" bothers you in some fashion due to incorrectness, you should tackle it at the base article. If you are successful at renaming the base article, then it follows that other articles and usages will adjust accordingly. I've suggested you tackle it from that angle several times but you don't seem to have interest beyond fighting for a personal vision here on this article. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

New Ouya Consensus Thread

After a relatively recent batch of news including a picture of the Ouya development PCB received for Engineering Verification Testing that was run by both IGN ([15]) and Ars Technica ([16]). Coke can jokes aside, the comparison and the other bits of news in the article (an upgrade in the underlying OS to Android 4.2, developers being asked to test their games on any tablet running the aforementioned version for rendering issues in 720p), as well as the older and/or cluttered attempts at consensus are reason enough to go and check for consensus again on this issue. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 09:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

While I agree the Ouya isn't a scam and is a real device and such (heck I actually own an Ouya fan site) I feel that the whole 8th gen inclusion/exclusion issue is a minefield. As raised last time round there are plenty of other similar devices out there, do we include those too? Is a generation classed by release date? Features? Spec? Adycarter (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That can be a challenge. Deciding by year is a difficult task since all generations of home video game consoles except the period after the first one all have had some form of inter-generational transition period of at least a year. While specs for the only console so far that is of this generation are rather limited, a bit can be inferred from the features it has (example, the Wii U's support of H.264 video would be virtually impossible if the same CPU class as the Wii's Broadway CPU was used due to missing Altivec instructions). ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 14:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to wait to see what sources compare the Ouya to, when it actually comes out. If they primarily compare it against the 360/PS3/Wii and any other devices, then we should put it in the 7th gen article. If they compare it to the Wii U and whatever the next 360/PS3 consoles are, then this article. If it is mixed (most likely, 360/PS3 and Wii U comparisons), then we can make some arbitrary decision. My gut tells me that without the next gen 360/PS3 being out, it will be primarily compared to the 7th gen systems and will end up there. But we need to wait until such comparisons actually have been made, and that likely wont happen until closer to release time. That's assuming we're staying with the "generation" term. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's rationale. I still think we need to wait and see what the sources are saying closer to/after release. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of adding it. I recently heard that Microsoft was planning to launch a similar device with the Xbox branding (*not* the "720" or whatever they are calling the next xbox, something new) [a stripped down Windows 8 to compete in the same space as the Ouya]. I'm sure that will be in this article at some point, and by that time it would be ridiculous not to have the Ouya on here. -Dscarth (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

An unverified Xbox rumor isn't really a valid reason to put Ouya on here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is true, but it is considered a settop, it may still be a 360-based unit and not the next-gen (financially, it would make sense that way) and it would possibly be listed on the 7th gen page. It certainly likely would not be compared to the 360/PS3 since it serves a very different function. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and that unverified rumors about a different system is not evidence about what console generation Ouya is part of. The simple fact is that the sources will come if this really is part of the 8th generation (the did for the Zeebo last generation) and at that point the Ouya can be listed here.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Xbox 720 update

IGN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tHA487wBkU) has reported that there will be two types of the Xbox 720 (one cheaper one with Windows 8, the other being designed for tripple A games) aimed for release before the end of 2013. Judging by the Xbox 720 logo for the name "Xbox 720" is also made official also. Robo37 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In brief no. Not confirmed, not official just speculation Adycarter (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's still just unofficial speculation. It shouldn't be included. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If one takes a closer look at the video they will notice terms like reported, believed, and said, clearly not official confirmation.--174.93.165.157 (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)