Talk:Home video game console generations

Incorrect statement, proven with logic, and math.

"A new console generation typically has occurred approximately every five years, in keeping pace with Moore's law for technology, though more recent generations have had extended periods due to the use of console revisions rather than completely new designs."

If this is true, then Switch would be 9th generation, because 5 years after November 18, 2012 is November 18, 2017, meanign Switch fits into that "approximate 5 year" span. This needs to be rewritten to say 7 or 8 years, because approximately 5 is too close to Wii U's lifespan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:B551:602D:FB82:96AC (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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

"Typically" does not mean a hard and fast rule. --Masem (t) 23:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The Switch is 9th generation. Putting two generations of consoles in one "generation" in the article doesn't make any sense. Especially when they were released 5 years apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.72.60.172 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Generations are based on how sources see the consoles group via competition, not purely by "one console follows the next". There is still a good likelihood that the Switch is both an 8th and 9th generation console given that it has been seen to compete both with the PS4/Xbox One sets and with the PS5/Xbox X/S sets. --Masem (t) 14:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with that previous poster. "Sources" for this subject are generally not authoritative, and really this whole topic is a kind of (crowdsourced) original research. The huge overlap in dates between "generations" shows how much the topic needs refinement. I'm thinking back to first and second generation here. Atari 5200 should be considered a new generation over Atari 2600, and the new machines of its time (Colecovision, Vectrex) were a big leap beyond the machines of the late 1970s. The 1st and 2nd generation articles are too inconsistent. If Magnavox Odyssey (1972) even merits its own generation (generation zero is probably more appropriate), it should not be classified as it currently is with a Nintendo system from the Atari age of the late 1970s. Systems from 1976-1979 (i.e. through Intellivision) were in direct competition and should be in the same generation, which I would argue should be 1st generation (with Atari 2600 at its center). The next wave of competitive releases, right in the middle of the video game peak boom, should be second generation: Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex. I think earlier editors were just reluctant to account for the substantial gameplay differences between 8-bit machines when pondering classifications for that time. But having lived through it, these differences were clear. Then, the Atari 7800 should be a third generation console, competing with Nintendo (NES), etc. There is room to fix these problems, as it stands. I doubt that the sources could ever agree without starting inductively and generating clear definitions based on actual patterns. This feels like it was theorized ad hoc by persons who were caught up in later generations, then tried back-dating the concept to a time they were unfamiliar with. First generation article should not include any system (e.g. Nintendo) that post-dates the second-generation Atari 2600. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B10E:A2BA:2DA4:7A18:580F:BEB6 (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I would also like clerification because the switch is the first console in the 9th gen. Nintendo has a console in each gen except the first or second, cannot remember which. So why is it in the 8th gen UjabujaYT (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The Nintendo Switch is a 9th generation console because the Wii U is 8th generation and released in 2012, five years before the switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyIsBest (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Consemsus on switch gen is wrong

Nintendo switch is of ninth gen, it started it. it's a architectural leap over the wii u and a advancement in innovation. Wii u is a gen 8 console and a failure, switch is defacto an early ninth gen console, it's technically.more advanced than ps4 and xbox one despise the lack of power. Consensus is non existent and should not governe the reality that the sqitch align with ninth gen. This is misleading people researching the subject on wikipedia and mistaking the switch next to the wii u gen when it shouldn't be . May as well call the wii gen 6 because it's only a modified gamecube with an innovative concept (the controllers). 70.53.173.172 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would also like clerification because the switch is the first console in the 9th gen. Nintendo has a console in each gen except the first or second, cannot remember which. So why is it in the 8th gen UjabujaYT (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I have added a ref to fix the CN tag. The problem with the logic "nintendo has had a console in each generation" is that the generation terms for consoles doesn't necessarily apply to the same concept of hardware generations within a specific console line. There is barely any support to say that the ninth generation started with the release of the Switch, but plenty to assert it started with the PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. Many sources indicate the Switch is a cross over from the eighth into the ninth. — Masem (t) 03:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed that throughout the conversations on this page about whether or not the Nintendo Switch was an 8th or 9th generation console; no one ever cites any source. So I did some digging.

While the vast majority of news sources do not mention any generation placement at all I did find two instances that I think are of note.

The first mention I found was from CNET author John Falcone where he states on October 20, 2016: "Nintendo unveiled the first images of its next-gen game console formerly known as the Nintendo NX. The official name is Nintendo Switch."

[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20201030131122/https://www.cnet.com/pictures/nintendo-switch-the-first-pictures/

The second mention I found was from Rolling Stone where they state on October 20, 2016: "Nintendo used a three-minute video to reveal its latest hardware this morning, firing the starting gun on the ninth generation of video game consoles – and it turns out to be pretty much exactly what everyone thought it would be."

[2]https://web.archive.org/web/20201108144756/https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-nintendos-new-switch-console-129151/

Additionally, the Japanese Wikipedia console generation page considers the Nintendo Switch as a 9th generation console.

[3]https://web.archive.org/web/20230315000539/https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E6%A9%9F#%E7%AC%AC9%E4%B8%96%E4%BB%A3

Here is a Japanese infographic listing the Switch as the first 9th generation console (used as a reference by the Japanese console generation page).

[4]https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/kanenaru-switchsokuhou/imgs/d/e/de7bb089.jpg Idrawrobots (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Obviously any Wikipedia references cannot be used. And the phrasing "next-generation console" is ambiguous as it could point to the overall console generation or the manufacturer's own generations. So while the Rolling Stone source is valid, its only one source against others that also say the Switch is 8th gen. This is why we consider it a part of both, not exclusively 8th or 9th. Masem (t) 02:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am including the Rolling Stone ref in an explanation for the Switch, but let me point out the other logic here: Search on when the ninth generation started, and the majority of sources will say it is 2020 with the intro of the Xbox Series X/S and PS5. eg NYTimes, BBC, Wired. — Masem (t) 03:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This BBC article includes the great line "Is Switch eighth gen or ninth gen? We don't know. Let's say it's ninth because we're running out of space." Idrawrobots (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What sources do you have to prove this? Hsk772 (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Add extra generation, circa 1982

The Atari 5200 should be one of the clearest examples of a new generation, being released over 5 years after its predecessor (and causing that earlier system to be renamed as the Atari 2600). To squeeze so much time into the second generation is simply not accurate to the advances during that key time, nor to the marketing and actual competition between systems. Atari "2600" was a direct competitor with Odyssey 2 and with Intellivision. The new wave of consoles in 1982 involved direct competition between them: Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex. These newer, latter consoles also needed to compete with the boom in home computer games/systems such as Commodore 64. Even though Atari "2600" (and Sears VCS) were the biggest seller for several years after they appeared in the late 1970s, they were definitely clunky and weak by the standards of 1982. The generation numbers should accommodate this extra generation, perhaps by making Generation 1 into Generation 0 (or a pre-generation period when the entire industry was primitive) and the real start should be with the earliest set of what is currently called Generation 2. This also approximately matches up with the difference at that time between video arcade games before and after Space Invaders--quite undistinguished before, quite large afterward. To place Magnavox Odyssey in one generation and Odyssey 2 in another makes sense, but the difference between the late-1970s consoles and the 1982 consoles was also very large. Even a Generation 2a and 2b would help illuminate this vital historical distinction in this article. There are numerous reviews in magazines that make clear how great this difference between systems was perceived at the time. The playability of console games was finally becoming comparable with arcade games by 1982, as shown by Colecovision. 136.181.195.29 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Colecovision is indisputably a Third Generation console.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no authority to that article, nor does it argree with most other articles that attempt to quantify the generations. Colecovision directly competed with the Atari 2600, so that's why they should be within the same generation. Masem (t) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Dreamcast competed with the PS1 for longer than it did the PS2. The Atari 2600 had a strong presence but like was stated above, it's name changed after the introduction of the 5200 because that was also a next gen system. The consensus at the time was that the third generation started with the Colecovision. I'm actually surprised how clear the evidence is. I don't think I could find seven independent publications that directly describe ANY console as "# generation" from the exact time period the way the Colecovision is. That's a lot of primary sources. Let's be real, how many magazines from the 80s specifically call the NES "third generation"? Or the SNES "fourth generation"? We're willing to take a lot of stuff for granted and use reasonable extrapolation. Colecovision is not one of those things. It's very explicit to the point that it probably should be treated as a touchstone data point. 47.16.172.103 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the 5200 is a very bad case for that argument. It is an almost exact clone of the 8-bit Atari computer line that was released in 1979. There was nothing new about it when it was released. The Colecovision could easily be argued to be 3rd generation as it was the first home console to support "sprites". The SEGA SG-1000, which is listed as 3rd gen, was a near copy of it. Making it a 2nd generation console was basing the generation change on market forces (in the USA) rather than on technology. The Vectrix was it's own thing. From a tech standpoint, I don't know where to put that. UrQuan3 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think its strange for the 5200 to be the next gen above the 2600 despite it's hardware being the same as Atari computers since those computers were an order of magnitude more powerful than the 2600. Home computers back then ran circles around home consoles. Almost every console back then used hardware that was comparatively ancient in the PC space. The SNES's CPU is a variant of the 65C816, which is from 1983. I just don't see a rational argument for keeping these three consoles grouped with 2nd Gen other than habit, snubbing several primary sources in the process, but just because nobody really complains about it doesn't seem like a good reason to leave it like that. And I agree wholeheartedly that splitting Colecovision and SG-1000 into two separate generations makes even less sense. The Colecovision is definitely the biggest issue here but if that flips to third gen, well, the 5200 came out after it so you'd think they should be kept together, right? 47.16.172.103 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Add Steam Deck

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

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

It's a game console.

It may share all the hardware that you would find in a PC, but that is mostly true for the current generation XBox and Playstation consoles. And the Nintendo Switch is almost identical internally to an Android tablet. General purpose PC software, such as Family Basic, also could frequently be found in older generations of hardware. Linux was available for the Playstation 3.

What is your reasoning for why the Steam Deck should be disqualified, but the other current-generation consoles should not? Is it simply that the other consoles have DRM, hindering any attempts to install more general-purpose software on them? I don't think that the mere absence of DRM does (or should!) disqualify any device from being considered valid competition in the game console space.

So then what? 2607:F2C0:E584:447:0:0:0:A51 (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

steamdeck.com says "All-in-one portable PC gaming", so no it's a PC. Nintentoad125 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Steam Deck is not a closed system (that is, one can go in, install lots of other software or even replace the OS with Windows), which is generally what delineates a console from a computer. Masem (t) 11:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

But, all modern consoles, and many older ones share that quality. All the current consoles definitely allow for a host of nongaming apps, even if it is just Netflix or the like. I think the distinction between PC and console is much less important these days than it used to be, if it was ever useful at all.

To the point we're discussing here. I see no reason the Steam Deck shouldn't be included. It's primary purpose, even as you stated, is gaming. By the logic that you argue, we could easily exclude many systems, especially in current generations as their purpose may be for games, but they also run a variety of nongame applications. 2601:85:4601:9230:6033:D184:C8AA:C16E (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Look to my point above: "steamdeck.com says "All-in-one portable PC gaming", so no it's a PC". Noone is describing Consoles such as the Switch, PS5, etc. etc. as PCs. So there is your answer. Nintentoad125 (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Steamdeck is borderline but I'd say it counts. Consoles having officially supported ways to repurpose them as computers isn't unique to it, the PS3's linux mode being a notable example (and things like famicom basic). In actual use the SteamDeck presents itself similarly to the other consoles, it has a polished interface for browsing games just like the other console's online stores.

The raw PC aspect is only encountered if you opt to reboot it in desktop mode, where it boots to a bare-bones linux desktop, you would need to do some prep to really use it as a regular computer. Most you can do out of the box is open a web browser, which the xbox and wiiu are also capable of. (it also only has a single usbc port, the doc to connect it to computer peripherals is an optional accessory that wasn't available at the original launch date)

In short, its sold as a single defined specification for the intended purpose of playing games with minimal required setup. Having an optional PC mode doesn't disqualify it from being a console. The other consoles could add PC modes easily as well, there's no hardware or technical limitation preventing it, they just have business incentives not to. Huttyblue (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Industry viewpoints on next generation

Both Sony and Microsoft have now offered their perspective that a new generation will happen after 2027/around fall 2028. Should this be mentioned in the article for future generations i.e. 10, or is industry speculation out of scope? ZigZagZoug (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Too early (that's edging on WP:CRYSTAL). I would wait until we have a firm hardware announcement from MS or Sony to even consider something. Masem (t) 02:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove Kemerer et. al. as a reference

Having now read it, I STRONGLY recommend removing "Winners-Take-Some Dynamics in Digital Platform Markets: A Reexamination of the Video Game Console Wars" by Kemerer et. al. as a reference on this page, or anywhere on Wikipedia. The paper itself is not about console generations, it is about how prior to the internet, the game console market exhibited a strong "winner-take-all" behavior, and multi-platform games and download games have changed this. This would be fine for use as a reference. The problem is that the console sales per generation (their chosen metric) exhibit strong duopoly behavior instead of winner-take-all. Instead of being a professional researchers and modifying their thesis based on the data, the authors stooped to manipulating the data in very dishonest ways.

For instance, the authors wanted to show winner-take-all behavior in the late '80s to early '90s, but the SNES and Genesis do not show this. They instead show a 5:3 split. So, the authors split the Genesis and SNES into separate generations and claim that they did not compete, therefore both dominated their generations. That would be bad enough, but the authors did it again with the original Playstation and Nintendo 64. Since they did not compete, they dominated their respective generations.

Given the level of data manipulation, the other references in the paper should be used with care, as they were very likely chosen to support the paper's thesis while omitting conflicting references. I have not dug into the references, so this is just a suspicion. UrQuan3 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We are not using that source as the sole defining indicator of console generations. But instead that their review of how other researchers have defined generations for points of comparison and the whole nature of generations. For that purpose no matter how they sliced the consoles up, the review comparisons and overall scope if what generations are is absolutely appropriate and does not break apart even if the researchers goal had ulterior motives. Masem (t) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)