Talk:Second generation of video game consoles/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therealspiffyone 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The XEGS is in the same category as the Amega and C64, as in the target was, ultimately gaming and not computing. Therefor they fall into the grouping even if they were pure computers (as if any game machine wasn't a pure computer, but that's another issue all together).

Your comparison of the GameGear and Nomad isn't quite correct. The GameGear WAS old (Master System, 2, SS1) tech, marketed as a new platform. The Nomad was not "OLD" in the same terms, as it was sold as being the portable version of the current system; sold AS a Genesis. Nor did the Nomad change format, it used then-current Genesis carts just like the genesis did. Beyond that, with (extreme) case mods, the Nomad plays the GameGear's older tech of Master System games using the PBC, just like using the Genesis, and also the Next generation of 32X games. A truer comparison would be that the Nomad was on the same level as the Turbo Express Portable (PC2G), or Neo Geo Card Go (for memory games in Japan). Lostinlodos (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, the Bally Astrocade is part of this generation and should be included. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I propose a solution to this debate. It's clear that ColecoVision, 5200 SuperSystem, and SG-1000 are not in the same generation as Channel F, 2600, Intellivision, and Odyssey 2. What is a generation of consoles? A group of video game hardware that has similar capabilities and is able to play games in a similar style. ColecoVision, 5200, and SG-1000 clearly surpass second generation consoles. We all seem to agree on that. They are the successors. We agree there as well. Second generation consoles are not able to play the same games in the same style as on the three mentioned consoles. Everyone also seems to acknowledge that when console generations were being counted, years ago, these consoles were misclassified, however, bumping up everything by a generation is too much to change, and they also don't fit in with third generation consoles. Contemporary media referred to them collectively as "third wave" consoles. So let's just call them a part of the "Third Wave Generation" to fix this. That way not everything has to change. ZadocPaet (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Games Computers

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

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

Early handheld / table top games

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

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

Missing images

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

Determination Of Game Console Generations Must Be Hammered Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therealspiffyone 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Generations mostly correct except for THIS Generation (TWO)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therealspiffyone 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WAT ABOUT ENTEX SELECTAGAME?

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

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

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

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ENTEX IZNT EVEN ON HERE NEMORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Apf.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adventurevision.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

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

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

possible criteria for separating early and late second generation:

1) date of release.

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

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

2) features.

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

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

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

I would say that early second gen should be before Intelvision and late after Intelvision. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Console Comparison

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

• Done! Done in two sections as this is not my forte. Someone check it over for me? Thanks. --Lendorien (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bally Astrocade?!

Where did Bally Astrocade go from this this, It is a game console, there's proof in that and all cos it used to be part of this generation, blatently it was releaced and was a console, and it should part of this generation. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to classify Colecovision and later 8-bit consoles as third generation

Reading old video games articles from the time there are clear definitions of what constituted the first, second, and third generation systems. The Wikipedia article uses a different classification which doesn't seem to be clearly defined. For example Famicom is considered to be third generation, yet SG-1000 which released the same day is considered to be second generation. Whilst Famicom may be more powerful, it's not by a margin which would generally be considered a generational leap, and these consoles were direct competitors. Colecovision released less than a year before Famicom, and was an order of magnitude more powerful than the Atari VCS, yet Wikipedia also classifies them as different generations. I have seen other proposals to introduce an extra generation usch as a zero generation, or increase all other generations by one, but I fail to see why this is necessary.

Using the original definition of third generation it's a simple matter of it starting less than a year earlier than the Famicom with the release of the Colecovision.

Here's a couple of articles from Computer and Video Games magazine which define the third generation as starting with the Colecovision;

CVG 16/84

WELCOME TO THE THIRD GENERATION

If you got an Atari VCS or Mattel Intellivision games machine for Christmas you may well be kicking yourself, or your dad, when you hear about the exciting new Colecovision video games system.

The Colecovision is one of the "Third Generation" of video games machines.

The video games boom was sparked off by the early bat and ball type games which were often given away with new TV sets.

The next big breakthough came with programmable video games such as the Atari VCS on which you could play an infinite number of games by simply purchasing a plug-in cartridge of your choice.

The so-called "Third Generation" machines - of which the Colecovision is the first, are an upgrading and refinement of the second generation machines.

The Colecovision has a massive 32K of Rom and 17K of Ram nestling under it's black exterior. This makes it several times more powerful than all the video games machines currently on sale and also more powerful than most of the popular microcomputers aswell.

Converted to gamers language this means superb detail, more movi8ng characters than were previously possible, and greatly enhanced sound and colour.

CVG 20/S10

Three big new video games systems are now competing for shelf space in our high street shops.

The arrival of the so called "Third Generation" of home video games systems has come as something of a shock to the increasingly hom computer-minded leisure industry. The conventional wisdom in the industry is that how computers will kill-off video games systems by the end of 1984.

This view is usually most vociferously put by people who have not seen Zaxxon or Donkey Kong on the Colecovision, played Mine Storm or Rip Off on the Vectrex, or Centipede and Pacman on the Atari 5200.

Quite simply, if you want to play video games at home, no home computer has the range and quality of arcade titles that are available for these new machines.

In this article we test out the three new systems and look at some of the highlights in the current range of games.

Most exciting of the three new systems is the Colecovision which is the baby of the giant CBS Electronics company.

This new system is the first "third generation" video game machine to go on sale in the UK.

The video games boom was sparked off by the early bat and ball type games which were often given away with new TV sets.

The next big breakthough came with programmable video games such as the Atari VCS on which you could play an infinite number of games by simply purchasing a plug-in cartridge of your choice.

The third generation machines are really only an upgrading of these second generation machines adding up to 10 times the computer memory of the Atari VCS to produce graphics and game play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.92.208 (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I second this proposal, and have a few additional sources to back it up. I was reading through old issues of Electronic Games Magazine (not to be confused with that other EGM), which was the first videogame magazine ever published. They may have been the first to name the third generation (though they referred to it as the "third wave"):

* Electronic Games Magazine Issue 11 (January 1983) refer to ColecoVision as a "third wave system" on page 50, and an article on the ColecoVision starting on page 100 has the headline "'Third Wave' Gaming Comes To Market."

* Electronic Games Magazine Issue 16 (June 1983) refers to ColecoVision as a "third-wave system" on page 42.

Also, Electronic Games Magazine Issue 2 (March 1982) includes an article titled "A Decade Of Programmable Videogames," which considers the Magnovox Odyssey as the beginning of console history (even though it mentions the Fairchild Channel F as being the first actually programmable console), so I think we can firmly dismiss any notions of a "generation zero."

Unfortunately, the magazine ended a few years after the crash, just before the revival began with the NES, so we can't use it to definitively say whether the NES is in a fourth wave. But from my perspective, it looks like the crash cut the third generation short, and it was Nintendo's rebuilding consumer trust with things like their stamp of approval that put Nintendo in a position of dominance in the following generation. Kate Willaert (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And now I'm going to contradict myself. I just noticed that in Electronic Gagmes Magazine Issue 19, on page 103, they describe the announced Intellivision Model III as: "due out late in 1983, is a TRUE third-wave system." And whenever they mentioned the ColecoVision previously, "third wave" was always in quotations, as if to signify that they didn't entirely agree.

I also came across a quote from an issue of Fortune from March 7, 1983 that seems to explain the origin of the phrase: "ColecoVision, the video game player introduced last August, is one of the most popular consumer products around. The trade, paying homage to its technological advancement, has dubbed it "the third wave" - wave one being the Atari VCS, wave two being Mattel's Intellivision - and the most discerning critics, kids, love it. The 550,000 game players Coleco made last year flew off the shelves by Christmas-time."

I'm not sure who "the trade" is in this case, but if they really did mean that Atari VCS was the first wave and Intellivision was the second, then they were clearly a bit off. However, Atari VCS being the first wave could also be Fortune coming up with their own interpretation, it's hard to say. Kate Willaert (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And then they flip-flopped yet again. In Electronic Games Magazine Issue 21 (November 1983), they say on page 76: "ColecoVision is the first product in the history of modern advertising to actually surpass its pre-release hype. This third-wave super-system offers dynamic graphics and audio capability, and comes pre-sold with a library of outstanding software." So it sounds like the initially didn't want to embrace the hype, but later came to consider this the third wave.

In the same issue, while talking about the proposed Intellivision III on page 75, they say: "Mattel officials have clearly had second thoughts about this system. Perhaps the fear was that by the time the Intellivision III got into the action during fourth quarter 1983, the other third-wave programmable videogames (ColecoVision and Atari 5200) would have too tight a hold on the market." Kate Willaert (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The generations issue was already hashed out and agreed upon by the video games project here through lengthy debate and discussion. You can't go changing the generations here without addressing it as a whole again since it effects all subsequent generations. The project is not about to change the generations based on an anonymous IP's personal opinion and some articles refering to "Waves". Likewise, generations are not defined by dates here, as they tend to overlap. They're defined by next generations of consoles on the marketplace and consoles specifically released during that primary generation (i.e. the Flashback 2 plug and play, though of 2nd generation tech is a later generation product). Regardless, generation wise the 5200/Colecovision/Vectrex are a separate generation from the 2600/Odyssey2/Intellivision. Just as the NES/SMS/7800 are a separate generation from those (you have three "generations" of 8-bit consoles on the market). In order to reflect that you'd have to start redoing the long established generation system, and that's just not going to happen. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it...you yourself agree that they're different generations, but then oppose it only on the grounds that it'd take too much work to fix such a long-established (on Wikipedia) error? The only reason anyone refers to the current gen as "seventh generation" is because they read it on Wikipedia first anyways, so I don't see why Wikipedia can't be the source that changes the error it originated (you won't see any publications of the time referring to the NES and Genesis as third generation, but there are many publications from the time that refer to ColecoVision and 5200 as third generation/wave).

And the only agreement I saw hashed out and agreed upon reading through all the previous talk was that fixing the error would be too much work. Is Wikipedia about being factual and accurate, or about doing whatever seems easiest? Kate Willaert (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, what I said was it was hashed out already by the video game project (not on this page) and that to insert or change generations based on the above would just not happen based on what's been presented here. Not that it was "too much work" but that it would effect to much (i.e. start pushing generations from one console to another and expanding generations effecting all the generations past this one). And you're not going to effect that sort of change and go against already establshied consensus within the project (the group that's responsible for the video game pages here) based on this simple conversation on a single generation. Most of the later generations are already too established in the media and in references (which is what we go by here). And no, it's not Wikipedia's place to be a source, rather it reflects reliable and established sources. The sources you dug up are nothing new and most were already discussed in the lengthy generational discussion. Every console is referred to as "next generation" or "next wave" when it comes out, which is why simply stating it in those terms does not make it a reliable source for that claim - especially for these earlier "generations" when the industry was still young and later generations not as established as they are now because they simply did not exist yet. The contradictory nature (i.e. flip-flopping) of the source above also show that point. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Every console is referred to as "next generation" or "next wave" when it comes out..." I don't seem to recall the GameCube being considered a further generation than PS2 when it came out, or Xbox being considered a further generation than PS2 and GC when it came out, nor PS3 being considered a further generation than the Xbox360 when it came out.

Not to mention, you'd think that the third generation/wave being the first time generations/waves were ever mentioned by publications would make it that much more definitive, not less. Wikipedia may have popularized the current generation breaks based off of the original research of the people who founded the videogames section of WIkipedia, which later publications used as a source (and which Wikipedia later cited in order to make their original research "fact")...but as you said, it's not Wikipedia's place to be a source. As such, Wikipedia should be more concerned with correcting errors that the original founders of the article created, and the easiest way to do that is to cite sources from before Wikipedia existed and had a chance to influence articles written on the topic. Sources on the topic written pre-Wikipedia should be considered *more* credible, not less.

And I think the initial "flip-flopping" makes EGM an even more solid source, because it showed that even though they themselves were reluctant at first to consider this the start of a new generation/wave -- taking a wait and see approach -- even they later embraced it fully, confirming it as the start of the third gen. Kate Willaert (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Marty for showing up and declaring that Wikipedia doesn't give a fuck about WP:NOR. Apparently, according to Marty, it's more important for Wikipedia to invent facts and make sure they're "established in the media". Actually, I would like to see where this mysterious consensus was created. AFAICT, this generation thing dates from the early "do whatever the fuck you want" days of Wikipedia and does not fit any modern standards of the project.

So please provide some links regarding where this has been discussed. Because every single contemporary reference disagrees, so I would love to see where Wikipedians created the consensus to use Original Research & deny all facts and knowledge on the issue. Thanks Atarivideomusic (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everyone in favor of moving the 5200 and ColecoVision a generation ahead of the 2600. The 5200 was clearly Atari's next generation console. It's very silly to lump it in with the older 2600. I'm surprised there even needs to be a discussion about something so obvious. 108.53.8.71 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Any actual rationale for your position, 108.53.8.71? Just stating "I side with this opinion" does nothing to resolve the dispute or advance the discussion in any way.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the rationale is the 5200 was Atari's next generation hardware and therefore should not be grouped with the older 2600. (If the 5200 was *not* Atari's next generation hardware, then please explain to me what exactly it was.) 108.53.8.71 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're not giving any actual reason for believing the Atari 5200 to be Atari's next generation hardware. I'm not saying that it wasn't, but to reorganize the entire family of articles on this gaming era we need at least some notable source describing it as such. Certainly the Atari 5200 doesn't follow the typical model of next generation hardware, as it was sold alongside the Atari 2600 throughout its lifetime, rather than supplanting it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. The PlayStation 2 was sold alongside the PlayStation 3. Does that mean the PS3 didn't supplant the PS2? I understand reorganizing the video game generations is a big task, but Wikipedia is supposed to be the pinnacle of accuracy, not laziness. 108.53.8.71 (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the PlayStation 3 has not yet been discontinued, so we can't know whether or not the PlayStation 2 will be sold thoughout its lifetime. Second, the PlayStation 2 does not define the model for all video game consoles anyway; at best, you're just providing the exception that proves the rule. Most important, you still have yet to even attempt to provide any reason behind your position.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Per Atari's own PR (which is currently referenced in the 5200 article), the 5200 was positioned as high end *complimentary* console to the 2600. Not as the 2600's replacement. As far as the discussion that Atarivideomusic sarcastically alluded to not existing or somehow promoting WP:OR, the most recent discussion was here (it's entire page of multiple discussions), with far more discussion and resrouces on the matter than in this tiny thread. The matter is hardly as cut and dry as presented here and there were reliable and notable sources presented that use those generations and do not reflect a copy of Wikipedia. The ending consensus at the Video game project (the group that governs and sets the standards for these pages), was that there was not enough of a consensus (or evidence) to change the current generational format, and that Wikipedia's job is to reflect the current main usage - not establish it. I do love how these things keep popping up though with people presenting the same info and arguments as if it was all new and being discussed for the first time. My own opinion as a professional researcher and writer, is that the generations should have been split in to multiple numbered generations that cover the multiple "waves" or generations of 8-bit consoles on the market. I.e. Fairchild/2600/Bally/RCA/Intellivision as 2nd generation, Colecovision/Vectrex/5200/Emerson 3rd, and 7800/NES/SMS 4th. The problem is that such changes would make sweeping changes to the numberings of the later generations which would not reflect their current usage by the press. Likewise, people are split on whether a generation is truly reflected by market wave, hardware, or both. But in the end, it's just my opinion and you can't change based on opinions here. Once again, if someone wants to change these generations (which will make sweeping changes across all the generations as mentioned)you'll have to go the normal route of going to the project page and creating a discussion or rfc just as has always been done in the past. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, in my view, that discussion isn't even close. The opponents are slamming the Wikipedia categories with good cites while the defenders are left with saying "yeah, but". Let's just accept that, in the early days, Wikipedia had extremely low editorial standards, and many editors prefer to preserve the status quo when there's no clear alternative. Also it is kinda ridiculous to categorize portable systems with TV consoles. The former has much more leeway in specs vs. battery life and has almost nothing to do with this debate.)

And, yes, Atari Marketing didn't handle the 5200 correctly at all. This was the first 'generation handoff' in the home videogame market, and the marketers boned it badly. It was clear to everyone that the 5200 was the successor system (in capabilities), but Atari could never upright admit this to their 2600 customers. Most 5200 versus 2600 titles made it clear that the new system was "next generation", but the PR department was loath to say so. I'm surprised that anyone here would argue otherwise, have you actually played the games? Atarivideomusic (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course Atari's PR would claim the 5200 "compliments" the 2600. It didn't want to alienate 2600 owners and limit sales of the older console by abandoning it. It was a clever marketing strategy, but that doesn't change the fact that the 5200 was Atari's next generation machine. Another example- Sega invented the term "blast processing" as a marketing gimmick, but Wikipedia's Mega Drive article doesn't include "blast processing" in the "Technical Specifications" section. Why? Because marketing materials can say whatever they want, but facts are always facts. 173.54.197.100 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning behind Atari's PR is purely speculation. You can repeat your "Atari 5200 was the successor to the Atari 2600 because I say it was" argument as much as you want, but as you put it, facts are always facts.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay everyone, I give up. NukeofEarl is correct- the Atari 5200 is *not* the successor to the 2600, even though it has better graphics, better sound, more advanced joysticks, more advanced versions of the same games, and was released five years later. None of those things matter. Both consoles are from the exact same hardware generation. Makes perfect sense. 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.8.71 (talk)

"The problem is that such changes would make sweeping changes to the numberings of the later generations which would not reflect their current usage by the press." So let's keep perpetuating false information just because it's more convenient. Is that what Wikipedia is all about? 72.37.171.60 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

second/third/x generation

please get rid of this generation stuff, it is largely original research, just one book uses these generation boundaries, the majority of people call them 16 bit era, 8 bit era, etc... sure, it leaves you with a problem for these american console eras but that doesnt mean you can rewrite history to fit. indeed due to wikipedia even some newer proof of this existing is from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.58.161 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole system of identifying generations by "bits" is very dated now, and a frequent subject of ridicule by modern gaming publications. Moreover, it was only ever applied to the third, fourth, and fifth generations, so if we use it as the standard then we have no way of referring to the first, second, sixth, seventh, or eighth generations, to say nothing of any future generations that may appear. So I don't understand how you expect your proposal to work. Also, I don't know where you got the idea that "just one book uses these generation boundaries", but that is certainly not the case.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely true, I've seen video game writers use these terms like '3rd generation' not realizing it is some BS original research from the early days of Wikipedia that nobody can figure how to fix.Atarivideomusic (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Atarivideomusic, you dare question the almighty NukeofEarl? Tsk, tsk. I learned my lesson the hard way (see the above topic). 108.53.8.71 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The sega sg 1000 is both on this and the third generation page.

I don't know much about console generations which is why I'm not editing this right away, but I just wanted to let the rest of you know that the Sega SG-1000 is also listed on the third generation page. I hope we can reach an agreement on which generation this console should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilandio (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Japanese gaming market of the era to be sure of how SG-1000 is classified either, but since second generation is where it was originally listed, I'm going to be WP: BOLD and remove it from the third generation article. Including it in the second generation article may be wrong, but including it in both second and third generation articles is definitely wrong. Hopefully people with some notion of where it should be planted will offer their input here.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Slight change of plans. Looking over the articles, I see the third generation one discusses the SG-1000's role in some detail and with references, whereas the second generation one only has the table listing. So for simplicity's sake if nothing else, I'm removing the SG-1000 from the second generation article and template and leaving it in the third generation.

While I'm here, I might as well share what my tentative research has unearthed about the matter: As far as time frame goes, the SG-1000 solidly fits in with the third generation, having been released well after the crash, almost simultaneously with the NES. However, in terms of processing power it fits in with the second generation, with one source describing it as basically a rebranded Colecovision. That seems to be the main dilemma with how the SG-1000 should be classified.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Top Odyssey 2 games?

I have no citation for this, but I'm pretty sure that (in North America, anyway), the top-selling game for the Odyssey2 was probably K.C. Munchkin!. The game was a clone of Pac-Man and was available nearly a year before Atari finally released the home version of Pac-Man (which looked pretty anemic compared to the Magnavox offering). Atari filed a copyright suit -- eventually winning on appeal and forcing Magnavox to remove the infringing product from the market. Starling2001 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1976 or 1977?

Okay this article really does have many, MANY issues, but here's another. Why were there consoles from 1976 and 1977 as part of the second generation? It's supposed to start in 1977, so every console from 1977 onward is supposed to be second generation, yet there is Pong listed as a second generation? HUH?