Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

OUYA Consensus?

I cant help but notice the OUYA is now magically on the page? When was that consensus reached? Adycarter (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That absolutely did not happen. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

verifiable sources state 8th/next gen, hence inclusion. What is there to discuss? -Kai445 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus against what you're doing maybe? If you're so sure, present your argument/sources here, first. Then add it if people generally agree. That's how things work, per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. There's two people who are instantly challenged it as soon as you included it, so that should tell you right there that there's something to be discussed...Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Overwhelming? (The consensus can say the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.) I was sure, that's why I made the changes. BRD tells me to go ahead and do it (once), you went ahead and reverted me (once), and now we're talking about it :). It doesn't say "well, be afraid to change things and don't edit unless you hold a !vote first". I found sources that specifically refer to the Ouya as next gen/eighth gen, so I used them to support my inclusion. Which issues specifically do you have with the inclusion I had made. -Kai445 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You're attempting to misuse policies. Consensus was clear not to include it. You started a second discussion on inclusion, and concensus was again clear against it. This isn't a "be bold" situation when you already know the consensus and it is recently stated, and the content you added had already been reverted numerous times. I'll end where Sergecross began: If you're so sure, present your argument/sources here. -- ferret (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Feel free to linkify them if you prefer them that way.) -Kai445 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of those are of questionable reliability. Pocketgamer never calls the console 8th gen. In the interview, Ouya's own CEO is the only one to mention 8th gen, and actually makes the qip that it's "9th gen". The nextgenupdate.com is a forum post that was bumped to the main page, no need to look further at that. Ibtimes.com makes no mention of 7th, 8th or 9th gen, just "next gen", and ends by questioning whether Ouya will be successful at all. Droidgamers may not pass RS review, their About page is a 404, author of the post is not listed, and again only says "next gen" with no clarification. It also ends by questioning whether Ouya will succeed and compares it to the Evo 2, another console attempt that is not included in this page by consensus. Finally TGDaily makes the closest connection by stating next generation, in comparision to 7th generation, while also mentioning the Wii U as "first to market", which establishes a possible connection of "same generation"... But the quote about Ouya is more speaking towards android set tops in general, with Ouya as an example. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The current gen is arguably 7th gen (the one we're in). Next-gen would imply eighth gen (the article we're discussing). I would gladly start a deletion discussion for the whole thing, if you think it's premature to be discussing eighth generation consoles. -Kai445 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also very nit-picky to discard the TG Daily article as you have. "a prime example might be a dedicated Android game set-top box such as upcoming Ouya". Ouya is a prime example. Of a dedicated game set top box. In an article discussing the next-gen video game consoles. -Kai445 (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not nit-picky. We have different readings of that statement. I read it as "a prime example" being "a dedicated Android game set top box", an example of which would be Ouya. The article gives Ouya as an example but refers to an entire class of devices. Perhaps another way to view it: He didn't say dedicated Android game console, he said "set top box." And you're right. This article has been AFD'd several times and that might ultimately be where we head as generational boundaries blur with console functionality branching out into media, and media device functionality branching into gaming, and so forth. The reason I bring up "next gen" versus "7th" or "8th" is that both generations from a Wikipedia stand point are somewhat contended. The 7th generation is basically defined as "A particular wave of Nintendo/MS/Sony consoles", and the application of that definition to 8th gen is very blurred with MS and Sony not announcing anything concrete and other set tops gaining gaming functions. At this time, Ouya is notable for basically one thing: It's kickstarter. No announced games, no concrete support from developers, no demo hardware, no clear software or UI, etc, etc. The Wii U isn't out yet and some details are lacking, but it's actually been seen and played and has the backing of an industry leader, and is a clear generational leap from a 7th gen console. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So the entire class of devices, of which the Ouya included, would be considered next-gen. Of what I have seen of the previous generation articles, I support them as they are. I understand as you do that the lines of what can be considered a "console" blurs as technology continues to march forward. I do feel that certain classes of devices (clones of earlier consoles, for instance) that should not be included as representative of the generational time period in which they are released (so a NES clone released in 2013 would not be 8th generation, for example). Also devices whose purpose is not primarily gaming should also not be considered part of them (which would eliminate the Roku, et al.). We also have to be careful not to put an artifical benchmark as to the performance of the consoles in question (which would likely end up putting the Wii in 6th gen, and Gamecube in 5th gen). I think that games should also be rendered locally on the console (which would eliminate the OnLive console from consideration). But even if the OnLive Game System is not considered a "console", I think that it is worthy of mention in this article too now that I think about it, perhaps as a separate section below handhelds (or between the consoles and handhelds). An "Other" section of some sort. Kai445 (talk)

My main hang up is still that it seems too soon to make a call on it. It seems a lot like that Phantom (console) (or even that EVO 2 system that mysteriously didn't show up at E3 2012 and not much has been heard from it since.) Some revolutionary product with a lot of promises, being pushed by some unestablished company. So much is up in the air, the product is still being defined, and there is like 1 at most confirmed games for it. I still think we need to wait longer to make sure we don't have another Phantom. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Again, Ouya isn't even a new thing... Evo 2 is Android based as well. The only real difference is Ouya did a kickstarter. When there's actually a demonstration and clear ability to deliver to market... -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets compare:

• Evo 2 is being produced by a company which, as far as I can tell, has no verifiable sales numbers for its previous project, but may have "sold out" with 4000 alleged orders (as per WP, but I can't find that number elsewhere online). The founder has no apparent experience leading a company or having any previous gaming industry experience (a high school graduate who entered the military and then started Envizions when he got out, as per his IndieGoGo profile). In 2010 he was investigated by the Alabama Securities Commission for illegally selling securities. There doesn't appear to be much of a demand for it (their "Kickstarter" on IndieGoGo garnered a whopping $156. http://www.indiegogo.com/GameBox-Open-Console).
• Ouya is being produced by a company which, as far as I can tell, has over 40,000 pre-orders within a three week span. Their founder (Julie Uhrman) has experience in upper management of the gaming industry (VP of Digital at GameFly, Head of Digital Distribution at IGN), their design team (Yves Behar and fuseproject) is award winning and has brought hardware to market. Their head of hardware (Muffi Ghadiali) was the Principal Product Manager at Lab126 (Amazon) and brought the Kindle Fire (a successful Android device) to market. There appears to be quite a bit of demand for it (their Kickstarter currently sitting at $5.8 million dollars).

-Kai445 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They've got some key personnel, and more interest as far as pre-orders go, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a new idea in very early stages, without a working prototype or (m)any games in development for it, from a company as a whole that has no background in putting out such a device. They've got more interest, but they're just about as far along in the process as Phantom or Evo 2. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As far along as the Wii U. They have a prototype, which can be seen playing Shadowgun in their introductory video. -Kai445 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wii U is much different; it launches this year, is produced by a company with a long history of releasing systems (Nintendo), it has clear cut, finalized design, has many games in development, many major companies hav dev kits, it has been demonstrated publicly in two E3's now, etc etc. No one I'm aware of seriously doubts it it exists or that it won't ever be released. Then we've got Ouya, with the issues I mentioned in my last 2 comments, and one clip of someone playing a prototype of sorts behind closed doors. Do you really not see the difference? Or are you just arguing whatever you can to push your point of view? Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing I have stated has been in violation of NPOV, including my edits which for other than the fact that they existed, were lacking controversy and was as Neutral as I can think of. If the argument goes "Well, they aren't even really a company who has ever done anything, they're a bunch of nobodies with nothing. Just like the EVO 2." Then I turn around and say "Well, that's not quite fair, they are a bunch of veterans in gaming and design. And they have a prototype." That gets met with "YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO PUSH A POV. POV PUSHER." Really? -Kai445 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring everyone's positions and arguments and refusing to accept consensus. Yes, you're POV pushing. As has been pointed out multiple times, there's no rush to add Ouya to the article. When more concrete details surface or it becomes clear that they will meet their ambition launch date, perhaps they'll be added. You're the only one, through no less than 3 talk sections, who has pressed for immediate inclusion. -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kai, if that's all you're getting out of this conversation, then I don't know what else to tell you. I guess lets see if anyone else can add anything new to contribute to the conversation. As it is, it looks like you still have three people against inclusion, and the other people haven't bothered to address your rehash of the same argument presented weeks ago... Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anyone's position, nor their arguments. I am trying to address them, albeit unsuccessfully. I would welcome the ability to continue to discuss the issue on its merits. -Kai445 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Took some time to think about the discussion thusfar. I have tentatively changed my vote to oppose inclusion at this time. I do acknowledge that there are some good points raised, and although I do not share some of the same views as others, I have to concede that at the end of the day there is no motion to be had towards inclusion. With an anticipated launch date of March 2013, I think we can expect that in the ensuing months we will see some more substantive news regarding progress (or lack thereof). If and when that happens, it will be worth revisiting. -Kai445 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. I will try to be equally understanding if/when we get to the point that signs tend to point that it should be included. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be clear. 1.What does the company making it define the product as? If it is defined as a gaming system, then we should treat it as a gaming system. The decision on 'what' it is is made by the company not us. 2. Are there any working prototypes or completed Ouyas? If a working system is in existence, then the Ouya is no longer just a concept.

If these two things are true, then the Ouya should be included. 208.85.193.19 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that once the Ouya is released and all the suitable information is in place it should not only be included in the article but also on the table. JackWilfred (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --ERAGON (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Valve/Steam/ "Steambox"

So, people keep on re-adding it to the article, like in this edit, without discussion, so I figured I'd start one up now.

Is this to be included? Or not? Or is it too soon at the moment? Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Too soon, per WP:HAMMER, and should be treated like Ouya - wait to see what everyone else classifies it with (Valve wants it with Xbox720/PS4, but that's not an assurance they will get that), and add it once we actually have hardware to talk about. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It seems like with most of the sources that have been presented, show Valve presenting it as "A PC for the living room" or whatever, and then the journalist goes on to talk about competion with consoles. It's way early, and Valve isn't even straight up using the word "console". It seems more like a Valve-namebrand PC at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including the Valve box in the 8th gen article. It's coming out post Wii U. People lumping a console into a previous generation based on the processing power is not in line with convention. I think the Valve PC may be better included in an Other section, though. Also, WP:HAMMER is an essay, not a guideline. -Kai445 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with quoting essays, especially if they're well known and rooted in policy, which HAMMER is. (CRYSTAL, RS, etc)
• No one wants to lump it into different generations due to processing power. I think the questions here are similar to the Ouya -- 1) Is it a console? and 2) Are reliable sources calling it 8th gen. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like Valve has even called it either... Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Article title and No original research

The way console generations are counted on wikipedia is something that I have not read anywhere outside wikipedia (like in the gaming press, or books about videogames). I feel that this particular way of grouping things together (e.g. calling PS2/Xbox/GC/DC "sixth generation") is "original research", which the wikipedia rules explicitly prohibit. Can somebody give some real external citations that back this way of counting generations? Norrk (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is what you're looking for. The most recent consensus about "eight generation" is here, and there have been similar discussions for the article names in previous generations; you should review all those arguments if you want to reopen that can of worms. Diego (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Good to see that this was already discussed. It looks to me as if nobody could provide an external citation of reasonable prominence that used the same naming scheme. The proposed name was not good, though, names like "History of video game consoles (generation of 1987-1996)" would have been better. Norrk (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, it's been discussed to death, but no one can ever agree on how to change it, and so when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, it defaults to "no change". And thus, here we are. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"We need hardware comparisons"

What essentially defines each "generation" of consoles? The previous consensus for this article seemed to hinge on the necessity of sources comparing a console to others in the generation. With the latest generation of consoles shaping up to have a number of potential competitors, where should the lines be drawn for inclusion? Is a simple comparison with other contenders in a category by a reliable source reason enough for inclusion, or should we demand a point-by-point and multi-page detailed breakdown of devices? Is time period of release a proper determinant for inclusion when sources have yet to explicitly state a device "belongs" in a category? (After all, the templates seem to include a time span...) I encourage editors to share opinions on this subject. -Kai445 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• A generation is defined by the whole product as it's positioned to consumers. Hardware, software, marketing and timeframe are all relevant when defining how each console is sold. There was a time when generations were tied to huge advancements in hardware horsepower, but that's not the case anymore. Mobile gaming, multimedia streaming devices and open software platforms (PC-based or Android based) are being described by reliable sources as direct competition to the old model. Even if we create a separate article for those as Masem suggested, there will need to be a WP:SUMMARY version of it as a section here to provide balanced, NPOV coverage of the whole situation. (Those separate articles are a good idea, BTW. They could provide a deeper coverage of the sub-topic) Diego (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think grouping consoles in to generations no longer makes that much sense, and will probably make even less sense in the future. What purpose does it serve anyhow? Danrok (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's one of those things where there seems to be agreement that its outdated, but there's never any consensus on how to change it, and when there's no consensus, there's no change. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if I see anything that has changed since the last couple times this has been discussed. The industry hasn't really moved anywhere. The Ouya still isn't out and hasn't garnered any official reviews. Valve's efforts to create what is more a mini-pc than console have only just begun, and Microsoft and Sony have yet to move. The basic rule of thumb seems to still be that sources need to compare the consoles to each other, or as next generation to the prior hardware set. I still hold to the previously established consensus. There's no time limit on this, we're not harmed by waiting for appropriate sources, or for hardware to actually reach market. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel too. Until there's consensus to change, it stays like this, and as long as we're doing it like this, it's too soon to tell what things like Ouya or Steambox will be considered to be. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wii U was included in this article before it had launched. There were concerns about the Ouya being an unknown force, from an unproven company, without a track record to deliver, and we "aren't sure what it is yet". But then Nvidia, one of the top computer and gaming graphics companies, with a lengthy track record of delivering hardware, creating and demoing what is clearly a handheld video game device, with more powerful hardware than what is in either the 3DS or Vita (Quad Core A15), and with a hands-on by the likes of PC Magazine, was excluded from this article. -Kai445 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you really cry foul on that? I don't even see a discussion on it yet. In fact, it even seems to be its first mention in this discussion. I don't believe there's a hard conclusion on how to handle that one yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was reverted by an editor stating no consensus, when it was clear to you and me that it wasn't even discussed. A user should not have to gain consensus to add things to articles, yet it appears that it is how we are treating this article, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. -Kai445 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of Wikipedia, you'd follow WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. IE, you start up a discussion because you're the one who wants to add something new that has been contested. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• There's an idea that I've proposed at WT:VG (not fully assured of it yet, so not yet assured of it yet) in that when we talk about the generations, there are consoles that are clearly always talked about together - the 6th gen is specifically and only the DC, PS2, Xbox 1, and GC, the 7th gen the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii. There may have been other major consoles out at that time, but they are rarely spoken in the same breath as the major players when speaking of what defines the generation. Hence, for this generation, we need to wait to see. We know that they already say the Wii U is 8th gen, and certainly all prelim drops of info for the PS4 and Xbox 720 are compared together, so naturally these three will be here. But for the other "consoles", the Ouya, the Staem Box/Piston, whatever, while they might be out at the same time as these units, it doesn't assure they will be discussed at the same level as the big three. If it does end up that, say, the Ouya is regularly talked about alongside the big three, then we can include it here, but that's nowhere close to happening. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • • Cool! Can we iclude here the iPad and Steam then? Diego (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Er, no, at least, not now, as neither are discussed in the same group as the Wii U, Xbox 720, and PS4 offerings, at this time. A more concrete example is that in the scheme, OnLive and Goku would not be included in the 7th Gen article (but mentioned in some breakdown article on the overall history), since these units are rarely compared and included with the Wii, 360, and PS3 when hardware capabilities are discussed. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea of that proposal previously, and have voiced opposition to it at the relevant wikiproject. -Kai445 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I took it as more of a "proposal of a proposal", so that's why it really wasn't too widely discussed as an RFC or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Masem - That would be "Er, yes," because that's how they are described together when discussing the future of gaming platforms (a quick search just reveals [1],[2],[3],[4], but it's a fairly common point of view). Insisting on using the raw power of hardware for the definition of the next generation is original research - the common theme in reliable sources is that online services, mobile, digital downloads and non-standard controllers will be the relevant properties of new gaming boxes with which the big three will compete (see [5] [6] [7] for instance), as there's a common POV that hardware power won't be all that relevant to the 8th generation. Diego (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about comparisons not in broad terms but at the hardware detail level. Eg, while we can't include these yet since it is industry rumor, the fact that the PS4 is using a faster processor than the 720 means that naturally as a grouping, these two systems are being compared side by side w.r.t. hardware. I doubt that we will see the Ouya or Steam Box or any other similar platform put to the same task (in fact, to some extent in these "is this the last console hardware generation?" articles, the Ouya and friends are considered part of the reason why the normal concept of a console is at its end, ergo putting these systems outside of the eighth gen grouping). Again, I remind that we have a larger "History of vg consoles" articles that all these generation lists are built out from already; we should be tightening these up to just the consoles that are called out in a common generation instead of trying to shoehorn in those that just happened to be released at the same time. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, why the requirement to look at it only "at the hardware detail level", when our reliable sources instruct us not to do so? The history of previous articles is no excuse - if videogames media are changing the definition of generation, we should not go with the old definition for this article. If this was an AfD, I'd be contensting your argument as an WP:OTHERSTUFF. How other articles organize older systems does not directly impact this one, in special because the previous organization relied on a gigantic bit of editorial judgement that bordered original research. Also, by actively excluding an angle that RSs cover as relevant, we're creating a unintended WP:POV-fork; current coverage is not neutral. Diego (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The approach you defend could be a WP:SUBPOV, including just one viewpoint of the whole topic; this can be valid, but it requires a neutral reporting of the context, with at least a paragraph pointing to a separate article describing the rest. I suggest compiling the major additions about the other consoles that were deleted from here, and placing them in an alternate article that would be summarized in a section here - at least as an interim solution. Diego (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that there's two definitions of generation being used by the media. One is lower-case "generation" usually when used as part of the phrase "next-generation hardware". It's simply considering an iteration of a hardware cycle which all gaming consoles and devices would technically fit into, but it is a changing target each day as technology moves forward. Then we have "Generation" - the one that specifically applies to "Eighth Generation", "Seventh Generation", etc. - a specific set of consoles that snapshot the technology at a certain point. (To compare, this like how geologists talk about changes on orders of millions of years, but specific segments are called out like Mesozoic Era that are defined by specific events and not so much specific year markers). To consider this, think about what the press explicitly call out as "seventh generation consoles" - there no doubt this includes the 360, PS3, and Wii, but its very difficult to find any agreement on other units ala Onlive or Goku that would fall into this same discussion. (And I do mean explicitly,, not "OnLive is a next-generation console" as printed during the sixth generation console period - that's just talking about the hardware iteration). I know the distinction is not straight forward, but this would avoid any infighting that we keep having with this articles, including how to handle portables and non-dedicated units that can do gaming.

On your second point, I see no problem with having a second run of articles under "History of video game consoles (YYYY-YYYY)", broken out every 5 years, say, to simply list and briefly describe each major gaming device that was released that year - consoles, portables, "new" devices like tables and phones, etc. We wouldn't be doing HW comparisons, but only describing their place in the history and of course linking to their main articles for more details. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never really been satisfied with the generation moniker used on these history articles, and this sentiment is shared by many others, based on the previous discussions. I don't know that having two sets history articles would be productive. I think "History of video game consoles (YYYY-YYYY)" articles with consensus-defined years would be the most neutral way to do it. The current years listed in the history template are a little ridiculous though and I don't think the fact that a small handful of PS2 games are still being released means that we're still "technically" in the 6th generation. That said, I would recommend a larger RfC at WT:VG to do this since this page doesn't get enough traffic, IMO. Evidence: I just saw this RfC today by accident since it isn't linked anywhere at WP:VG. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

While I don't entirely disagree with you, I think the discussion about xth Generation versus (Year-Year) is almost a second thread. The same question of "Would these other devices belong here? Are they consoles?" remains unanswered by changing the organization. Actually, more and more I'm wondering if we shouldn't just scrap all of these articles entirely. It's somewhat analogous to the discussion over at Talk:Development history of The Elder Scrolls series that is currently on-going to re-merge that article into the respective game articles. Most of the information here is contained in the main articles. There's no real connection between individual consoles within even established generations. So these articles basically read as "Console A released in Year X. Console A featured M, N and O. Console A was lots of other details. Console B released in Year Y. Console Y featured Q, R, S. Console B was lots of other details." .... Perhaps efforts would be better focused on producing a really solid (Perhaps even Feature level one day!) list article of consoles. I'm sure we already have one actually. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Folks, this is angels-on-pins stuff. Stand back and try to change the perspective a bit. Read the article on Circumscription (taxonomy) and maybe the first section of Circumscription (logic). As a prominent writer on mathematical themes once axiomatised: "Distinction is perfect continence". This is not in all contexts valid of course, but it has its merits, and one thing that we find is that the distinctions between so-called "generations" are highly imperfect; in fact, it takes some doing just to find any that are generally unobjectionable. Learn from history: when computers were younger than now, there were three fairly distinct generations: First-generation valve machines, second-generation transistor machines, and then third-generation Solid Logic Technology machines. Fourth generation? practically every new machine that came out after the IBM S/360 range, was touted as fourth generation. Already by then the degree of overlap between "generations" was troubling to the purists who demanded that reality should conform to their preferred criteria, whereas hardly any two even were agreeing on the criteria, and each had his own reasons for his criteria. The fact was that generations were useful concepts in various contexts, but at best there is no perfect continence. My recommendation is that you do mention the generation concept, but concentrate on landmark machines or on dates, or both, depending on context. Eighth generation??? Do me a favour! That sort of talk must presume a one-dimensional variable, whereas game consoles are N-dimensional variables, where N is too large a number to be manageable. JonRichfield (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think most of us recognize that defining consoles along a single variable leads to a lot of problems, but unfortunately the press has picked up on this terminology to a point where we can't ignore it (eg its past the neologism stage), and there's a further argument of circular reasoning that since we, WP, recognize that, other sources have started to recognize it more. Whatever the cause, there is definitely terms like "seventh generation consoles" that have specific meanings for video games, even though it far oversimplifies the situation. We have to cover them somehow. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, but in the interests of my blood pressure the best I can do is offer you my sympathy and bail out. Good luck all! JonRichfield (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't blame you, this is, after all a volunteer project, but this conversation pretty much sums up how things technically go; the people who frequent video game articles can't agree on an approach, and outsiders don't have enough interest or background info to do anything. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Masem above, talking about how the press has picked up the generational concept. While I see plenty of talk about console generations "in general", most press and articles that I read neglect to mention the exact name or number of each generation (i.e. they say "this generation" or "next generation", etc.). Whenever I see a reference to specific generation numbers, it's almost always couched in the terms "so-called" or "if Wikipedia is to be believed". As such, I don't think we've irreparably fallen into that peculiar hole where Wikipedia manufactures a fact whose dubious truth perpetuates itself, at least not yet. That time will come soon, though, so I think we should fix the problem sooner rather than later... Axem Titanium (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• While there's LOTS of different view points on how these articles could/should be arranged, the original ultimate question seems to be whether or not the Ouya should be included in the article as it exists. This RFC is linked to a "factual dispute" on the Ouya article, a very dangerous tag in my view because it leads readers to believe the article as a whole may not be factual, simply because it is not currently included in this article as Eighth generation. Consensus on it's inclusion here does not seem to have changed: There's no reason to rush and when the console it released and has some reviews, we can reevaluate. Kai445 has attempted at least 3-4 different discussions that came to this same conclusion. I think linking the Ouya article to a more overarching discussion on how the 8th generation, or generations at all, should be organized, is a bit much. I'm all for continuing this discussion, wherever it leads, but I think the factual dispute tag needs to come off the Ouya article, since there's still no sources to back that position. If there was, the tag wouldn't be necessary. You'd drop a source next to "8th generation" and be done. This RFC continues fine without the tag on the Ouya article. Since the RFC is not actually about Ouya but about the organization of generations in general, I am removing that tag. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, the "factual accuracy" tag wasn't quite appropriate. I see what Kai was trying to do, but that tag seems to suggest that the info within the article was wrong, when in reality, it's more that he feels more info should be included. We shouldn't cast doubt over what is in it at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Project Shield Confirmed

Nvidia has confirmed Project Shield for the 8th generation [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.157.48 (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

NVidia has confirmed they have a device, yes. The source provided makes zero mention of generation or comparison to any other devices. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, if all we needed for inclusion was existence then Ouya would have already been added.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Shield is more comparable with a smart phone than a handheld console. If anything, it has its own little niche market, but definitely cannot be considered a console. 77.99.50.230 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparable to a smart phone because it can make calls and is sold by wireless carriers? Because it can't make calls and is not reported to be sold by any wireless carriers. If it is simply because it is running on the ARM platform, then the PS Vita and 3DS would both be considered "more comparable to a smartphone". So why, prey tell, do you consider the Shield "comparable with a smart phone"? -Kai445 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

X-box "X-surface"

Surely an encyclopedic article about the History of video game consoles (eighth generation) should be reporting about this? The story has hit all the major sites. Diego (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1) not officially announced (I'm sure MS will do so in time), and 2) tables are not necessarily "8th gen gaming consoles". --MASEM (t) 15:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That article is about a random person who purposely made up rumors because there were so many rumors going around. Thats what you want to add to the article? Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why would it be covered here? It's a hoax, and Forbes says the major sites pulled the original story as a result. -- ferret (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Given that "8th gen consoles" information is based on rumors being published by major sources at the speed of light and few fact checking, I'd say that news and the subsequent mea culpa by the sources is more relevant to the topic than any crystal-ballish specs that you'd want to report about. (You agreed X-Box-related information belongs to the 8th generation article, right?) This one provides an in-depth analysis, but there's much more at the place where that came from. The news is not the hoax, is the fact that the major sites fell for it, which casts any information coming from "reliable sources" in a really bad light; I'd say that's relevant for the neutrality of everything included in this article. Diego (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But this article covers very little of what has not been officially announced. It'd be great if there's some sort of "commentary on video games journalism" article or something like that, but we hardly even mention code-names for future consoles. It doesn't cast any doubt on this article in particular, and seems largely inconsequential to the generation as a whole... Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is titles "History of video game consoles". Isn't commentary on video games consoles journalism part of the history of game consoles? Or should we move the article to the title Technical specifications of 8th generation video game consoles, given that expanding the topic beyond features is seen as unfit? Diego (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You're free to attempt a Rumor-mongering in the 8th gen of video games article if that's the direction this conversation is taking. Silly suggestions aside, we don't even have a sub-section for Microsoft yet, seems like it'd be kind of WP:UNDUE to start up a section about an intentionally-bogus rumor about it. I kinda doubt this one rumor is going to stay noteworthy in the comming weeks, let alone the coming years of the generation. I'm against its inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I may very well do just that;(*) I have a lot of referenced material that was deleted from this page... What is exactly the topic of the page, so that items covered by a varied repertoire of reliable sources are considered undue weight? Is it exclusively about consoles features and specs? Diego (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(*)(Ha ha only serious; I actually believe rumour-mongering previous to each generation of consoles *is* a notable topic by WP:GNG standards; someday I'll start the series by compiling from Wikipedia history pages all the external sources that were proved wrong, as well as the post-analysis on those rumours). Diego (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we add the OUYA to Eight Gen consoles now

Can we add the OUYA? It seems there has been a recent influx of information, and has a set release date. This was discussed a while back but was never heard from. People then thought it would just vanish, but I don't think thats the case now. So think its time to add the ouya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperson Withname (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We need it to be named an eighth generation console by sources, which it has not been. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This has changed thanks to the recent coverage and confirmation of a timeframe for release. See Gamasutra for the Steam Box and Ouya discussed explicitly as challengers for the eighth generation. Digital Spy and MCV again describes Ouya and Nvidia's Project Shield as "next generation" contenders (there was consensus that "next-gen" after 7th is 8th), IGN as "underpowered but promising" with respect to the current gen; all these have appeared in the last two months. This is the kind of explicit comparisons with WiiU and the next Xbox and Playstation from reliable sources, that were requested to support its inclusion. Diego (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Those sources all have a naggy habit of referring to Ouya/Android as the "other" next generation, or the "alternative" to the 8th generation consoles. The Gamesutra article is solely about the SteamBox, and only mentions the Ouya in passing as having occurred in the same time period. The digitalspy article is the best reference, with direct statements of being contenders in the next generation, but ends by saying they're unlikely to "measure up" and will be cheap alternatives. MCV immediately starts off by separating android as "the other next generation." IGN compares Ouya to 7th generation consoles. With all these different Android options it may be better in the end to make a separate article for "Android based home consoles", and link to that from the 8th generation as a section on "Android based consoles". The sources seem to be lumping them together. I also don't really see the SteamBox ever getting a place in the article, because the sources are pretty clear in viewing it as a custom PC solution rather than in a strict console light. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So what if the classification is under an "alternate" 8th gen? Reliable sources have reliably identified that the 8th generation is not like the previous one, as it has been disrupted by the new style based on free-to-play or dirt-cheap, online downloads and casual gaming. These properties are not limited to Android-based nor set-top boxes; it extends to cell phones and mobile dedicated devices. So, if reliable sources are consistently describing the next generation of gaming under these terms, shouldn't this article cover that point of view for the sake of NPOV? What is the rationale for moving them to a separate article? Diego (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply, better organization. I should clarify my position perhaps: I almost believe this article should be scrapped entirely, and the 7th generation was the last traditional console generation. We're basically trapped into deciding how strict to be with this article, because it could either be 3 consoles (Nintendo, MS, Sony), or it could end up with dozens and dozens. The purpose of this article needs to be re-evaluated (See the RFC above). Is it just a list of consoles and their specifications? Then let's make it a list of consoles post-7th gen. Is it the "history of consoles"? I'm not even sure what that ultimately means, other than having an article that summarizes each console in the order they were released. A timeline linking to each console's article would serve just as well. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still brewing the idea of the better division of history articles, and will still contend that when the press use terms like "seventh generation" they are not referring to all consoles within a certain time period or certain hardware spec, but specifically the trio of 360, PS3, and Wii. 6th Gen would be PS2, Xbox 1, and GC; 5th Gen PS1, N64, Saturn, and sometimes the 3DO. Again, within these generations, the list of consoles were compared and contrasted to one another, and not just known as another entry in the field (eg like with the 7th gen, the Onlive console). If we were go in this direction, the various generation article would be complete separate outside the rest of the "history of video game consoles" articles, and specifically dedicated to comparisons of the hardware considered part of that generation. We have to acknowledge the terms, but the fuzziness is killing us with this latest generation; I'd much rather see the consoles - and separately the handhelds - broken out as year groups, without necessarily providing direct hardware comparison tables (but certainly not ignoring key hardware specs); in such a manner, consoles like OnLive and Ouya would be shown in their proper place within the timeline against the "bigger" players. We can still have an article or so on the named generations with the large comparison table and discussion of major changes of gaming services during that period. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to see where the time-period idea takes us. Like "eighth generation era" instead of strictly saying "eighth generation". Since the Ouya style microconsole seems to be catching on and we may see many others, at that rate it might not make sense to try and compare them all to an Xbox 720 or PS4 or what have you from the 8th gen, but they are clearly going to be influential in the 8th generation in some fashion, and that shouldn't be overlooked. -Kai445 (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• No. Ouya is nothing more than a restricted Android device. TJ Spyke 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I disagree with that comment, Spyke, as the pre-release consoles are pre-rooted and the final consoles will come with detailed directions to provide root access from the console's developer without losing warranty coverage. Root access by definition means unrestricted access to the console. Also, Tegra 3 SoC family is quite powerful, placed side-by-side with a Wii, leaves the Wii in the dust. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 10:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly However. Im still in favour of perhaps moving away from "Generational" pages. Especially as they are becoming less and less clear. OUYA for example has already announced plans to revise the hardware every year. So what happens next March when we get the OUYA2, is that also 8th Generation? The same can be said of many of these "other" consoles that frequently get requested here. Adycarter (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait for a while It's too difficult to see where things will fall when they have not settled yet. To be honest I very rarely find the term "generation" used outside of Wikipedia anyway. I say we just wait and see whether the Ouya and these other consoles become a significant business rival to the "main" consoles, most of which have not even been released yet.--ERAGON (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Add Playstation 4 Now?

Well since it's been revealed and there is no doubt that it is "eighth generation" can we add it next to the Wii U? Guyb123321 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been announced, and I'd be hard pressed to agree with a good faith argument that it's not going to be 8th gen, so I would say yes. (Though I'm not sure how much of the tech stuff is known yet...) Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there multiple third party sources explicitly stating that it is eighth gen? Plus it was announced to have online game streaming support and also possibly multimedia capabilities. Are we sure it is even a game console? -Kai445 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/437652/20130221/sony-launch-playstation-4-games-new-features.htm Sergecross73 msg me 11:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/04/the-x86-playstation-4-signals-a-sea-change-in-the-console-industry/ Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• http://technology.xin.msn.com/home-entertainment/sony-playstation-4-now-official-21 Sergecross73 msg me 11:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Support inclusion, the sources above are more than sufficient and have no ambiguity in naming it "8th" generation. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Sources are plentiful, I still don't believe there's a good-faith argument that it's not 8th gen, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to update this list, guys

I'm aware this has been brought up before, but list stands incomplete without the like of the Ouya, Steam Box and Project Shield included. You are entitled to say "I don't think these newcomers are strong enough to hold a place with Nintendo's, Sony's and Microsoft's heritage" but there's no getting away from the fact that this is plain OP, throughout history whenever a games console is released the generation is defined by it's year of release and it's generation of it's neighboring consoles. Now these aren't seventh generation because the first eighth generation console has already been launched (the Wii U) and, being released this year, there is no way they can ninth generation because the ninth generation Xbox would be yet to be released and the others wouldn't have the time to gain any meaningful following. So, if a console is released during the eighth generation of console, by definition it will be eighth generation. I'll admit these aren't often compared to eighth generation of consoles in quite the same way as the leaders, but that's not to say citations don't exist that name them in the same classfield...

http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNewsArticle/tabid/2549/Article/4487/ouyas-big-promise.aspx http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r2j8d http://www.xi3.com/news.php?id=887

Robo37 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, this has been discussed to death. Read up on some of the discussions on this page. Right now there's no consensus to add them, and you haven't added anything new to the argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Robo37. Keep coming and checking back and adding your two cents and one day consensus will emerge to overturn the handful of editors staunchly opposed to inclusion. Until then, Sergecross73 and others are going to have their way and the article is going to fit the worldview where some consoles are "worthy" and others aren't. -Kai445 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, it's good that he expressed his opinion, but his barging in and declaring "it's time to change this" attitude is awfully "forward" considering the level of discussion that's already happened. It's one of those things where you need to draw the line somewhere, or otherwise people are going to clutter it with every odd device that gets a Kickstarter, every variation of tablet, etc. It's not "deeming worthiness", we just disagree on where to draw that line. (Unless you feel no line needs to be drawn. Good luck maintaining such an article...)

Anyways, once some of these newer things are released, it'll be easier to see what they tend to be classified as. Be patient.There is no deadline, we can wait a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely believe a line needs to be drawn. A lesser company selling a dozen or even a hundred "consoles" is quite likely not notable and I would stand with you to exclude it. On the other hand, when you have tens of thousands of pre-orders and are being carried by retail and online giants, along with mainstream news and blog coverage, you've gone over the line and have met the burden for inclusion. -Kai445 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. You agree that a line needs to be set, then you suggest a line has already been crossed? Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is clear, I think that there is a bar for inclusion, but that the Ouya meets it. -Kai445 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What's that line? Again, we can't definite it ourselves. (Also, as a side note, the Steam Box is only a known target, but there's HW or SW requirements yet spelled out, and ergo far from any chance of being categorized into a generation). --MASEM (t) 04:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the point a couple people are making is that the 'generation' spans time, and thus it doesn't matter how powerful a console is. If the Wii U is eight generation, than anything released after it should be. Personally, as a couple others have said elsewhere, I'm almost positive it was Wikipedia who made up the 'x generation' terminology in the first place, and other sites caught on to it. Probably can't do anything about that now, but it might be something to consider. Having to slavishly wait until a couple RSes state that x is specifically in y generation really is kinda silly if a generation is supposed to represent a measure of time and competing consoles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, that in itself is part of the problem; typically people cannot even agree on how to define generations. Some say timeframe. Some say power. Some say include every clone/off-brand ripoff. Some say don't. Some say "include handhelds". Some say don't. Some say include PC/smartphone/tablet/random gadget that also plays a game, others say no. In every discussion I've participated in, for the last couple years, no one can agree on the current definition even, let alone a direction going forward, so it always defaults into "no action taken". That's why we tend to resort to just going by what reliable source dictage, it's the only thing that seems to get consensus. (ie There really hasn't been a real counterargument to PS4 being on there since sources have been provided.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I again point to the fact that when people say "7th Generation" there are three and only three consoles consistently named in that - 360, PS3, and Wii. Despite consoles like the Onlive appearing during those years, they are rarely called out as part of that generation. Or another way: every console will not necessarily be part of a generation, a facet that is determined by journalists and experts. They will be part of the timeline of vg hardware and certainly can be included in that approach, but simply not categorized into a specific capital-G "Generation". --MASEM (t) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

After skimming through this discussion, it hit me that there is another problem here: what are the History of video game consoles (X generation) articles actually for? If it is to discuss how gaming has evolved over time, then the articles really don't do a good job. At the moment, this article in particular seems to be little more than a collection of summaries of the consoles' articles and some comparison tables (many of the fields of which don't seem to be directly comparable/relevant). The History of video game consoles (seventh generation) article is little better, with only a few paragraphs for anything other than summaries of things that have their own articles.

It seems to me that we may be much better served dumping the generations concept entirely, removing all the History of video game consoles (X generation) articles and moving anything relevant and worth keeping (e.g. History of video game consoles (sixth generation)#bits and system power) to either History of video games, to separate History of video game consoles and History of handheld video game consoles articles (the former of which currently redirects to History of video games), or to some other article structure entirely. This would also solve the problem of handheld generations vs home console generations. If need be, we could add a "primary competitors" section or something the console articles' infoboxes to indicate how everything fits together. This page does little more as it is (but with additional clicks). If we really need to keep the comparison tables, there is nothing stopping us from having Technical comparison of X generation consoles articles, which may actually serve an additional purpose (i.e. giving us a place to put all the technical information that most readers really don't care about, as well as discuss more in depth the technical capabilities of the systems and how that affected the games which were/are produced).

The way I see this playing out, there would, for example, be no sections for each console in whatever article they end up in, but would rather discuss the major developments in gaming (e.g. the arrival of motion gaming, analog sticks and 3D games) and how things evolved over time. This would also include things like the entry of Sony, and later Microsoft into the console market, and the massive Wii sales and prevalence of smartphones exploding the "casual" market etc. It would not dwell on release dates, announcements, tech specs etc, which largely belong in other articles (e.g. Xbox 360 hardware or PlayStation 3 launch). It may or may not include landmark games (e.g. GTA3 or Halo C.E.), which may be better in a broader article which covers all gaming rather than just on consoles (especially since a large amount of Windows games are also console games and vice versa). All of this would have to be very carefully done so as to avoid OR, bias etc, but if done right I think it would be a vast improvement.

TL;DR: In a nut shell, what this article and its siblings boil down to is:

• comparison tables, which I don't really think are necessary; if we keep them, there is nothing stopping us from having Technical comparison of X generation consoles articles
• summaries of the consoles' articles, which only exist because these pages exist and
• to some degree, comparisons of sales etc, which probably belong better on Console wars.

What I am proposing is a complete rethink of how we structure our History of video game consoles pages, so the emphasis is on comparison rather than simply blocks of text about each console shoved together into articles about the "generations".

Of course, such a change would require a lot of discussion and strong consensus, and I don't expect that to take place here (probably on WP:VG), but any preliminary thoughts would be appreciated.

Incidentally, something similar has recently happened over at Gamepad, where a user consolidated all of the sections which previously held info on the official controller(s) for all of the major (and some minor) systems into single generation sections so as to encourage summary rather than just listing what capabilities/features each controller has. After all, the article is gamepad, not List of first party console gamepads. As yet, the sections haven't really bean summarised - they have merely had their headings removed - but the potential is there to change the article from a mere list to a proper history and evolution of the gamepad type article.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you go with my idea that when people say Seventh Generation (for example) they are specifically looking only at the three main consoles, 360, PS3, and Wii, then both an article on the Seventh Generation, and the comparison of those systems, makes complete sense (because these systems were compared, spec for spec, in sources). But everything else thus then gets sent to, say, 5-year scan articles so that all released consoles are included, but we provide the specs for each but not direct comparisons. This still makes the Xth Generation articles relevant but avoid the conflict with "why hasn't obscure console X been added?", because that console will have its appropriate place in the year-split articles. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What about a tiered-system, where the "major" players are listed first, followed by more well-known minor ones (perhaps meeting some criteria, like at least $1 million worth of sales for a console and $500,000 for a handheld, so that we don't face the problem of listing every obscure console), and then a link to a list of "everything else" where anything remotely notable is listed (like the "list of video games" article we have where pretty much anything is listed. -Kai445 (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

where is the xbox '720'?

I know that details may be a little scarce, but, if the ps4 is mentioned, then it is negligent to leave out the new xbox. to make matters worse, 'xbox 720' redirects here, but there is absolutely no mention of it in the article. it's like an article about 2012 cpus not mentioning ivy bridge. when people think of 8th gen consoles, the first two that come to mind are almost certainly the ps4 and the xbox 720. i'd do it myself, but I am busy irl, and I have other articles needing my attention. Aunva6 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The PS4 is here because it has been officially announced and acknowledged by Sony, whereas the next Xbox has not been officially announced yet, so even if you were to do it yourself, the information would be removed very quickly. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, what GSK said. It does seem like the "Xbox 720" should probably redirect to something like "Xbox 360#Successor or whatever it's referred to at that page, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fix Wii U controllers section

Wii Zapper should not be listed. It's not a controller, it's just a plastic shell that the Wii Remote and Nunchuck sit in. The Wii Zapper isn't any different in functionality than the Wii Wheel, which is not listed. Both are just plastic shells made by Nintendo, not actual controllers. You shouldn't include or omit one without the other, and since neither is actually a controller, neither should be listed. Keep the controller list limited to actual controller hardware rather than controller accessories.74.67.91.240 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it was a conscious decision to include one and not the other, I think someone just listed as many things as they could and only came up with one. Neither should be listed, and I've fixed it so neither are anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft releasing Xbox successor in April?

I'm not sure, but... http://bostinno.com/2013/03/04/xbox-720-release-date-specs-microsoft-is-readying-the-launch-of-the-next-xbox-this-spring-photos/#ss__304682_271816_0__ss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popthepuff (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's possible there will be an announcement in April, but I believe the author of that article has confused "announcement" and "release". I'm extremely doubtful that MS would release a console in just a month with no announcement or marketing. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, either that, or they mean that they're "readying" it in the spring, for release later on, or something... Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless the article has been updated since it was first posted it simply mentions the release date being announced not the system. It would also have made little sense.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Robo37's approach

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)&curid=32168061&diff=542650058&oldid=542247696

I personally think its a good compromise for now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GCW-Zero

It's a new handheld device that can play any ROM game from First Generation Games to Fifth Generation Games

Information - http://www.gcw-zero.com/
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gcw/gcw-zero-open-source-gaming-handheld
http://www.substance-tv.com/the-rebirth-of-atari-new-console/

Videos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rx8ei11ex4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5FzEd860t8
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.49.213 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as this doesn't even have the notability requirements for having its own article, there's no way its going to belong on this article. (I'm not saying it should have its own article, quite the contrary, with these sorts of sources, it would probably get deleted.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

UNU

This unique Tablet/Gaming Console/Smart TV device is a complete all in one entertainment unit. Featuring a unique “Air Mouse Remote” that also flips over as a full keyboard.

“The UNU is an upcoming Android tablet that is able to be docked with any T.V. allowing a merger of portable and home gaming in a single device, the included Air-Mouse and Bluetooth controller, combined with the UNU's internal touch screen and accelerometers give one of the largest ranges of input available in a consumer device.

The UNU, with such a large range of input devices would allow a game-developer to have many different ways to play their game, the use of and possible combination of these input methods would give a developer much power for innovation, as well as offering the comfort zone of the standard controller and touch-screen methods.

As a big plus, the UNU's other features as a smart T.V. device as well as social networking features makes it an attractive option to consumers, thus giving a larger audience to the developer.

Information - http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/9/3855726/unus-android-gaming-console-mockups
http://nvisionapp.com/latest/article/unu-gaming-tablet-android-smart-tv-gadget
http://thegamefanatics.com/2013/01/07/ces-2013-meet-the-unu/

Commercial Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEDLnLCf9KY

As long as this doesn't even have the notability requirements for having its own article, there's no way its going to belong on this article. (I'm not saying it should have its own article, quite the contrary, with these sorts of sources, it would probably get deleted.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Razer Edge Pro

The Razer Edge Pro is being advertised as PC Gamers Dream machine. It offers a Tablet Mode, Keyboard Mode, Mobile Console Mode and a Home Console Mode. The complete setup will set you back a couple of thousand dollars as each accessory is sold separately.

“So the Razer Edge Pro is my favourite of the line-up it is essentially the same hardware we currently are developing on but portable. This means no expensive Dev kits, no need to port the game, and it will run start out of the box.“

Each new Console, Tablet, Stick has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. But at the end of the day the Gamers and most importantly the Developers are the winners as it gives everyone more choice, variety and opportunities.

Official Webpage - http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-edge-pro

Information - http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/26/razer-edge-pre-order/
http://www.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/razer-edge-pro-256gb-and-razer-edge-128gb-available-now
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/01/gaming-gold-rush/
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4032270/razer-edge-windows-8-tablets-available-for-preorder-march-1

Commercial Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTjBqiFr1Q4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Hz2HRPQ6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AyhdPKyI6E

As long as this doesn't even have the notability requirements for having its own article, there's no way its going to belong on this article. (I'm not saying it should have its own article, quite the contrary, with these sorts of sources, it would probably get deleted.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

4K Resolution

Sony have announced that the Playstation 4 will play on 4K Resolution TV's.

Wikipedia - "Early reports indicate that the Blu-ray drive will not be capable of reading quad-layer 100 GB discs, a new Blu-ray technology designed to support 4K Resolution"[9]

BGR.com - "Sony’s (SNY) plan to introduce an 80-inch XBR LED television set with 4K resolution is said to be the start of a larger scheme to push 4K on consumers, much like 3D was a huge push in the industry a couple of years ago. Since 3D isn’t gaining much traction, Sony (and we’d assume the rest of the industry) is betting on 4K as a way to get consumers to upgrade their home entertainment devices. Sony is already selling 4K Blu-ray players for $200, and the company’s next-generation PlayStation 4 will indeed support 4K resolution playback as well, a source tells us. Like the PlayStation 3 did with Blu-ray, Sony is betting that by including the ability to support 4K resolution media — games and movies — consumers will have an incentive to upgrade to new 4K television sets".[10]

Game Informer - "Sony exec Shuhei Yoshida confirmed that the upcoming PlayStation 4 console plays 4K resolution pre-recorded video - with four times the pixels of a 1080p display - but does not support the higher resolution for games".

"Yoshida told Joystiq that the PS4 supports playback of 4K video streams, which require a stupendous amount of storage or bandwidth and an extremely expensive display that can handle the format. The lack of game support should surprise nobody, as the processing power to render games in realtime at 3840x2160 resolution is unrealistic to expect even out of next-gen consoles". [11]

Resources -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Playstation_4
http://bgr.com/2012/08/22/playstation-4-4k-resolution/
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/21/playstation4-outputs-4k-video.aspx

More Info -
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/4K-Resolution-Ultra-Definition-PlayStation-Console-QFHD,17116.html
http://au.gamespot.com/news/playstation-4-to-support-4k-resolution-report-6393111
http://www.videogamer.com/news/ps4_will_support_4k_resolution_but_not_for_games.html

Commercial Video/Video Information -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa78yOBR9Ho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCJJ4e8AxpM

I see no reason to add that because it would be a feature of an eight generation console not one itself.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please explain in more detail

My Ip Changed since I wrote that. Its quite simple this is a list of consoles released during the eight generation and 4K is a resolution that certain TV's can display. While this can be useful for eighth generation consoles (improved graphics etc) this is a list of Consoles not features that the consoles can take advantage of. In short, 4K should not have a section in an article about consoles since it is clearly not a console itself.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

Microsoft has announced their official reveal date for the next generation Xbox for May 21, 2013. Upstate8987 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I came here to see if it had been added. Specifically, I wanted to see if we have reliable sources for the name of the Xbox 720/Infinity/Nextbox. Do we have reliable sources for what it will be called, or do we have to wait till May 21 ?! Unflavoured (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that there is 1) currently a mention of the announcement in the lead of the article and 2) some WP:BRD going on in the article history regarding inclusion of the next Xbox in various parts of the article, I'm going to close this edit request as more-or-less Already done to the extent the currently available sources support. I expect much more will be coming on the 21st. BryanG (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Widespread Agreement issue

Some Users perfers not to have "other systems" and "other handhelds" for this article. But for what reason? look at the articles about the previous generations, they include other systems and handhelds. There's no reason this article needs to be different from the others. User:Seqqis (User Talk:Seqqis) 9:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Because per previous discussion, we don't have sources to say where those systems will be placed in terms of generations (like the Ouya). We're waiting to see what reliable sources actually say about this. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with using "nth generation" as titles, and why I'd prefer overlapping year ranges instead. Where are we supposed to include the reliable coverage of new consoles, if the media don't use the same wording? I think this is a self-inflicted problem that shouldn't affect the coverage of topics; if we're using WP:IAR to use generation titles that don't exist in professional coverage of consoles history, let's not use those titles to exclude content from the articles. At the very least we could include those consoles in a "contemporary to 8th generation"; there's no reason to exclude them only by generation name. Diego (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. This is a sign that the "generations" approach is falling apart; we should start looking for a different classification approach, one that can also describe the "7.5" generation of gesture peripherals that were added as the evolution to generation 7 as well as the "no-generation" mobile gaming devices and gaming on cellulars. Diego (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea of how to approach these articles that leave the generations intact but would limited them only to the main players in that generation, but this is a holistic idea involving the main History of video game consoles and possible splits for portables and other systems. I need to let it stew more before presenting it, though. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it involve creating "spin-offs" for each sub-category of consoles and gaming platforms, maybe split by year or decade? Diego (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, how then do we decide which year ranges to use? And how do we decide which of the overlapping articles to put some information in? Anomie⚔ 11:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The release of the first "next generation" console in each cycle is a good split point, and it wouldn't require original research, since media do classify major consoles in such groups. The current problem with requiring explicit sources for each "nth generation" is that minor consoles and gaming devices are not usually classified as part of generations; thus, within the current generation-based classification, we don't have a consistent way to include them in the History of consoles. If we organized by years instead and split articles by market innovations instead of raw technology power, it would be easier to put the minor devices closer to their major counterparts. I would classify them like this:

• 2005-2010: 7th generation: XBox 360 and Playstation 3 compete on upgraded hardware, Wii introduces the "Revolution" of gestural games. Handhelds matching this period: improvements and variations of Nintendo DS and PSP portable.
• 2010-early 2012: 7.5th generation: Sony and Microsoft release their motion-based peripherals and catch up the Wii's initiated trend for casual gestural gaming. Handhelds: Nintendo 3DS, Playstation Vita, iPhone and iPad gain momentum as casual gaming platforms.
• 2012-...: 8th generation: Nintendo releases WiiU; next Sony and Microsoft consoles could be part of this same period or initiate a new one, depending on how press coverage classifies them.

IMO this classification provides a better sense of the evolution that the gaming industry experienced, rather than the artificial 7th - 8th generations split. For a start, it would allow us to close the group of consoles that started in 2005 (and which currently extends to the present) at the "natural" 2010 boundary. Diego (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See, I don't like the term "7.5", because it reaches a new level of obscurity beyond the typical "generations" classification - no one is calling it that. It's just compounding the original research problem with these generations. As far as the years go, it's another one of those things where I think there's going to be endless arguing/editwarring/stress involved in deciding what years to use. I think it would hard to come to a consensus, and if we did, it would lead to endless arguing about changing it. (Kind of like all the Sega Genesis article naming madness. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not proposing to adopt the term "7.5" in the article titles, I included it above only to identify the period for discussion, noting that it's different from the early 7th generation. If we agreed to adopt the objective criterion of "date of first home console release from a major builder in each cycle", something that's usually easy to assess from reliable sources in the videogame media, we would avoid any possible contention. In any case I doubt we would have more endless arguing/editwarring/stress than we have now with the nebulous "nth generation" criterion. Diego (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, don't get me wrong, I don't like the current way either, I just haven't been able to come up with a better way that doesn't involve massive amounts of original research or arguable points. I fear your approach has too many contentious points to ever find consensus in the first place though. But by all means start a formal RFC or something if you feel strongly about it though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The scheme I'm mulling over is to first recognize when we say "7th gen" there are exactly 3 consoles and only 3 consoles in it: PS3, 360, and Wii. (same with all other generations). Any other consoles that are not normally classified into those generations would be listed somewhere; lists of minor consoles that are normally not including in the general generation group would be separate articles, one set of grouping for handhelds, possibly another set for within this current gen of settop boxes (grouping OnLive alongside Ouya + Steam Box, for example, assuming they are not assigned as 8th gen). All this would involve making sure the main "History" is clear on these lines, likely breaking up the timeline into ranges of 5-10 years to best group everything. But, as I said I need time to make sure this actually is useful and a better solution. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, I do like the prospect of removing all those silly minor consoles out that aren't largely known of (The Zeebo's and clone systems and whatnot.) and classifying them as something else. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the previous consensus was that the purpose of the generation navigation listings is to provide navigation to all the consoles of that era/generation/timeframe, including the "silly little minor ones" that most would have no way of knowing to navigate towards without the listing. Likewise, we have no business letting our personal feelings of what's silly or minor influence this. Either it has reliable references putting it in that timeframe/era/generation/date range or it doesn't. In the caes of Zeebo for instance, it did indeed have reliable references stating it as part of that generation and alongside the other "big names" of the period. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an apparent problem but one that goes away when one realizes that it assumes that the only articles on video game console history are these specific generations. There is an over-arching History of video game consoles article, and that should give us plenty of freedom to create additional subarticles where appropriate so that we still list this minor consoles but completely avoid their being characterized as within a specific generation. Same with the handhelds issue. All that has to be done to tie this together is a good navbox to allow easy jumping to other sections. We don't have to let that be a limitation and it would let us stay truer to sources. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I mispoke with the "Silly little" comment - I don't usually base it off my personal opinions -- a vast majority, beyond the Zeebo one, do not have a ref supporting them. All you have to do is look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console_(seventh_generation)#Other_systems or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(fifth_generation)#Other_consoles and see there are no sources that verify any sort of generation status. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not to add other systems section as concurrent non-eighth generation systems? The consensus is to set those systems apart from the so-called eighth generation, ok (not ok, in fact, but let it be so). Still you can hardly deny that those "other" consoles generally swim in the same waters as the "generationabe" consoles and undoubtedly [are going to] affect gaming and gaming systems market. schmalter//178.184.136.226 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, why would we list "non-8th gen systems" on the "8th gen systems" page? There's an infinite number of things that are not 8th gen systems. Why not add Gameboy Color? That's also "not 8th gen". It would fit such a criteria. Your argument is flawed. The fact that these other things isn't a statement denying their existence. It's denying their classification. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think they mean to add others released during the same time period, not things released a decade ago. -Kai445 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying, why would you make a subsection in an article that doesn't fit the article criteria? Would you start up a Mini van subsection at the truck article? Would you start up a Pokemon subsection at Super Mario (series)? Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There may be million of reasons to mention vans in trucks article. They could've being built over the same platform, they once may start competing each other because of tax regulation changes, etc, etc. "Other systems" may be not fit some made-up parameters to be considered 8th-gen, but still they are the fact of 8th gen. And vanishing any mentions of OUYA from this article is ultimately stupid. schmalter//5.254.234.207 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of reason to give passing mentions of vans in the truck article, like in all of your examples. There's no reason for it to have its own dedicated subsection strictly about them though. Same applies to this article. Its fine to mention OUYA in passing (it used to give it a passing mention. I just restored it into the article.) but it's premature for it to have its own dedicated subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility and the Wii U

On the chart, it currently says that the Wii U is backwards compatible with the following things:

• Nintendo optical discs
  • Wii

• Downloadable only
  • WiiWare
• Virtual Console in Wii Mode Nintendo Entertainment System
  • Super Nintendo Entertainment System
  • Nintendo 64
  • Nintendo Gamecube
  • Sega Master System
  • Sega Genesis
  • Neo Geo
  • Commodore 64
  • TurboGrafx-16
  • MSX
  • Virtual Console Arcade

Now, Wii U is clearly backwards compatible with the Wii U and WiiWare, and you can even say its backwards compatible with the Virtual Console, as in, any of the VC games from the Wii can be played in Wii Mode on the Wii U.

However, I don't think it makes sense to list out all of the systems under the VC. Yes, the Wii U will play A Sega Genesis game you downloaded on your Wii, but its not, in general, backwards compatible with the Sega Genesis. If I want to play my copy of Ristar, I can't just pop the cartridge into a Wii U. There's only a few select games downloadable. Its misleading.

Anyways, there was a pretty strong consensus on this at WP:VG when the same user wanted to add that to the Wii U article, so I'm thinking the same should apply here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's actually listed as:

• Nintendo optical discs
  • Wii

• Downloadable only
  • WiiWare
  • Virtual Console in Wii Mode
    • Nintendo Entertainment System
    • Super Nintendo Entertainment System
    • Nintendo 64
    • Nintendo Gamecube
    • Sega Master System
    • Sega Genesis
    • Neo Geo
    • Commodore 64
    • TurboGrafx-16
    • MSX
    • Virtual Console Arcade

Like you said, this just a rundown of the consoles supported by the Virtual Console service in the Wii U's Wii Mode. I think the current arrangement is pretty explicit when naming the supported consoles under the Wii Mode Virtual Console label. I would be against the inclusion of said consoles if there was no sort of mention of the Virtual Console or Wii Mode, listing them as entirely backwards compatible.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But we don't need to list what things are supported in the Virtual Console. That's why it has its own article. If its not in regards to what is directly backwards compatible with the Wii U, then it really shouldn't be here... Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Virtual Console service is directly backwards compatible with the Wii U and Nintendo 3DS, and one of the reasons if think it's important to have the supported systems by this service in the table is that since the Virtual Console page has to accommodate the 3 systems that it currently supports (Wii, 3DS and Wii U), it might take some time to find out which systems are supported in each console. Since this table was made to compile and compare information as fast and as easy as possible I think the inclusion of the supported systems under the Virtual Console label is an important feat. Otherwise, it would seem that both Nintendo 3DS and Wii U share the same Virtual Console service for example, by only listing said label in the comparison tables and not their actual supported systems.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I do see what you mean. Perhaps there is some sort of compromise, where the info is added, but maybe there's some sort of footnote explaining what I'm saying. Thoughts from you or others are welcome... 22:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Preloaded applications

Nintendo DS / 3DS Game Card isn't really a preloaded application, is it? 78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. Perhaps they were getting at that some come with a game pre-loaded on there? Although, I don't believe there were any DS games preloaded on any 3DS models, so that's wrong no matter what. I'd support removal, unless there's something that I'm missing... Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it was supposed to be the Nintendo 3DS/DS Game Card launcher as it's written in the 3DS manual.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But is that a preloaded application? 78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, not really. I think some people just feel obliged to cram as much minutiae into these sorts of charts as possible. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking note of that. Sometimes I can be a little too detail obsessed. Sorry about that.--Arkhandar (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't especially mean you. Half the time it's "no one", really, but rather twenty separate people who contributed a single bit of information, and when they're're done, it's cluttered... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So, remove or not? 78.156.109.166 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Its up to you. It's not wrong, but its rather pointless to say too; one can probably assume that a game system will in fact load up games designed for it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean its rather pointless to say too? To say wrong too? 78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant, its pointless to list a "game launcher" as an "application". To who is this information going to be useful for? The person who wasn't sure if games were playable on a 3DS? Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you write it correctly, though? I still don't fully see the meaning. 78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

xbox will not charge fee for trade in that was a disproved rumor major nelson stated it to be false

so change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.94.34 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

All current sources affirm there is a fee that disconnects a game from a player's account, such that the game can then be resold to a new buyer. How much that fee is and who pays is not yet known but the situation suggested is that authorized stores will be the ones to do that, and thus those stores can decide to pass that fee to the next buyer. So there is a fee, but the exact mechanism is still in question and likely going to change due to the initial backlash from that reveal. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Oton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

As a clarification: the article which was AfD-ed was in fact deleted; its location in article space was turned into a redirect to the town. That is why there is a link to an AfD here which seems to relate to an article which has little to do with video games. (Not someone involved in the AfD or this article, just curious and then confused.) Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 01:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

VITA units shipped

We need some sanity on this issue. User talk:TornadoCreator is claiming 4.5 million units from shipped and others are claiming 2.2 million from . I looked into is and it appears that there are no official numbers on this. Sony has made a claim that they may reach 5 million units shipped by the end of this year but no disclosure on the actual number shipped. All numbers appear to be estimates from sources outside of Sony. Therefore it seems that this issue will never be resolved. Different sources will provide competing "estimates". Therefore I suggest either eliminating the stat entirely from the article or providing a range based on a number of source estimates.War (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Table images

My edits to remove the logos and non-free images from the table have constantly been reverted. Although there are some "free" images mixed into there too, the logos are purely decorative and are not discussed in the article at all, plus the non-free images of the consoles are also decorative and do not have any rationale for their use in this article (either at all, or in compliance with policy). Please note that the three-revert rule does not apply unquestionable violations of the non-free content policy. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that the Xbox One-design is "Not Available", as it's been officially shown at #XboxReveal, and is available on xbox.com right now. Liggliluff (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not available as a free image, which will be the case by E3. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, both consoles' E3 conferences have happened. Exactly when are these images supposed to go free? Looking at the page's history, attempts to add them keep getting reverted. VinLAURiA (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

E3 continues through the week, and since the hardware is now revealed, we have to wait for someone to make a free image. The additions are the same non-free images that are now inappropriate due to free-replacement. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How do we go about making a free image? Does someone take a photo of the system or modify an existing press image or something? VinLAURiA (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We need someone to take the photo and license it under a compatable free license. You cannot modify press iamges for that. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ngh. More red tape. It's like the Gen8 vs. Gen2011 debate all over again (you should remember that one, Masem.) Personally, I suggest that all the generational comparison articles do include the logos for each console as they're used as essential identification on things like game boxart or trailers, so I personally would call them more than just "decorative." The Xbox One image... Well, E3 and these supposed free-use images are only a few days away, so I really don't see much worth in arguing over that at this point. But I definitely think we should put the logo issue to a vote, because I personally see them as necessary. VinLAURiA (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference here, though. NFC is a policy that requires us to use free images over non-free, and only use non-free when the images are discussed. This makes the current press photos of the Xbox One appropriate at Xbox One, but not here in this comparison table as there is no discussion on the look or size or the like in this comparison (it's about hardware and software capabilities). (by comparison, the issue of naming these generations is one that is a matter of how best to present information and is not strongly tied to any policy). E3's next week and we're pretty much certain an Xbox One unit will be present, not so sure on the PS4 but irregardless, its a public event and I'm sure we'll be able to get free photos that can then be used here without any question of context. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a problem with the Xbox One issue anymore. We should have our free images now. I still say that the logos are an essential part of the tables. VinLAURiA (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wii U gfx card

The current information is based on a chipworks die teardown ($2500 photo) and analysis. Although there is some mystery area on the silicon, there is no reason to believe that it contributes in any way to raw computing power. The "Custom logic" text is speculatory, bordering on original research, and should not exist without a reliable source expanding upon it. -Kai445 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you to take a look a this: [12]--Arkhandar (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thraktor is the one with the theory about asymmetrical shaders, but he himself called it a "crackpot theory" in the first post in the thread. There should be no weight given to an argument that its own creator has deemed 'crackpot'. The teardown appears to show 320 shaders. Nobody is seriously disputing that. Marcan's workup of the GPU is in the original post. There is unidentified areas of silicon, but those would not have any discernable impact on FLOPS. -Kai445 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Then again, there's no way anyone can confirm if whether those unidentified areas of silicon have any impact on the overall FLOP count or not. I suggest we redo my former edits in order to make the article as closer to the truth as possible.--Arkhandar (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I already left a message on your talk page about flops calculations when you pulled the "citation needed" card on it. Yes, we can be sure of that, because of how it's calculated. Cores and clocks are part of the calculation, not hypothetical things that might be on the rest of the die. Whether it be security (similar to starlet), an ARM core, custom video decoding logic, or a number of other hypothesized possibilities of what might be there, none of them would have any impact on either number of shader cores, or the clockspeed of the chip, and thus not have an impact on the number of shader cores, clock speed, or FLOPS calculation where the table is concerned. -Kai445 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I reckon fixed function units (highly present on the original Wii hardware) do have an impact in the theoretical FLOP count such as a hardware tessalator, or a fixed function "core" dedicated to lightning for example.--Arkhandar (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that they would have fixed function hardware transform/lighting units, especially with 320 programmable shaders to do that work, it is not likely. Also, the Unity developers claim that the Unity engine on the Wii U has "DX10 level graphics support". Well... Tessellation is a DX11 feature. If they had tessellation hardware to work with, I'm sure they'd have claimed DX11 level support. But the leak pre-E3 stated "DirectX 10.1 and OpenGL 3.3 equivalent functionality", using the proprietary "GX2" API which has an R700 target (likely the RV730, which AMD happened to codename "Mario", which has 320 shaders and DX 10.1 and OGL 3.3 support), and we know that GX2 is the name of the API because a Ubi devleoper name dropped it on his LinkedIn page. It all adds up. -Kai445 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But, even if there were tessellation units, conceding that perhaps they just aren't currently exposed in the SDK to developers (for all we know), they would still not contribute to GPGPU performance. The programmable shaders are where general purpose math happens. -Kai445 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rollback of removal of "3DS Game Card Launcher" in "Preloaded applications"

Why did you rollback my removal of 3DS Game Card Launcher? Pubserv (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion two sub-sections up. There has been discussion on removing that. No one expressed a clear opinion not to remove it.... Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing it. Just got caught up in a rollback of other content, I wasn't targeting the 3DS game card launcher. I was just indifferent to it, so it came back with the other edits. -Kai445 (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Pubserv (talk) was me (78.156.109.166 (talk))... 78.156.109.166 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not realize that. Also didn't realize that your statement was that your "removal was removed", I misread that. Anyways, neither Kai nor I really care, so feel free to keep or remove, whatever you feel you want to do. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't you reply to my last comment two sections up, though? And I believe you should say "section", not "sub-section", because it (also) says "New section" at the top, and not "New sub-section", but whatever (i.e. offtopic). 78.156.109.166 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know how to break it down any further for you, and I didn't feel super strongly either way, so it didn't even really seem necessary. All is solved now, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. 78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I see someone changed it back again. Pubserv (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone voice any strong opinions against it, so I'm guessing it was probably added by as an accident, or by someone unaware of the discussion. Feel free to remove it again unless something changes... Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Expanding the list to include Ouya console and the Shield Handheld.

Okay, we've all heard the arguments and counter-arguments to Ouya and Shield being included: Specs vs. Press, reviews on any and all pre-release versions of these consoles compared to the release versions if applicable, what operating system is used in the console, how the system architecture is being laid out, etc. etc. etc. Personally, all these need to be considered, and in my opinion, the Ouya should be included here, primarily because taken as a whole we have a decent console that can hold its own against perennial bottom-dweller stats-wise Nintendo and the Wii U. As for the handhelds, I'm personally inclined to include the Shield here as well, despite the mechanical issue requiring NVIDIA to push back the official launch date. Thoughts? ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything new to your argument here? As you said, we've heard the arguments and counter-arguments. Is there some new sources making comparisons between these pieces of hardware? Has anything changed about the status quo? New information? Sales figures? New sources referring to either unit as "8th generation" or being a serious competition to "8th generation" hardware? I don't believe anything has changed in that regard. If anything the Ouya's sparkle has faded more over time... -- ferret (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also if the Ouya was the only indie console out there I don't think there would be as much of a problem, but as it stands compiling the likes of the GameStick, NVIDIA Shield, Razer's Edge, Ouya, esfere, Oton, Project Mojo, GamePop, Razer Switchblade and Steam Box into one big table just isn't practical. Unless suppose we only list certain indie consoles, but that just opens up a new can of worms. Robo37 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that listing them all together is counterproductive and unsubstantiated, but an "Other" section at the bottom with a summary table would be a worthy addition. -Kai445 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Nothing has changed, not typically labeled as such. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've not seen Ouya put into the same class as the Xbox One, PS4, or Wii U, nor any push to put things like the Ouya or other "home media center consoles" in this category. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

International Business Times "PS4 vs. Ouya: How the Underdog Fares Against the Poster Boy Console". Reputable source, direct comparison. And it is hardly a "home media center", do you have a reputable source calling it that? -Kai445 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This source ends with the quote "It shouldn't be treated as a competition for the likes of the PS4" and refers to the PS4 as next generation without saying the same of Ouya.. the source seems to actually support exclusion. -- ferret (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems quite out of context. The sentence as a whole reads that the author considers the Ouya as a complimentary addition to, as opposed to a full on replacement for a PS4. To the contrary, it bolsters my argument. -Kai445 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know about that...I read it much more like Ferret does. I certainly wouldn't say it "bolsters your argument... Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you suppose the author intended? It may help to summarize the sentence and then expand upon your summary. -Kai445 (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll add this sentence " it's great to see how the console fared with the upcoming next generation console PS4" clearly excludes the Ouya from the 8th gen, among the rest of the ton of the article. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire article compares the PS4 to the Ouya, and you believe that that sentence should be construed to mean that the Ouya is not part of the 8th generation? Impressive. -Kai445 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

YEs, it specifically considers the unit as not a challengers but a different type of entertainment console that won't displace the PS4. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. He is not saying that the PS4 and the Ouya are on the same level. Amazon has it categorized under "Video Games > More Systems". I am not pushing for the Ouya to be included alongside the PS4 and Xbox One, as it is clearly not equivalent. But as good as this article is, an "Other" or "More Systems" section at the bottom is not asking too much. -Kai445 (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As long as they are all lumped into an "Other" category at the bottom. Last gen had "other", the one prior too, no reason this one shouldn't. If any of them become serious competition, somehow, then they could always be moved up into the primary sections. -Kai445 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Personally, I believe the specs allow them to be lumped in to the eighth generation. Even if it's in an other category, I can support it. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I think Ouya should be included. Regardless of its specifications, it's been released in 2013, during the eighth generation. NemesisAT (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that stance is that the generations are not really defined as a length of time, and are more closely tied to the major platform releases of the most recognized consoles, namely, Nintendo, Sony, and MS, and further back, Sega, Atari, etc. Currently, inclusion in the generation is more related to publication of sources that refer to the console as being part of such a generation or as competition to those consoles that are. So far no one has provided sources that really set the Ouya into that realm, and most seem to actually set it aside as not being competitive with the Wii U, PS4, or Xbox One. -- ferret (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As long as they are all included into an "Other" category at the bottom.--Arkhandar (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just tossing an idea out: what if we had two series of History of vg consoles - one for the generations (importantly, which have established groupings of which console belongs where generally because they are compared on a spec-for-spec basis), and then a separate one that is broken up by, say, 5 year periods, for the other consoles and handhelds? --MASEM (t) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Might as well end this whole pseudo-original research "generation" categories and just divide everything by year groups.--Arkhandar (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the current articles are good, but I think we need to continue the trend of having a catch-all at the bottom for consoles released within the same time period (because 5 year periods... might be a little too rigid, and a variable time-span will probably end up with the same time spans as the current generation articles).-Kai445 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the purpose of this article truly is, except to provide a space to put a table with arbitrary specs between big name consoles. There's no real "Generational" history in most of these articles, with most of the details being snippets about the individual consoles, taken from their parent articles, with no real comparison or integration. I.e., it's a timeline with arbitrarily chosen snippets of consoles without a loosely defined time frame, bound by company release dates. In reality, it's a numbering system than began with Atari and but now increments based on Nintendo console releases (In so far as that has been the pattern since the third generation). I'm not sure why there isn't just a List type article with a timeline chart, starting from the beginning and going on to the future. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly sourced comparison between console sets like the Xbox 360/PS3/Wii, and the Xbox One/PS4/Wii U. While we at WP may have formalized the generation term, other sources have since picked up on it, and we're in a circular issue in terms of it. However, we can clearly divide between those consoles that are assuredly part of the given generations, and those that are simply released in the same time period - eg like the Ouya, no one is really calling it an eight gen console, simply that it sits among other units as an offering at this time. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Video game console and Microconsole

Alright, I'm going to keep this simple. Since these new android-based consoles, and I'm talking about the Ouya, GameStick and such, are being labelled as "microconsoles" by the majority of the media why no restructure our article names too so that we better transmit the reality to the user, since in fact these consoles are never mentioned as "next gen" or "8th gen". So, what I propose is this new simple architecture (I won't elaborate much since what I propose pretty much self explanatory):

History of video games

• Video game console
  • History of video game consoles (first generation) to Video game console (first generation)
  • History of video game consoles (second generation) to Video game console (second generation)
  • History of video game consoles (third generation) to Video game console (third generation)
  • History of video game consoles (fourth generation) to Video game console (fourth generation)
  • History of video game consoles (fifth generation) to Video game console (fifth generation)
  • History of video game consoles (sixth generation) to Video game console (sixth generation)
  • History of video game consoles (seventh generation) to Video game console (seventh generation)
  • History of video game consoles (eight generation) (this one :p) to Video game console (eight generation)
• Microconsole
  • Microconsole (first generation) - include Ouya, GameStick, Shield
  • Microconsole (second generation) - (in the future) include Ouya 2 when it's announced, etc.

And that's basicaly it.. No more problems I guess, and a lot simpler and cleaner. What do you guys think?--Arkhandar (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with these scheme alone is that, for example, not everything listed on the current 7th generation page is a 7th generation video game console; they simply came out at the same time frame as the big ones. Same is true across the board. This again stresses we almost need one set of history articles that is strictly time based (say, by every 5 years) where all of our consoles can go (macro or mciro), while your suggestion of the generations would still be appropriate for when we have the clear generations (eg PS3/360/Wii for 7th, PS2/Xbox/GC for 6th), removing the handhelds and microconsoles from these. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is a bit arbitrary. And other consoles released in the same time period exist in every other "History of video games (x generation)" article, except for this one... where for some reason, a small contingent of people are actively resisting adding the same "Other" category that we have in every other article. And the Shield isn't even a Microconsole... it's more powerful than the PSVita, and at $299, more expensive. -Kai445 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to point out the obvious, that we have a local consensus. Including the nominator, this is 4 in support and 2 opposed. If we count the guy below, it's five in support. So, I went ahead and did it. If anyone reverts me against consensus, I'll be quite disappointed. -Kai445 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, nothing around with a separate Mircoconsole article - and I do also suggest a "List of microconsoles" though you're not going to likely be able to have comparison tables - but it still would be good to summarize those there. As for the generations, I am pretty confident that through sources, you can tell what consoles are grouped in each generation - again, PS3/360/Wii are all in the same breath but no others for 7th generation. The handhelds would need separate articles because there's no such thing as generations for those, really. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Microconsoles

I think we should add a section for microconsoles like the Ouya, GameStick and GamePop kinda like the sections for home consoles and handhelds Sexysnorlax1 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to planet earth, Sexysnorlax1. I suggest you change your user name to SexySlowpoke1, maybe? Now seriously, there's already a discussion of this in the thread above. I'm just going to take this as an action in good-faith. Thank you and keep sexy.. I mean, carry on.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember to remain civil. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the discussions above but they talk about including the consoles with the Wii U, the Xbox One and the PS4 while I am suggesting making a new section for them.Sexysnorlax1 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A new article maybe? Or are you talking about a section called "Other" for example, in this article/page?--Arkhandar (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

And if you're interested in adding another section to *this* article, you should add your support to the discussion above. -Kai445 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

PS Vita - New Consoles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24014922

Should it be added to the handhelds section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It already has been added. Thank you.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 20:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on the Xbox One's eSRAM

Maybe this link would give some clarification on the eSRAM's performance. It helps that the Digital Foundry. See if anyone could see it as legit: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware --NordRonnoc (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's very unclear exactly what the bandwidth is, and under what circumstances. I say we stick to what we did with the WiiU's edRAM; not listing the speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCLI (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Steam Machine

Steam Machines are a range of PCs designed with gaming in mind. So if we include Steam Machines, shouldn't we also include Alienware machines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.157.210 (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If AW comes out with a customized operating system for a line of devices meant for the television, then perhaps. -Kai445 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Steam machines are targets at a specific minimum configuration. Alienware (or any other vendor that puts out gaming machines) generally don't have as such - they have a baseline model or three. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

CPU/Module Types

Let's leave this alone unless someone can explain a reason to keep changing it. Both the Xbox One and the PS4 have octa-core CPUs. Those CPUs are made-up of two quad-core modules. This is not an uncommon arrangement, and I don't believe it to be irrelevant to make note of it either. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias towards big players

The GameStick, Nvidia Shield, Razer Switchblade, Ouya, MOJO, GamePop and Steam Machine are attempting to compete in this market; however these are seldom referred to as "eighth generation consoles"

Well this statement I was about to remove is not NPOV. There's a hidden bias under it, that only the three major consoles are "accepted canon". The mission of Wikipedia is not to make that kind of judgements, but to report things as they are. Even if gaming journalists have the same bias, it's irrelevant. That's not something Wikipedia should take part in. You don't see this kind of attitude in limiting the definition of "first generation video game consoles" to only the biggest player, you report everything that is historically relevant to that time. If you exclude Ouya or other consoles, you are making very worrying value judgement. --Sapeli (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Its literally true though; very few reliable sources literally call them 8th gen. Do a search if you don't believe it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliable sources, and no one calls them "eighth generation consoles". Even if it's biased it's still the truth an therefore should be included in the article.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering that no-one actually uses the term "eight generation consoles", I'm exceptionally unsurprised. --Sapeli (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you understand that, and you understand how Wikipedia works, you should understand why things are the way they are. There's no universal or agreed upon definition for "8th gen". Therefore, all we can do is go by exactly what sources say. That leads us to the current wording. Unless you've got some new sources to present, that's what consensus is currently supporting... Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They are seldomly referred to as eighth gen, but that also doesn't mean that they are never referred to as such, either. It does have a certain subtext to it that might be undesirable. -Kai445 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

External HDD storage

Given it's now been confirmed the PS4 does not support external HDDs, shouldn't there be a mention in the article (such as comparison chart) to distinguish that Xbox One supports external HDDs but no internal upgrades, and PS4 supports internal upgrades but no externals? CR4ZE (t) 00:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as it can all be sourced, sounds good to me. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Current price

What's the current price of the Wii U Basic Set? Oct13 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is one, as it's discontinued. That said, I'm not sure current price should even be listed at this page, just launch price. -- ferret (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still US$299, but only bundled with games now.[13][14]--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 18:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Regional lockout

Hi, It says that XBOX One is Unrestricted (except for DVDs) does this also exclude Blu-rays? Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Xbox One does not support 1080i

Stating support for it in the article should be removed

About TV resolutions and Xbox One — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.94.34 (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Steam Machine is not an 8th Gen (At least yet)

Steam Machine is listed in the bottom table of "other" consoles, and this is the appropriate place for it at this time. Don't know why it keeps being added to the primary console table when A) No real details exist even for Valve's prototype, B) Multiple hardware vendors with completely different specs for the final production models (Which valve won't do), C) The platform is basically a PC, with PC titles.

It deserves mention, and is mentioned. It is not a discrete specific console however, but a range of generalized hardware meeting a minimum specification from Valve. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It was moved by an inexperienced editor who was unfamiliar with the past discussions and consensus. No harm, no foul. I completely agree with you - the "other" section is the perfect section for it at present. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What is a "milestone"?

While the issues with the seventh generation "milestones" still stand and can be debatable as that cycle slowly closes, I'm still unclear on what constitutes as a milestone. Currently listed are four Nintendo games with a very generally favorable reception, yet I would consider a milestone to be something more substantial such as new technical start points, major innovations, record breaking sales and/or reception. How are games with a 90-93/100 on Metacritic milestones? No doubt there will be equal if not greater games to come (including on the WiiU and 3DS), otherwise it's going to be a long list when the ninth generations comes around. Since this generation just started I would suggest simply not having a milestone section for the time being, unless there is a consensus on what a milestone even is. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm personally against them, as I think its awfully subjective, and seems to always degrade into people just listing all their favorite, or best-selling, games. I didn't remove them though, since I know historically these generation articles have them. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to bring this up on the video games project page as I agree, it does seem to be very subjective. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that it is a subjective section. Nevertheless, I added Fire Emblem, Zelda and Mario 3D Land thinking that the section was dedicated to critically acclaimed eight-generation games (excluding ports and remakes) with a general 90+ score. As that doesn't seem to be exclusively the case, I agree that there should be a consensus regarding the definition of milestone in this context.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 18:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If the 90+ were the case, I would expect the last few generations to have much bigger lists. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• (from WPVG) Not sure what this section is supposed to include, but this Metacritic method of inclusion doesn't really make sense. Sure, include games in the article, but put it in prose and only add games that the RS report as "defining" the generation or the specific console—don't do it based on your personal opinion of where the line is crossed.  czar ♔ 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently there seems to be little argument for keeping the current list. I would suggest removing the milestone section for the time being, at least until there is clear evidence of a landmark title during this console cycle. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Allocation of memory for games and OS

There's no cited source for the alleged allocation of 1GB of system RAM for the Wii U's operating system.ChaosAngelZero (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding source. Joe routt (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Units shipped figure

I recently updated the amount of "units shipped" to the new numbers given by Microsoft. Why does it continually get reverted. I realize that 3.9 have not been sold to customers but in the comparison, it is for units shipped not sold. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Either the figure needs to get changed from "units shipped" to "units sold" or the change needs to stay. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, guys. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't simply change the measure to units shipped, because the Wii U and PS4 figures are units sold not shipped. We do not know the amount of Wii U's and PS4's that were shipped, so it is a misleading comparison to use the 3.9 million figure. Markpb91 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nintendo only reports shipped units.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 20:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Shipped units are complete nonsense. I'd rather see semi-reliable "sold" statistics from a third party over reliable "shipped" statistics from a first party. A glut of unsold XB1's sitting around the retail channel is no reason to switch to this pathetic metric. -Kai445 (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Shipped units are what they are. We're not here solely to compare sold through success, especially if there are no realible sources out there with worldwide numbers.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 10:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)