Jump to content

Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Units shipped figure

Just wanting to generate some discussion on the possibility of removing "Units shipped" and replacing it with "Units sold" in the comparison section. The previous generation, as well as the console's articles have units sold, not shipped. The figure can also be misleading, to those trying to discover the amount of units sold to customers. Thoughts? MrAdaptive343 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - The units shipped figure is deceptive to the average reader. We should stick to what has been sold, and not what's in the back of Best Buy. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
And how are we supposed to source that? Nintendo for example only reports shipped units.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 00:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Could use both I suppose, and just leave Nintendo's blank (or with a note explaining they only deal in shipped units), but we should make the difference between shipped and sold clear to the reader regardless. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just use whatever we can find, and label it as such. It's hard enough to find official figures, we don't need to be nitpicking further like this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I had seen a 3 person support without opposition get changed in before. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I left an invitation to participate in the poll at the talk page of the Wikiproject. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the thing is, this is a high traffic page that many other articles connect to, and, as you can see if you look through the talk page and its archives, there's a lot of arguments on how things should be portrayed. As such, you're going to want to get a good consensus for change. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally feel that either shipped or sold are acceptable, as long as they are accurately depicted and sourced. The video game industry is already difficult enough to get actual figures on, (compared to the film industry, for example, where budget and sales are typically easily found) so we should use whatever we can get. I don't deny that actual units sold is a better measure of marketshare...but we're not some sort of business website like Market Watch or a business themed wiki or something. We're Wikipedia. We're geared towards general audiences. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Units Sold or Units Shipped poll

Please feel free to continue discussing, but as the discussion takes place, feel free to participate in this WP:POLL. Feel free to add options. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Option 1: List Units Shipped only

Option 2: List Units Sold with a note that Nintendo only uses Units Shipped, showing that number

I feel that Units Sold is a more accurate representation to the Market share of a console. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Option 3: Either, as long as it's labeled as such

  1. As long as it's official figures from a reliable source, it shouldn't matter. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. After thinking about it some more, I think this option is best, as long as the difference between shipped and sold is explained in the note. For example, as Nintendo only reports shipped units according to Arkhandar, we could write "This figure represents units shipped to retailers, and not units sold to consumers. The number of units sold to consumers is an unknown amount lower than this figure." or something along these lines. So long as the average reader knows the difference, I think this works best. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Conditionally, for the moment either is acceptable as long as the sourcing is accurate. When the eighth generation comes to a close and the lifespan of each console ends, however, we need to shift to units sold because that will be a more accurate representation. At the moment, though, those numbers are likely to be more inaccurate. Red Phoenix let's talk... 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    That is a good point I hadn't thought of. Yes, when the generation wraps up, it does seem like we'd have figures to do "sold" across the board. (Have we been able to do that for 7th gen yet, with that being pretty close to wrapped up?) Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that'd be the case for the PS3 and 360 just yet, or even the Wii with the "Wii mini" thing going on. As someone who works in retail management myself, I can tell you I still get shipments of Xbox 360s and PS3s to sell, not just Ones, PS4s, and Wii U. Until they're officially discontinued (which I believe Microsoft said they'd support the 360 until mid-2016), we could probably get more accurate estimates than we could earlier in the generation, but not absolute solid numbers until they're out of production and out of retail. Red Phoenix let's talk... 05:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's what I kind of figured. So, I mean, if 7th gen is still a ways from wrapping up, applying this to 8th gen would be that much farther out... Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. It could be useful to show both when available, to illuminate discrepancies in company expectations vs. consumer interest. Tezero (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. After the responses, I agree, we should just use whatever we can find, as long as it is official and referenced.MrAdaptive343 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. If its any consolation, I, and I'm assuming the others, based on various responses, are okay with using Sold over Shipped if both are available. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Xbox One External Hard Drive Support

Since I can't edit the article, I'm going to leave this here. As of June 3, 2014, the Xbox One can support external hard drives, unlike the PS4. This is the official page explaining what it can support and how to do it on Xbox.com. I hope someone will take care of this. I'm am quite surprised no one changed this in the 3 weeks since that update. Also made a mention on the Xbox One talk page for the same content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.52.125 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. I need a reference for it but it's been changed. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but how is the link I provided not enough? The page flat out explains how to set up an external hard drive on the Xbox One, therefore that does say that it does support external drives. So I do fail to see how that isn't enough. However, here's something else from Xbox.com that flat out describes the Xbox One's support for external storage beginning with the June 3, 2014 update. I'm not sure why the first link wasn't enough though.
Because I was shut down on the other talk page, I'm going to dump this here as well.
Here are FIVE articles, one from IGN, two from Kotaku, and two from GameSpot telling about the external hard drive support. Pick whichever one you feel is the most appropriate then since apparently nothing provided is good enough.
IGN
Kotaku 1
Kotaku 2
GameSpot 1
GameSpot 2
The things you get for trying to help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.52.125 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It has now been over 10 DAYS SINCE I gave references and STILL NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE! This is honestly just pathetic that someone couldn't have done something before now. The article still says No external HDD support (will support external HDD at a later date)" when this is clearly false information since it has been added. This is one of the reasons I will never register for this site and the second is I will never understand every single rule. So I instead decided to leave information that clearly changes the article's content and left it for someone who knows all of the various policies to put it in. 10 DAYS AGO. I have left 5 articles above, maybe I should have dropped a message elsewhere. In fact that is what I'm going to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.52.125 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Simmer down, it's not that big of a deal. Where does it say it where it needs to changed exactly? I can do it if you narrow it down some. Sergecross73 msg me
 Done: Next time you want something done quickly, best do it yourself.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
He couldn't. Article has semi-protection for the year. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Xbox one sales are 5 million http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/07/microsoft-xbox-one-sales-double-in-us-following-kinect-unbundling/ Some one updated Sony PS4 and left off the numbers for the xbox one 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The 5 million figure represents units shipped to retailers, as the correction at the end of the page says ("Correction, the Xbox *shipped* 5 million to retailers, those aren't sell through numbers. After that announcement they never followed up with numbers sold, which given that you can still find day one editions at retail is a really really bad sign"). Microsoft has not released updated units sold figures, which are 3 million as of December 31, 2013. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Alienware Alpha

Shouldn't Alienware Alpha be consired to be added to this page because they market it as a console? Racerautov9 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be notable on it's own, and does not have an article. The name redirects to Steam Machine, which is already on this page. Since there will be dozens of Steam machines as that platform moves forward, I don't think we need to list them all here unless one is particularly notable on it's own. More like content for a "List of Steam machine" type list article. -- ferret (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 06:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nvidia - Project Shield

Graphics processor manufacturer Nvidia has announced Project Shield, an Android-based mobile gaming console complete with a 5-inch, 720p HD screen attached to a console-style controller with dual analog sticks. Nvidia enters the handheld console gaming wars eighth generation with Project Shield.

Commercial Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93L_lo-s5rU&feature=player_embedded

Information - http://blog.games.com/2013/01/07/project-shield-nvidia/
https://developer.nvidia.com/content/getting-started-project-shield
http://www.thegamersdrop.com/2013/03/10/nvidias-project-shield-demonstrates-prowess-with-weekly-videos/
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/08/nvidia-shows-off-project-shield-in-new-boxing-video.aspx

An editor keeps on re-adding this to the article, despite the fact that the most recent discussion on this resulted in a consensus to not include them in the article.

  1. There is no definition as to what a milestone title is. What makes a game one? What are the inclusion criteria.
  2. It seems bizarre that the only one in the list is a game release mere days ago. I'm a huge Smash Bros fan, but I feel like its a little presumptuous to already declare it a generation defining game. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
None of the past articles have any sort of definition. All they do is randomly select some games that sold a lot of copies or reviewed well. It seems like a big case of original research. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I received a message to stop adding the milestone title section to this page, so I stopped, but last time I came to check up on the page, it was back. So I added to it. Osh33m (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
That's...not a good reason to start at it again. Also, if we are to do it, these sorts of descriptions are almost certainly not good. The problem, as mentioned below, is that we don't have a definition of "milestone", but even if we did, it doesn't make any sense to list off a game's shortcomings or mixed reviews in the milestone section. Whatever its definition, I think we can all agree that "milestone" would be a positive thing - so it makes no sense to list off negative things in that section. That's like listing off some good reviews at the List of games notable for negative reception - it doesn't make sense at that venue. Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. Unless criteria are defined and receive consensus, this section is useless. No, "other generation articles have it" is not a valid justification. It should probably be removed from those as well. -- ferret (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this. We need a definition of what makes a "milestone" if we are to do this, and "other generation articles did it" is not acceptable considering I don't believe any of the generation have had any sort of GA/FA peer review treatment. Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why other wikipedia articles having a milestone section isn't a good enough reason for the 8th gen article not to have one. You people really need to think of wikipedia in practice, because not doing so is what is hurting this place. In practice... imagine someone on the internet coming and reading on the 8th gen page, expecting to have a section of notable video games (that would've been the milestone section, and the list of games on it). Without it, the article seems strangely empty, especially considering whoever thought up the milestone section in the first place probably thought it was important to have one. And to answer your question about why there are some negative publicity to the now removed section... some of those games broke records, and breaking records is usually considered milestones, even if the product itself didn't have good critical reception. For example, the latest pirates of the caribbean and (nearly all) transformers movies have terrible critical reception, yet never cease to make billions of dollars. Does their negative reception take away from their accomplishments at the box office? Osh33m (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Its simple. As stated before, just because something was done in the past, does not make it right. Lets say someone got away with murder several times. Does that make it okay? Is he free to keep doing it, because no one noticed yet? No, of course not. It just means he hasn't gotten caught/no ones bothered to fix it. That's extreme, I know, but roughly the same premise could apply here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Murder is obviously wrong. No one disputes that. This however, is being disputed. I don't agree at all that milestone sections shouldn't be allowed. Again, think in practice. Put yourself in the shoes of a reader of this page. A milestone section doesn't hurt, but the absence of one does. I'm not gonna continue to readd it (I wasn't the one who put it back in the first place, but added to it when I saw it was back) but at least give it some thought before just dismissing it as a bad idea. Osh33m (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Then help define it then? What concretely makes a title a "milestone"? What discounts a title from being one? If we can't define it, then it's going to lead to an excessively large list, or WP:NPOV issues because we only go by what passer-bys add or remove on a whim. There's also the WP:OR issue; sources are concretely declaring titles as "milestones". If sources don't say it, then who are we to say it? Sergecross73 msg me 04:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The "Milestone" titles of a generation really can only be determined when the generation is over - I'm pretty confident, for example, that I can find several articles written in the last year about the key titles for the PS3/Xbox 360/Wii systems as they were being replaced by these units, so we should be able to define them for the 7th, but we simply don't have enough data for 8th gen. System sellers, maybe, but not milestones. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73, I've already said that a milestone for gaming means several (and I mean tons of) award winning, or record breaking sales. That's make the game revolutionary. Milestones shouldn't and aren't limited to that either. But all the games that I put on there had those factors. The rest, I would need help defining otherwise it would be just my opinion. Osh33m (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Masem, I would not say necessarily that the milestone titles are decided upon at the end of a generation. cod4, mgs4, mass effect 2, and uncharted 2 if I recall correctly, all milestone titles in our 7th gen list, were added there maybe after a month from their releases. Because it was clear what those games did for the gaming industry in general. And I thought the same could've been said for the games on the 8th gen list that was here before Ferret removed it all. But I don't think Ryse belonged on that list. Mixed critical reception, yes 1 award, but it wasn't really revolutionary (didn't receive numerous awards or publicity). Osh33m (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You're basing your arguments on personal opinions about the games that were listed. That's why a criteria is necessary before anything is added. Personal opinions aren't suitable. So far you've offered no suggestions on any possible criteria to rely on that I've seen. Nevermind I see you want to base it on awards or sales. How many awards? From whom? How many sales? Does every COD title go there, since they break the sales record every time? -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
They're not my personal opinions dude. IGN has stated that the Mass Effect series is one of the defining franchises of the 7th generation. And numerous other sources claim games like MGS4 and Uc2 to be killer apps of the PlayStation 3. In regards to Cod, our 7th gen milestone lists Cod 4: Modern Warfare, and mentions how after that game, the series began streaks of record breaking sales. The same was done for GTA4 (mentions GTA5), so as to avoid repetition. Osh33m (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Masem, Osh33m - I'm fine if we can establish some definitions and inclusion criteria, its just that, so far, it doesn't seem like there's much of that. Many of them look more like people just plunking down their favorite games that had a good Metacritic or something. I mean, the list started off with only one title - Fire Emblem Awakening. I really love that game, but its really not a "milestone title" in any sense of the term. If we keep it vague, people are just going to bloat the list with game's they like, and/or its going to boil down to arguments that depend more on subjectivity than anything. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well we want to put bias aside, right? It is of my opinion that GTA5 is a horrible game and extremely overrated, although it is a technical marvel. Now, that does not mean I don't recognize it as a milestone title, in every sense of the word. The case with Destiny is that although it received mixed critical reception, it became the best selling new IP in gaming, and it is a game that will definitely be in discussion for years to come. All that is what makes it a milestone title. Both Watch Dogs and Titanfall achieved similar feats before Destiny's release. If we need to continue building consensus, then let's do so. Because I don't think it's right to leave out the milestone section entirely. Unless the intention is to leave it out until true milestone titles are released. Osh33m (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay sooo if no one is objecting at this point, I'm going to go ahead and add back the following titles to our milestone list: Destiny, Titanfall, Watch Dogs, and Smash. Osh33m (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No, wait. The problem is that "milestone" is a vague, subjective thing. It's not concrete like going platinum is 1 million sales in music. lWhich is why we need clear cut inclusion criteria. "Sales records" is too vague in itself. Smaller companies set minor sales records all the time for example. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, games that will be remembered for several years to come. This is why final fantasy 7 (I game I've never played mind you) is a milestone title. It is still talked about as one of the greatest games, to this day. On our 7th gen list, I once added god of war 3 to it because I felt like it was missing, but then someone edited it and took it out because it didn't belong and I realized they were right, even though god of war 3 was one of the most popular Ps3 games. Destiny is a game that will definitely be remembered for years to come despite its bad publicity, and watch dogs as well on a lesser scale. Titanfall received praise for being a game that showcased where the 8th gen was heading. And smash (at a time) received universal acclaim on metacritic. I realize I have not given you much of a definition yet for "milestone," but I am defining why the ones I mentioned should be a part of the list. Osh33m (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a single thing you listed is objective. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
In order for this to work, we're going to have to have objectivity. I don't understand why everyone on wikipedia has to be so "by the book" about everything. If you want to get certain things accomplished, "original research" is necessary. And "original research" needs to be given more credit than it is given. Are you seriously going to propose removing all the milestone lists that already exists? I'm telling you right now that's only going to hurt wikipedia. It's not going to make anyone take it any more seriously. And I'd say a lack of one right now will make readers already take it less seriously since we cannot come to a simple consensus on what games to put on the list. Osh33m (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we have to follow Wikipedia policy. If that means no mile stone lists because it's purely OR, then so be it. You want us to judge, on a case by case basis, the suitability of every individual game. No, we need a criteria for "milestone" so that games can then be added when they meet the criteria. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm troubled that you don't have a single objective suggestion, and that all you have to fall back on are baseless claims that we're somehow hurting the encyclopedia by coming up with objective criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Well it's not like I have started an edit war, so why are you feeling troubled? I get that we have go by wiki's guidelines but I say the guidelines themselves are faulty. The rest of the internet or perhaps a good portion is already saying some of the things I am so for all intents and purposes, this encyclopedic page without a milestone title, is a lacking encyclopedic page. But fine, what do you want to define as a milestone title? You tell me. We have to start somewhere. Osh33m (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it troubling that you can't even objectively define the concept you're defending. And usually, when people are unhappy with the guidelines, I advise them to try to find consensus to change them, but I don't even know what your proposal would be. "Do whatever you feel"? "Concepts don't need definitions"? "Do as I say or the encyclopedia will be worse off"? Sergecross73 msg me 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this specific term is best defined by a list of examples. Osh33m (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source with a list of example milestone titles? -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Without any definition, it'd be impossible to rule out any game. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I will say that we should include "best selling games" , or even games that break a certain barrier in sales (1M units is too low, but maybe 5 or 10M?) as a perfectly objective list, but this is different from Milestone, which should be titles that "defined" that generation, and that inclusion is absolutely going to require a secondary source. And that can make things difficult, like how would Minecraft fit here, due to it's history as a PC game and not a console to start? (at least, in terms of 7th gen). I'd rather not have a Milestone list that is going to be something people will argue forever about. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is too early to add milestone titles to this generation's page. I agree that some should be added at some point, however we will not be able to reach consensus in the middle of the generational cycle. Time will tell which titles last: they will be re-released, have record sales, and be honored by reliable sources. Mamyles (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've stated already, I do not think it is too early to add the titles Destiny, Titanfall, Smash, and Watch Dogs. I recall Mass Effect 2 and Uncharted 2 being added to last gen's list about a month or so after they were released. Osh33m (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion. Consensus seems to be to not include a milestones section at this time. In the mean time, it'd probably be beneficial to come up with some inclusion criteria if you want to persuade people further down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is my personal opinion, backed up by history... in the list right before this one, it took about a month for some of the games on the list to be included. I wish we could come to a consensus about this easier. Osh33m (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Then offer a valid set of criteria. So far mostly you've posted "other stuff exists" -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't do that alone, obviously. I named the 4 games I believe should be on that list now but it simply isn't good enough for you guys. We need to build this consensus together. Osh33m (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you can't describe why or what makes them a milestone, so you have yet to convince anyone. Furthermore, I'm not sure how well you understand WP:CONSENSUS. It looks like we already have one - everyone but you has agreed that it should not be included at this time, and I would say majority of the people agree that a more concrete definition should be created. There is no problem with "not working together". Everyone's working together and discussing well, they just don't agree with your approach. There's a big difference. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. For example, I could see the logic behind Destiny and Smash Bros. as being critical darlings of this generation, but I can't see any logic in Watch Dogs nor Titanfall, both which had a lot of promise but ended up lackluster. Not that a milestone title can't have that, but we'd need a source to affirm that, and for games like that, we likely won't know until the end of this generation. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, so can we start the list now and add destiny and smash to them as the first 2 entries? I'll do the honors, just gimme the green light. Osh33m (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. That's not what they're saying. -- ferret (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Well that's unfortunate. The way I've interpreted it is that he sees logic in destiny and smash being on the 8th gen milestone list. Osh33m (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I said I see the logic - that means, I expect that in time, they will be easily be called milestone/key titles of this generation, but we need a source to make those claims. Not that we included them now, but showing the problem with making assumptions w/o sources to back them up. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Try actually reading this discussion, it's already been explained. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. No one is able to define what a milestone is. Maybe help with that if you want change.
  2. As the discussion states, the generation is still on-going, which makes it both different from the other generations, and difficult to define, as it's still changing and in development. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No, what he is telling you is that there is a difference between past (concluded) generations and the ongoing (current) generation. We know what games did well on past generations, which got the most acclaim, etc. This generation is still changing. What might appear to be a milestone for the first year may ultimately prove otherwise as the generation continues. There's not enough reliable sources to form a section for this generation at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, IP, I just don't find it necessary to rehash an answer that was made directly above where you posed all your questions. No one can define what it means to be a "milestone". Without any definition, and while things are still ongoing/early onset, its deemed impossible to determine, so it was removed. It's the burden of the people who want include information to supply an answer to challenged information. Osh33m can't define it and has made no convincing argument. I don't recall you actually proposing any real solutions, just complaining, so...that's where we're at: A policy based decision to remove content, with the other side so far not presenting any policy-based solutions to do anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Milestones revisited - 2015

Alright, some game critics have called bloodborne "the first essential of this gen" and currently it is the highest rated current gen game on metacritic that is not a cross gen port or a remaster. can we agree that this meets the general conformity of a milestone title? Osh33m (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say without you presenting any sources, but still I don't believe anyone's what it is that defines a "milestone title", so I'm inclined to think no... Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
article pointing out how edge magazine calls bloodborne the first true essential of this gen --> http://www.gamepur.com/news/18262-full-summary-edges-verdict-bloodborne-never-seen-brutality-software-has.html
bloodborne is the highest rated game on metacritic that isn't a remaster or a cross gen title ---> http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/90day/all
if you ask me these would fit the descriptions looked for in a milestone title for a generation. what usualy presets it: critical acclaim, sales (yet to be seen), and impact on the gaming industry. Osh33m (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The metacritic aspect doesn't matter or make sense for us to base that decision on. Milestone titles can be sequels (see Nintendo's history). And we'd need more than just one source saying a game is "essential". Additionally, it being out only a week, that's far too soon to be making a decision about it. We're looking for titles that are arguably console sellers or influenced sales #s, and that's far too soon on Bloodborne. Destiny might be different in that matter, same with the Majora's Mask remake on the 3DS (which pushed the new 3DS XL system). --MASEM (t) 17:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty much impossible to find more than one source using the exact same words to describe the game. But it is receiving critical acclaim. If you need more time before deciding to add it there, so be it. But I think you should consider it at some point, soon. Osh33m (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's that hard to find multiple sources that say the same thing, that's probably your sign that it's too soon to make a generalized claim like this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
this is no"generalized claim", it is a fact that the game is critically acclaimed. Osh33m (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of games are critically acclaimed. We're looking for milestone titles, the must-haves for a console or system. (For example, BioShock Infinite is a critically acclaimed game but far from being a milestone title). --MASEM (t) 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
bloodborne is the first critically acclaimed title that isn't a cross gen title or a remaster. If you need more time to boil things down then fine. When that time comes though I hope you will agree. Osh33m (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say there's a lot wrong with that list on general. I think it's rather ludicrous, for exams, that someone put Bayonetta on there. It got good reviews, but it was a commercial failure and not really all that influential on a whole. This is the reason why I have such a problem with the term, and how hard exactly it is to define. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree the list in 7th gen is very iffy and far too subjective. The games included should be one that drive console sales or equivalent for the purposes of talking hardware generations, not games that are just critically acclaimed. So for example, Wii Sports is a legit as it is stated that it drove significant sales of the Wii (though I've not checked the source). Guitar Hero/Rock Band have very high numbers of sales and huge $ figure due to hardware pushes. But then you have titles like Bioshock which was a high selling game but didn't drive hardware, same with Assassin's Creed or Bayonetta. A possible alternate solution is to have lists by year of the top 5 games from top-tier sites like IGN or Game Informer, or "Game of the Year" for specific industry awards (BAFTA, Spike/VGA), and list those out during the console history period, as that applies no editor subjectivity on the topic. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that every single game that is critically acclaimed should not be considered milestone. With that being said, Bioshock the first game is the one that counts on the list, and deserves to be there since it is considered one of the Greatest games of all time. bioshock infinite is mentioned there only in passing. the rest of the games there are not only critically acclaimed, but definitely sported impact in the gaming industry, and in some cases, defined it, and revolutionized it. With all that being said, I still believe bloodborne should be the first title to make the 8th gen milestone list. it's been over a month. would anyone like to discuss? Osh33m (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a subtle but significant difference between "greatest games" and "milestone titles", when we are talking hardware generations, however. It is possible for a game to be both, for sure, but again, take Wii Sports. A top game of all time? No, but it sold a buttload of Wii systems, and thus a milestone title for 7th gen. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Bioshock Infinite is mentioned there only in passing? really? the game is obviously included in the milestone titles category, it even states that this game received also critical acclaim and that's why it's included, so if we just include videogames in this category only for that then there would be like fifteen videogames in this section already. And do you know which ones?
MasemI agree that there is a difference between greatest games and milestone titles. The former is sometimes the latter, but not vice versa, because not all milestone title end up as the greatest games ever. And IP 186, yes, bioshock infinite is mentioned there only in passing. Just like LittleBigPlanet 2 is mentioned there only in passing. GTA5 is an example of one that isn't mentioned there in passing. Now with all this being said, I still believe bloodborne to be the first that should be added to the 8th gen list. Waiting on others to moot. Osh33m (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Still think its too declare to anything a milestone, let alone the sources presented for Bloodborne, which just showed that it got some good reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As a counterexample, this would definitely allow SSB + MK8 to be called milestone titles since they are said to have bolstered lagging Wii U sales (in addition to being well-received titles). --MASEM (t) 14:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just reading that article myself and was thinking the same thing. If/when we do keep these milestone titles, I'd be much more okay with titles/sources like this, being both well received and showing they've had a literal effect for the console (and as such, the industry). Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't just "some good reviews" it amounted to critical acclaim for bloodborne and it is the first game of this generation that isn't a remaster or crossgen to achieve this feat. I dunno about MK8 but I think had smash included in my preliminary list that got removed. Osh33m (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
When I say "just reviews" I don't mean to downplay the degree of positivity of the reviews, but rather, it didn't seem to especially have an effect on hardware, the industry, the direction of the genre, or any other aspect of video games. MK and Smash did. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'd argue that positive reviews is not a requirement for a milestone title. "Wii Sports" is a prime example of one that sold Wii's on novelty but was lukewarm reception. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I originally stated that destiny & smash (a few others but I don't as strongly for those) should be on the milestone titles, and since then, bloodborne has been released and that's another title I believe should be on the list as well. but, we have to wait for the consensus. Osh33m (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

New Nintendo 3DS

The New Nintendo 3DS is not mentioned at all in this article. Should it either replace the entries for the original 3DS/XL or be put into a seperate section. Lucasstar1 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cores off by one on Wii U, PS4 and Xbox One

I just did a quick look through of another edit made to the page when I noticed something peculiar, not related to the edit. The core counts for the processors are all off by one, starting at zero rather than one.

Example: Wii U (L2 Cache)

IS

(Core 0: 512 KB, Core 1: 2 MB, Core 2: 512 KB)

SHOULD BE

(Core 1: 512 KB, Core 2: 2 MB, Core 3: 512 KB)

Another one: PS4 and Xbox One (L2 Cache)

IS

Cores 0-3: 2 MB, Cores 4-7: 2 MB

SHOULD BE

Cores 1-4: 2 MB, Cores 5-8: 2 MB

Is there a reason that we start core counts for the eighth generation consoles at zero rather than one? Thanks. Haseo9999 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Core IDs begin at 0. The first core is always Core 0, not Core 1. -- ferret (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess you never stop learning. Thanks for the tip. Haseo9999 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of video game consoles (third generation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wii U eDRAM bandwidth GB/s

Hi!, I wanted to ask why it is written that the Wii U eDRAM has 70GB/s, according to the explaination by CinemaBlend Wii U eDRAM speed is about 563.2GB/s , it may be less than that, but I'm sure it's highter than 70GB/s . http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Wii-U-Memory-Bandwidth-GPU-More-Powerful-Than-We-Thought-62437.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku6300 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cinemablend is discussing the Wii U's total bandwidth including the GPU, not the eDRAM specifically. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Goku6300: Please stop adding this, as I replied to you before you made your edit, CinemaBlend did not list the eDRAM speed. 563.2GB/s is their estimate for total system bandwidth including GPU. -- ferret (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OK! now it's better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku6300 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eighth generation of video game consoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What do we classify the Nintendo NX as? 8th or 9th Gen?

With the Nintendo NX launching on March 2017 and the fact that it's all but confirmed to be a home console, this will be the first time since the Crash of '83 that a major console released right smack in the middle of an ongoing generation (the PS4 & XBO will be only 3-⅓ years old when it released, and they likely won't be replaced until 2019-2020). This means that it won't exactly be easy to categorize. Will we put it on this page as another 8th-gen console, or do we start a new page for the 9th console generation and put it there? Let's look at the two possibilities:

1) It's another 8th-gen system. Since it will be nominally competing against the PS4 & XBO for at least the next several years, which will likely be its prime years sales-wise, and will likely share many of the same games (assuming it has strong third-party support), that would place it squarely in the 8th generation.

2) It's the first 9th-gen system. Simple linear progression of "NES = 3rd-gen, ..., Wii U = 8th-gen, therefore, NX = 9th gen."

I prefer option #1. While #2 is appealing in how straightforward it is, this isn't exactly a straightforward situation. If the NX spends its best years competing with the 8th-gen PS4 & XBO rather than the PS5 and Xbox 4, then how exactly is it ninth-gen? While having two 8th-gen Nintendo systems in a single generation seems odd, it's not without precedent as this isn't the first time a console maker released two distinct platforms in a single generation. The Atari 5200 was designed to compete power-wise with the more advanced ColecoVision and Intellivision, themselves competitors of the Atari 2600. So, both the 2600 and 5200 competed with those other systems, and both are considered second-gen systems. The NX's situation could be viewed as not all that dissimilar from the 5200's. If we applied the "NX = 9th-gen" linear progression logic to Atari, then the 5200 would have to be third-gen and the 7900 would have to be 4th-gen, which is obviously absurd. If Nintendo releases new hardware on a 4-year schedule and Sony & MS on a 6-7 year schedule, we'll get very misaligned "generations" before the end of the next decade (assuming the console market is still a thing by then). Wikipedia will inevitably have a page on ninth-generation consoles one day, but will the NX be the system to usher that generation in, or will the 9th gen consist of the PS5, Xbox 4, and whatever replaces the NX?

While we've had pretty distinct generations in the past that have made categorizing them easy for purposes of both casual discussion of video games and for encyclopedic purposes, the NX's odd release timing challenges this, and perhaps makes it necessary to define what exactly a "generation" is. Is it a cohort of consoles that spend their prime years competing with each other, or is it a simple linear progression that applies independently to each console line? This is an issue that needs to be resolved somehow, and should preferably be ironed out before Wikipedia starts filling up with more info on the NX and, eventually, where in these pages on console generation it'll be placed. There needs to be a consensus on this issue before potential edit wars break out, because it will be an issue that comes up, and people will argue about it if there's no formal definition on what constitutes a generation and therefore which generation a given system belongs to.

JGoodman (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't put it on either until reliable sources consistently classify it one way or another. Wikipedia doesn't decide this sort of thing, they document what sources say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's Next Generation so it be 9th Gen https://twitter.com/nintendoeurope/status/725223432015716352 Snowyday (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, since we know next to nothing about the console. Wait for reliable sources to weigh in. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. The product won't be out in 10 months at the earliest, so we've got plenty of time for third party reliable sources to weigh in on this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eighth generation of video game consoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The archive provided by you doesn't show the price of the console(price shown as an image which is unfortunately unarchived), even though its an e-Commerce site selling the console.That makes it unsuitable for citing Daiyusha (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eighth generation of video game consoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Being an archive dating back to Jan 2016, the game list might be updated in the near future, even though its correct, game lists are something which cannot rely on an archive if the console games are still being released.Still, the archive works fine and has a big list but is outdated. Daiyusha (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Unresolved

Add a Micro-console section

I believe a Microconsole section should be added to this article. Nintendo Switch is technically a Micro-Console. Also, there are Shield TV, Apple TV, PlayStation TV, etc. --Ne0 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen Switch referred to as a micro-console, but instead as a hybrid console. Either way, reliable sources haven't referred to Switch as "Eighth generation". This is required for any console (Including the microconsoles above) to be listed here. If they haven't been categorized as "eighth", they should be omitted. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting Microconsole/Hybrid-Console should be it's own console generation ? Then we should create a Microconsole template: Template:Video_game_consoles. --Ne0 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No, he/we're suggesting they don't belong anywhere without a source verifying they belong in a generation, per WP:V. Sergecross73 msg me 11:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of those have been listed in the past, but I've removed them on the grounds of being unsourced. If you can provide sources that literally state "Console X is part of the 8th generation of video games" then we can discuss re-adding. Switch is rarely called 8th gen and never called a "Micro-Console", so that's definitely out though. There's a big debate on-going about what to do with Switch, but the consensus backed by Wikipedia policy at the moment is to wait and see what reliable sources say about it, so right now, we're holding off on putting it anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
No. Plus Switch will go on the eventual 9th generation page anyway. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
WRONG! 9th Gen consoles will arrive around 2020. Note that, PlayStation 4 Pro is still PlayStation 4 & Project Scorpio will still be XBox One, and they are NOT 9th gen ! --Ne0 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Neither of you are necessarily correct. These things have not been confirmed yet at all. You're both speculating. Sergecross73 msg me 11:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I never said anything about PS4 or Scorpio. But Switch is 9th gen unless Wikipedia is taking it upon themselves to change the definition of the word generation. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't define anything. Switch is whichever generation sources call it. We've been over this. -- ferret (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch

Someone should update this page to include the Nintendo Switch and it's stats. Given the PS4 Pro model and Xbox One S model are listed as the same generation as their originals, it only makes sense that the Switch would be listed here as well. The PS4 Pro and Xbox One S models added performance over their existing models, for example a PS4 game might have a lower output resolution or lower framerate compared to running on a PS4 Pro. The Switch's undocked operational performance only matches the Wii U, and this has been demonstrated by Nintendo with ports of Wii U games such as Zelda and Mario Kart - while the docked performance seems to do little but increase the resolution or framerate, much like the Pro model PS4 or S model Xbox One do. Although it is not a specific upgrade over the Wii U given it no longer can read the same game discs as the Wii U, I think this is still enough to confidently place the Nintendo Switch in the Eighth Generation. 71.83.103.150 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the discussions just above this one. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that discussion not only went nowhere but also ended in November 2016, I don't see what you intended the meaning of your comment to be. 71.83.103.150 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
When there's no consensus, there's no change. In this situation, that means its not included. We go by what reliable sources say, and they're still not consistently placing it in either/any generations. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do you have any reliable sourcing claiming that Switch is Eighth generation? This is where the discussions ended, both here and at Talk:Nintendo Switch. Nothing has changed since. Our own opinions or reasonings for why Switch would be or would not be eighth generation are irrelevant, we only report what reliable sources are saying. The listing of PS4 Pro and Xbox One S here is based on the fact that they are model iterations of existing eighth generation consoles rather than a new console, as the Switch is. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Calling the Switch a new console is arguable and clearly muddies the definition and injects some uncertainty bias if there's no similar attribution towards the Xbox One S or Playstation 4 Pro. Aside from the lack of a second screen, the Switch is almost identical in performance as the Wii U. I'm not sure if the fact that it is also a portable handheld adds anything to it's definition when, although not "handheld", Xbox and Playstation have also received condensed smaller models. Even the Wii received a smaller model iteration, and that was released after the Wii U. If there is no clear definition for what separates console generations, why would there be expectation or acceptance for how an outside source would label the Switch? This uncertainty could be inviting to problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.103.150 (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no doubt at all that the Switch is a new separate console from the Wii U. Its lack of better performance has nothing to do with that, and its a completely different hardware platform. All this is irrelevant though: There are no reliable sources calling it eighth generation, and Wikipedia doesn't decide such things. Wikipedia reports what sources say, not the other way around. -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The only thing the same between Wii U and Switch are their performance levels. Completely different hardware, processors, internal components, playable mediums, functionality, etc etc. Not that it matters, as already stated, that's not how we determine the generations on Wikipedia. But even if it was, your argument is extremely flawed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
But performance is how the generational leap is gauged. Feel free to play some mental gymnastics in attempt of proving otherwise, though. I'll give you a head start to say that the Wii was supposedly in the same generation as Xbox360 and PS3, despite just being re-purposed Gamecube architecture from the generation prior. If you argue the Switch is a new generation console because it has different guts under the hood, then you can't argue against the Wii not being a new generation console over the Gamecube. There's clearly some dysfunctional bias being pushed here to consider Nintendo's products somehow abiding by different standards than their competitors. If you consider the Wii as belonging to the same generation as the Gamecube and still think the Switch is their next generation console, it would still only mean the Switch is an 8th gen and the Wii U is now 7th gen. If you instead abandon any working semblance of comparison altogether and abide some arbitrary schematic that only serves to shine a positive light on Nintendo without reason, well that's just marketing and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. 71.83.103.150 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
We're not arguing the Switch is 8th or 9th generation. We're arguing that reliable sources haven't placed it at all, and so it can't be included yet, in either generation. I'm not sure where the difficultly in understanding that is. Wikipedia doesn't decide where to place the Switch, reliable sources do. -- ferret (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the Switch runs on similar hardware as the Nvidia Shield which is mentioned in the article even as far as "not being considered eighth or even seventh gen", I think this conversation has reached it's point. I'm really hoping this isn't some blind brand loyalty, otherwise the article is already well written enough to fully accommodate how the Switch could be seen. If the Nvidia Shield is not considered a main table contender if only by honorable mention, and the Nvidia Shield's hardware has a higher performance limit than the Switch, then that says it all right there. 71.83.103.150 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you even reading what we write? It has nothing to do with "brand loyalty" It has to do with the lack of reliable sources verifying the information. If you participated in more if these discussions, you'd know that there are great disagreements in how to classify the generations. Some, like you, say hardware power. Others say timeframe. Plenty of others have a lot of other crazy theories. With no formal agreement on how to define the generations, we default to the basic Wikipedia rules - "what sources say" and "consensus. We dont have either for Switch. Thus, no change is made, and it's not placed anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 22:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Evidently you're not understanding what you're writing. What constitutes a reliable source for this topic? This is a question I posited earlier by casting light on the fact that the definition for this categorization is undefined, and you reinforce the confusion when saying there is "no formal agreement". This is virtually a "chicken or the egg" scenario. You want a reliable source to say where the Switch competes, yet you have no defined arbitration that could determine which source is or isn't reliable. I understand not wanting a bias, but a lack of objectivity is a bigger demon entirely. 71.83.103.150 (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Its not an ideal situation, no, but you propose no workable solutions either. We can't just go along with every random personal theory people propose on these talk pages. It'd be in a constant state of flux. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

NX

"NX" has subsequently been published under the trade name "Nintendo Switch". To continue this discussion, please start a "New Topic" with the current brand. This discussion contains at least one 404 link. — Sleyece 18:57:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once The NX is revealed will the 9th Gen get a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.93.114 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, because there wouldn't be anything to put on it except for the NX. Itd just be another NX article. It'd be WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Eventually, but not tomorrow. Tomorrow is unlikely to reveal enough information for such a page. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include the Switch here? Most people seem to be considering it as part of the 8th generation, in the same vein as the PS4 Pro and the Xbox Scorpio. It seems like we either need to include the Switch as part of the 8th gen or break out the PS4 Pro/Scorpio into a new 9th gen article, but the latter doesn't seem warranted. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
We're still waiting for sources to call it. See Talk:Nintendo Switch#Ninth Generation? -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No, reliable sources aren't generally saying that, so neither should we. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Who the hell are the "reliable sources" who discuss console generations? Wicka wicka (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that no other generation has such sources. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
1) I'm guessing that you haven't read the article itself lately, or you'd know there's sources in it that state this stuff. Like this. 2) You need to be patient. While sources will come, they're not necessarily going to be written the week after the product is announced. Only one week has passed from its initial reveal. It isn't even due for release for another 5 months, and there aren't any other entries in this "9th gen" yet - it's extremely early on. More will be written once new systems are actually announced and released. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That source is not in the article. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay? I thought that's where I found it, but if not...that doesn't really change anything... Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
This random games website is a "reliable source?" In what world? I was asking a serious question: who are the authoritative sources that discuss video game console generations? It's certainly not "Game Revolution dot com." You say you are waiting for reliable sources. Who would that be? Who discusses this stuff, other than Wikipedia? Wicka wicka (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Game Revolution is reliable/usable per consensus at the WikiProject level - WP:VG/S. There's plenty others, that was merely one I found right away in this very article. The rest of your argument is a logical fallacy - per WP:V, everything is supposed to be sourced, and complaints about scarcity of sources or other instances where there aren't sources doesn't change that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Nielsen Corporation is certainly more of an authority on data, and they use it here too. There's many out there. If you do any searching on your own, you'd see it too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not a logical fallacy just because idiotic wiki policies claim so. Asking for relevant examples isn't a logical fallacy, it's a reasonable request. Support your point intelligently without copy/pasting wiki policies. I literally could not care less. And don't ever again pull out that "if you had done any searching of your own" nonsense. Be a grown up and actually support your point. That's not my job. Even then, your Nielsen "source" is bogus. It's just using the term "8th gen" in an entirely unrelated article. You find me a reliable third-party source that actually defines console generations or stop acting like you're hot shit. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is a logical fallacy, because like it or not, as long as we're discussing on Wikipedia talk pages, about Wikipedia articles, we need to discuss within the confines of Wikipedia policy. We're not randomly musing about video games, we're discussing how to build an encyclopedia. Complain all you want, but citing policy and providing source examples is how we discuss here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
In short - you say we can't make a call as to whether the Switch is an 8th or 9th gen console until a reliable source says so. I would like to find such a source. So, tell me, what does that kind of source look like? Which ones have we used in the past? And, again, I'm asking for sources defining console generations, not ones that simply use the terms. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
A conundrum with generations is that we believe that Wikipedia is partially responsible for the terms and segregation, at least up through the sixth generation; the video game media picked up how we broke it down and stuck with it. With the seventh generation onward, the language became more commonly adapted by the media, and so we're at a point that it is now accepted knowledge (even IEEE has adapted it [1]. So there are definitions set, but keep in mind we partially influenced those. That said, to call the Switch a eighth- or ninth-gen console will need to come from a significant number (not just one or two) of the sources at WP:VG/S. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:VG/S outlines the type of sources that are deemed usable and unusable. If we find that sources are generally calling Switch 8th or 9th gen, we will apply the term appropriately. As far as finding sources that define the generations - do it yourself! Why am I doing this for you? I don't have questions about it. I'm merely telling you what it would take to apply 8th/9th gen to the Switch. Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
You are doing it because it is YOUR insistence, not mine, that it is required. I've yet to see a single source that defines a console generation. If you want to hold the article to that standard, then prove that standard exists, otherwise you are wrong and we can move on to more productive tasks. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want to start up a separate discussion about dissolving the 8th gen article because you personally can't find sufficient sourcing to define it, be my guest. (And good luck, you'll need it.) But what we need in respect to the Nintendo Switch are just sources that state the system is part of the generation. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that, doofus. I'm saying that the standard you're setting simply does not exist. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
If you're not suggesting that, then you don't need a source outlining the entire gen. Just sources directly calling Switch part of a gen. Side note: Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy, so please no petty name-calling. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That source is 404. IRMacGuyver (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate Xbox One Weight

This article states that the Xbox One weighs 3.2 kg (7.0 lb). However I was unable to find an accurate source to confirm this. A lack of accurate source may mean that the weight of the console is totally bogus. I am a bit more than half certain that the Xbox One weighs more or less than that amount. Could someone please find an accurate source to confirm this specification.Stunts1990 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Separating the launch editions from mid cycle revisions in the comparison table

Since there are several revisions and high end models maybe separating the launch editions from the slim/revised models so that the table doesn't stretch beyond the page margins. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, but not quite yet. This gen. is crazy, and we still don't have confirmation on what belongs to what generation. Sleyece (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No 9th gen?

Please do not WP:REPEAT. - Sleyece (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Playstation and Xbox employees are saying that generations are over, so what would happen here if thats the case? 71.245.161.122 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well first off, who exactly is saying this? Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If it is the case, then that's that. There is no ninth. We enter "post generational" and stop denoting it. -- ferret (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Just wait a few years until the release of Playstation 5 and Xbox:Rounded Cube, and the media will start talking about the next generation again. Diego (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comparison table

Hi everyone, I was going to update the comparison table with more up to date that reflected their articles but I never understood why the PS4 Slim and Xbox One S had their own separate columns. Looking at the sixth and seventh generations the slim models were in the same column as the launch models even with minor differences. I made an example of the comparison table in my sandbox where the PS4 Slim and Xbox One S were merged with their launch models (I just hid the image section in my sandbox). I just wanted to get some thoughts on this before making such a big change to the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It is just that way because this is the current generation of gaming. Go ahead and do it (one user's opinion). Someone will have to eventually. Sleyece (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Switch

See preceding sections. - Sleyece (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about adding the Nintendo Switch to the page?47.187.192.170 (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Read the multiple sections above on this topic. -- ferret (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eighth generation of video game consoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nvidia Shield Portable missing

"The Nvidia Shield Portable is a handheld video game console". So why is it missing in the comparison? -- 195.189.94.14 (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No sources directly label it as part of the 8th gen. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eighth generation of video game consoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Merging the later models of PS4 and Xbox One in the original PS4 and Xbox One in the comparison section

I don't really understand why this hasn't been done yet. This has been done in the past with Seventh generation of video game consoles#Comparison when the later models were merged in the originals. Why can't this be done as well?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverrainy (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of the rows use appropriate colspans. I don't think a full merger of every column really helps the reader. Merge where the info is the same, let things that matter like release dates or hardware have separate columns for readability. Unlike the 7th generation, this are not simple production refreshes but represent actual changes to the overall hardware. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You should try finding a place for the nintendo switch. It is a portable and it is faster then any ios, I think it should be listed here because there is not a ninth generation of games yet. It actually seems like to me there is a ninth generation of handhelds, ios and tablets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.30.97 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in the ninth generation of home consoles. Calling it a ninth generation of handhelds, "ios" and tablets would be not just original research, but completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jv110 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Start a "9th Gen" Page for "Nintendo Switch" and "Ataribox"

Should a page for the current generation of consoles be started? As of E3 2017 there are two new post-8th Generation consoles, which have their own isolated hardware and software. Now may be the time to seek consensus on a separate article. -- Sleyece 18:57:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. There's a ton of discussions around about this, but basically, reliable sources aren't consistently calling them 9th gen, so neither should we. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Then in this case, why is the Switch not on THIS article? Devann (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The Nintendo Switch should be added as an eighth generation console in the category of "hybrid consoles". It's clear that Nintendo will respond to PS5 and Xbox 4 with a more powerful Switch successor. Everyone here is just waiting the events to happening, a good decision in my opinion. --79.45.240.84 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Because it also hasn't been classified as 8th. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Not yet. There's a ton of discussions around about this, but basically, reliable sources aren't consistently calling them 8th gen, so neither should we. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well if it's not an 8th Generation Console than isn't it a 9th Generation Console — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:403:3f70:f198:290:6391:e04a (talk • contribs)
No, the next set of consoles may be called a half-step, or there may be no more generations altogether. We don't have any type of consensus in sources yet. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
We can rule out "no more generations" ought right because the "Switch" is a clear iteration of some kind beyond the "Wii U." Sleyece (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't mean there's another recognized "generation of consoles" in a general sense. Many past generations contain multiple product iterations from a single vendor. -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I see your point. Sleyece (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be too early for a ninth generation page because nothing as been announced for the Ataribox like it specs except from what a pre-rendered image has shown. The Nintedo Switch is still up in the air at this point as to what gen it belongs to and most likely won't be resolved by reliable sources until all manufacturers has their "next generation" products out on the market. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The generations as we classify them today are partially a construct of original research conducted here on Wikipedia. Only a couple of older sources use numbered generations, and even then neither source agrees fully on how those generations should be numbered. Wikipedia most notably fused all pre-Crash of '83 cartridge-based systems into a single generation despite no reliable sources doing so (the older sources split the Intellivision, ColecoVision, and Atari 5200 into their own generation separate from the 2600 and other systems released in the 1976-78 period). The current system is basically a product of violation of Wikipedia rules that just happened to stick because it worked, because, from the NES & Master System to the PS4 & XBO, the generations were fairly discrete. Gen 1 systems are Pong machines, Gen 2 was pre-crash cartridge-based consoles, Gen 3 was the NES era, Gen 4 the 16-bit era, and so on.
Now we have the Switch launching in the middle of an ongoing generation and because of that unprecedented release timing nobody can agree on how it should be classified. Some say "It's 9th gen because it follows the Wii U, which was 8th gen," while others argue "It's 8th gen because its still nominally competing with the PS4 & XBO, which are 8th gen." The media has been no help, because not only can nobody agree, they largely don't use numbered generations, and when they do, it's always been in the time since the "Wikipedia Consensus on Generations" was formed. They used to use bits ("16-bit era," etc.), then stopped doing that around the time the PS2 was released. But as long as Nintendo continues to run on shorter generations than PlayStation and Xbox, there's going to be confusion because there is going to be no consensus and no sources to help.
"Unprecedented realease timing"? It's been 4.5 years; a very usual lifespan for game consoles. "It's 9th gen because it follows the Wii U, which was 8th gen" is completely valid, and it's actually the definition of generations: succession. "It's 8th gen because its still nominally competing with the PS4 & XBO, which are 8th gen" is false. It's not competing with the PS4 & XBO, it has no direct competitors yet. --Jv110 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
What I think will eventually happen is that either A) Wikipedia stops including Nintendo in generational articles, B) in a few years a determination will be made on the Switch's classification based on the release timing of its own successor, or C) Wikipedia will stop using generations altogether for forthcoming systems. But until then, the Switch will not find a place in any page dedicated to a specific console generation. JGoodman (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
b) and c) are possible, a) is not. a) is essentially omitting information for convenience, which will not happen on this site. JGoodman, you also left out the, still very real, possibility that the Switch is 9th gen. Sleyece (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering that vendors don't keep tabs on console generation numbering, it might be at the discretion of Wikipedia editors to decide where Switch fits in regards to this classification. With PS4 Pro releasing only 4 months prior and Xbox One X releasing 8 months after, both being decidedly 8th gen, the timing of release is certainly inducive of it still being part of the current generation of consoles. Having several hardware releases in a single generation from a single vendor isn't unheard of either. As for the Ataribox, it is still too early to even call it a console : So far Atari didn't even use the word "console" in their marketing material to refer to the Ataribox. SteelSkin667 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see previous conversations on this. It's too early to do any of that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we need to start planning to just get rid of the "generation" concept. It feels more and more like original research. I don't honestly know that the use of the "generation" concept would be so widespread if it hadn't been embraced here. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
History wise, "generation" had been established before WP, with the 8-bit and 16-bit generation. It is just our fault that we opted to try to do "1st"/"2nd"/etc. to classify the post-16-bit generations into nice groupings, which took off in the media.
As a random idea, and by no means perfect, we could have a "Current generation of video game consoles", which we know presently includes those in the 8th gen (this page), as well as consoles that have yet to be classified like the Switch, Ataribox, and others. If/when the Switch is named 8th/9th we can move things around as needed, but we'd always have a placeholder article that succeeds the last numbered generation that we can drop stuff into in anticipating of moving later. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The template organizes it as "Other generation", and Switch is currently listed under that as a Hybrid console. Current may not always be accurate. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I fully recognize that a "Current" generation articles needs constant upkeep as time progresses, so it's not a great solution but at least drops the Switch + others onto the timing. A question is that do we have any consoles besides the Switch that fall into this "other generation" classification, and more specifically anything ~pre-2015? I just feel if we can have a vague-enough landing page that the Switch can be included on and amended to the timeline, we'd avoid all these questions. We'd have to be 100% clear that units on this page are only included because they have not been properly classified into the numbered generations. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There are currently 18 consoles in the "Other" category, including the two Classic NES/SNES releases as dedicated consoles. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, that won't work. I feel though we'll head off a lot of questions if on this 8th gen page we have some section dedicated to consoles made after 2012 that are not classified by reliable sources. Not necessarily listing off full specs, but just an awareness that on a time-scale, these consoles technically fall here, but in terms of generation we don't know. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The Switch is not the only problem, IMO. The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X already push the definition of what it means to be current vs next gen. And heck, maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's just a single adjustment for 4K and they'll revert to regular generations soon enough. But I just find it hard to believe that the ninth gen will see all the major manufacturers release new hardware around the same time. Maybe that's the "solution"? Consider the Switch a one-off for now and see what happens with the next releases? Can't hurt to try to plan ahead, though. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Also wanted to add that I would support Masem's idea here, i.e. briefly mention consoles that were released in the 8th gen timespan but without necessarily tying them to the 8th gen. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The generations system is certainly flawed, but I don't really like the idea of putting the Xbox One X somewhere separate when Microsoft says things like it's not a "half step" or "new generation". Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree, maybe my wording was a little misleading. I don't think the Xbox One X belongs in a separate generation; rather, I think its existence suggests an end to the entire generational concept. It seems like manufacturers are moving away from huge, new console releases every few years, and toward iterative updates to a similar platform every 2-3 years.
Here's an idea: maybe we just drop the "generation" branding from article titles. Instead of "Eighth generation of video game consoles," we say "History of video game consoles (2012-present)," and in the opening say something like "commonly referred to as the eighth generation." Wicka wicka (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Depending on future hardware releases however we might definitely have to come up with a subsequent category that isn't numbered, or is along the line of "8th generation of consoles and subsequent developments". Although one might argue that the half-gen models that are being released are reminiscent of the 4th gen console add-ons situation.
In the meanwhile however I still feel like the release time of the Switch will be favorable to its inclusion in the current gen, regardless of how we will end up naming it.SteelSkin667 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well no, my suggestion would never involve using numbered generations as the name of the article. All articles would be defined solely by timespan, e.g. "History of video game consoles (2000-2010)." And if that timespan also has an established, well-sourced name, such as "fifth generation" or "16-bit era," we can simply include that in the first line (e.g. "frequently known as the 16-bit era"). But we'd never HAVE to do that. The only thing we'd have to do is agree on what timespans to divide the articles into, and I don't think that is considered original research. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to come up with a plan for repealing the generations concept. Efforts were lengthy and fruitless when we tried back at the end of the 7th gen. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember that...I don't really have a plan, nor am I trying to say anyone has done anything wrong, or that I can do better, just that I don't see how we can continue doing what we're doing. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The main issue in repealing the main generations concept is that there would be too much rewrite. The model still mostly works for past products (albeit with some glitches like the 32X), as there were still clear generation jumps up until the 8th, with actors referring to their products as "next generation".SteelSkin667 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There would be very little to rewrite, IMO. It'd mostly just involve renaming articles and removing a few references to "generations" where they might not be supported/accurate. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Renaming things and removing inconvenient information never works out here. Sleyece (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The dedicated consoles could just be included in an "other console" section of their respective generations with a note that these were just released during that time frame. Some of the generation articles already have that section. While the article for some like V.Smile has "sixth generation" listed in its infobox. One idea that I have is we leave the 1st-8th generation consoles as they are and for now just create an article that is titled "History of video game consoles (2016-present)" which includes all of the current/upgraded models available at retail like the Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 Pro, Xbox One X while the PlayStation 4 Slim and Xbox One S can remain with the Eighth generation of video game consoles for the time being as they are just revisions of the launch models. The new article titled "History of video game consoles (2016-present)" can be very clear that PS4 Pro and XOne X are eighth generation consoles while the Switch currently isn't part of a generation (due to reliable sources not clearly placing it in a generation at this time). That way if the whole "generation" classification goes by the wayside in the future then we already have a new way of naming future periods while leaving the established generations alone. If reliable sources classify the Switch as part of the 8th generation then this new article can just be integrated back into the 8th generation article at that time. However this new article would resolve some issues for the time being. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
If anyone wants to see an example of the proposed article I am suggesting I created a rough skeleton draft in my sandbox.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really like the proposals/layouts that shows that the Switch is specifically competing against the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X opposed to their regular counterparts. We don't know what will happen with the One X, but at least the the PS4 Pro, that really hasn't been the case, with the regular PS4 still being the primary version in regards to sales and promotion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


One of the key things to keep in mind here is how sources handle this. I have legitimately not seen any source try to put the Switch against any form of the PS4 or the Xbox One , hardware-for-hardware (They have talked about service models given Nintendo's breaking into that market, but that's different). The reason that we're sorta stuck with the generation approach is that in past generations we have had sources that have put the key consoles up against each other for comparison purposes; even eighth gen we have both Wii and Wii U against Xbox One and PS4 from sources. We're forcing a false comparison that hasn't been done in sources to try to compare the Switch to the original or refreshed version of either console. And I doubt that anyone is ever going to make that comparison since they know now Nintendo is fully on its own track and not trying to keep up with Sony or MS in hardware; this is a very different feature of this 8th gen and beyond compared to, say, the bit-wars where everyone was trying to keep up. It makes our chosen approach in this new model very difficult to reconcile. It is almost to a point where we need to have separate pages that simply discuss the comparison of consoles of the various generations (keeping those massive tables), and then return to simply breaking the History of console by year segments. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well to be far though the sources really haven't compared Nintendo to Sony/Microsoft since the sixth generation. Since Nintendo introduced the Wii while Sony/Microsoft introduced the PS3/Xbox 360 most of the sources have put Nintendo in a class of its own and regularly compare Sony/Microsoft against each other except when Sony/MS introduced their motion controllers. My idea was just a way to rectify the issue that Nintendo's console isn't fitting into the whole "generation" thing by the sources and going forward maybe separating the history out by periods instead of "generations" while keeping the previous eight articles in their current state. The thing is if the Switch was classed as "eighth" gen by sources we would have to redo that massive table in the 8th gen article to fit it in. My idea was to kinda separate the 2016-17 systems out of that article and into their own leaving the PS4 Slim / Xbox One S in the eighth generation article since they are just revisions of the original hardware and were not substantially changed. Something has to be done otherwise this debate will keep happening until we are in the theoretical 9th generation. To me this just seemed like the easiest route based on the sources that are given. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
If sources were going to compare the Switch to either version of the PS4/X1, they would have done it by now. All specs for all systems are well known. They haven't (best I can see). It's why forcing a comparison by just having a untitled generation page is a problem. I fully appreciate that there's a need as a tech nerd to put the Switch in a table with the other consoles to see how the specs line up, I totally get that, but unless we're doing it across the board for all major console systems (eg removing any selectivity bias), or otherwise aligning with how sources do it, we're doing a bit of SYNTH in original research to make that comparison. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Masem, What do you mean exactly by "SYNTH" of the original research? Sleyece (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
As a gross example, imagine if I put the N64 specs against the original Xbox specs (which I don't think anyone else in the world has ever done). Obviously the Xbox specs are going to look super great compared to that, and that's going to give a false impression that the Xbox is a better system. (Some may argue the N64 was otherwise much more enjoyable of a console). That's synthesis there. We can compare the XBox One to the PS4 to the Wii and Wii U as others have already made that so while the same conclusion can be reached that the Wii's are weaker systems, its not us introducing that idea. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Innovation is not limited to raw tech specs. Switch may have a less powerful CPU than ONE or PS4, but there are some things a hybrid console can do that the others cannot. The "Ataribox" has been suggested to be a hybrid in other ways (classic and current generation content). Maybe hybridism is the defining characteristic of 9th gen. It's not really up to the users to decide which innovations matter for generational purposes. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no idea to introduce the Switch is less powerful than its contemporaries One or PS4. There are reliable sources stating that clearly. Even for Switch's article it states "The Switch competes on the console gaming market with contemporaries Sony PlayStation 4 and Microsoft Xbox One" in the lead in. The whole idea of the article I proposed (which I wish I didn't now) is a temporary fix/compromise to the whole generation thing since the Switch doesn't fit within either an 8th generation or 9th generation article based on reliable sources. The idea was to take ALL consoles (home/handheld/hybrid/dedicated) released from November 2016 - present and place them into their own overview article. The reason why Switch is grouped in with One X and PS4 Pro is based on how Nintendo is treating the Switch which is a home console first that you can take anywhere with you. I am not introducing WP:SYNTH with this idea because if the Switch was considered 8th generation by reliable sources then one of the following would happen:
  • It would be placed at the end of the table for home consoles so its layout would be: | Wii U | PS4/Slim/Pro | Xbox One/S/X | Switch | or
  • An entire new "Hybrid console" section for just the Switch only would have been created
So when I came up with the idea for that article it was with the intent of treating the Switch just like Nintendo is doing (a home console first). If the whole objection to the article is that the Switch is being compared to One X and PS4 Pro then separate the Switch from home consoles into a section called hybrid consoles like this. My intent was to discuss if an article like what I proposed could work in the meantime as a resolution to solve the whole 8th/9th gen debate for both the Switch and the Ataribox (if it ever gets released) not about introducing original research. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I would just remove the giant comparison table, to be honest. Most of that information is better suited for each individual console's page anyway. And the table on the 8th gen page is pretty bloated as it is. I also don't see why we'd create a "hybrid console" section for the Switch when Nintendo has specifically categorized it as a home console. To call it anything but a home console would be dang close to original research.

All I think we really need to do to solve this "problem" is to rename the articles, so that "Eighth generation of video game consoles" becomes "History of video game consoles, 2012-present," and add the Switch to that article. And then rename the other articles to match, of course, but I don't think that would require much change outside of the title itself. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the core problems at hand here. A mere rename doesn't address hardly anything. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the "generation" concept is tenuous at best. My solution is to stop using that concept and replace it with timeframes. There is no original research involved with saying "these consoles were released between these two years."
I get the feeling that you've spent so long telling people "this can't be solved" that you no longer want it to be solved. If that's not the case, please explain to me why this doesn't solve the problem. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
By all means, make an actual proposal (what years you'd use, which systems you'd include in each one, etc) and start up an WP:RFC on it. See how it goes for you. Perhaps then you'll understand. Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I want to reiterate that users CAN'T remove inconvenient information for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Generations were used for the entire existence of consoles, and now that a single generation is blurring the lines, some users here want to throw out generations all together. I don't want to be a dream killer, but I promise, WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. Please, to all the users in this section who are suggesting the "solution" is to throw out generations entirely, reconsider that position -- Sleyece (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to point it out if you've seen it, but I haven't noticed even one single user suggesting that we throw out generations entirely. I, personally, have very clearly stated that we should continue to reference generations where they can be authoritatively sourced, just not in page titles (as that forces us to only create new pages when we can source a new generation, which is less and less feasible). Wicka wicka (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Why don't you just explain yourself? You are acting incredibly rude and disrespectful; it's shocking behavior from an admin. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73 is not being "rude and disrespectful" to you. @Wicka wicka:, you are continually suggesting that users erase or ignore information. This is not acceptable for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. What is "less feasible?" I assume there are sources to back that claim. Please, share. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we erase or ignore information, so please don't lie about what I've said. And the problem with continuing with generations is that there aren't sources to authoritatively define them. In fact, Wikipedia frequently becomes that source, which is not what it's supposed to be. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I've read some more of your comments here, Sleyece, and I sincerely can't tell if you are extremely confused about what's being proposed, or if you are intentionally lying in an attempt to undermine a solution you don't like. If it's the former, I apologize for accusing you of lying, but if that's the case, ask for clarification. Don't just run around saying "YOU ALL WANT TO ERASE GENERATIONS!!!!!!!!" when that is patently false. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
In regards to me, I don't know how you're coming off as so offended. You told me I was being too negative. So I gave you a "Fine, go try it see for youself and see". Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
So, Wicka wicka, I'm either lying or stupid? I don't appreciate either accusation. I respect WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sergecross73, you repeatedly say this idea won't work, and yet you never explain why. Please explain why you think it won't work, instead of dismissing me outright. To suggest that you were being sincere in suggesting that I "go try it and see for yourself" is laughable, and again, I am shocked that an admin behaves this way. Please, for all that is holy, stop doing this and just tell me where you think the problem is. Then, hopefully, we can move forward this conversation productively.
Sleyece, I didn't call you stupid, so you are now literally lying. You keep arguing against our suggestions by claiming people are saying things that they are objectively not saying. If you have misunderstood our suggestions, that's fine, that certainly doesn't make you stupid, but please show some good faith and simply ask us to clarify what we mean. You have not done so yet, and instead you repeatedly build strawmen. Furthermore, I don't understand your obsession with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is of no relevance here. No one just doesn't like "generations." The concept itself is broken and unsustainable. It's like you involved yourself in a conversation without reading any of it. The reason this topic gets brought up again and again is because these generational articles are difficult to source and come very close to being original research. These are huge problems that need to be addressed, and they have nothing to do with what anyone does or doesn't like. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Wicka wicka, you said "It's like you involved yourself in a conversation without reading any of it." For the record, I started the conversation. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sleyece, please then scroll up to the very beginning of the conversation and read JGoodman's comment about how generations are defined. It should provide a neat rebuttal to your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument - in short, it's not because we don't like it, it's because we have to. I doubt there will be continued disagreement here if you would simply pay attention to what's being said. Be open to the fact that you may be wrong, don't just argue for the sake of arguing. This whole current thread was started by you claiming that we want to "remove inconvenient information," but that has objectively never been suggested. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can have a productive discussion about how to move forward. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wicka wicka:, I responded to JGoodman's comment more than a month ago (September 14). -- Sleyece (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
And now we have a reliable source categorizing the Switch as "current-gen" along with the PS4 & XBO: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171019005513/en/Nintendo-News-Nintendo-Systems-Claim-Two-Thirds-September. While it's not much, we basically have both NPD and Nintendo's own PR placing the Switch in the ongoing generation and not in a new one, so unless we require more sources, I think we can call this one "Switch confirmed 8th Gen." JGoodman (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Press releases are not good sources to use for this, particularly Nintendo's. The generations are defined by how the rest of the media groups them, not how manufacturers do. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
To be fair the media usually goes off how the manufacturers PR spins the machines. If it wasn't for Sony and Microsoft clearly specifying that the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X were part of the current gen then the media would have put them into the "next gen" grouping. Since NPD is classifying the Switch as a current gen system that should have significance since the media will follow what the sales reporting agencies classify these systems as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Very tentatively, I'd say NPD is pretty strong for sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not just Nintendo PR. NPD themselves call it "current-gen." See: https://venturebeat.com/2017/10/23/september-2017-npd-super-nes-classic-was-the-top-selling-hardware-in-september/. The media in general never really used the numbered generation scheme, which, as I mentioned a couple of months ago, is in its current form at least partially a product of original research here at Wikipedia. Some articles in the media did refer to last generation as "the Seventh Generation," but that was well after Wikipedia started to refer to it as such. Prior to last generation, there were no references to specific, sequentially numbered generations. They referred to the NES & SMS as 8-bit, the SNES & Genesis as 16-bit, and the PS1, Saturn, and N64 as 32- & 64-bit, then they just kind of stopped using the "bits" thing starting with the Dreamcast. Fast-forward to today, and the media still doesn't really refer to the current generation as "the Eighth Generation," aside from a couple of isolated cases. The only primary sources predating the "Wikipedia consensus" on the issue that have numbered generations don't even match Wikipedia's system, or each other, for that matter.
Long point short, the NPD, essentially the sales tracker in the U.S., classifies the Switch as being in the same generation as the PS4 & XBO. There really haven't been any other reliable media sources assigning the Switch to either Gen 8 or Gen 9. NPD is a reliable source if there ever was one, and their data is used by all of the Big Three as well as third parties. We're not likely to get anything better than that, what with the video games media and sales trackers largely ignoring the numbered generations scheme used here at Wikipedia (it's used primarily in discussion forums). JGoodman (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
An idea of a solution that I've had is to recognize that when it comes to "Generations" it generally only refers to the home consoles (not portables), and only to make cross-comparisons against the major players in those generations. Thus if we recognize that when we say, for example "7th Generation", that is explicitly the family of consoles of PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii. Nothing else. If we limited the content on the "generation" pages to only those consoles that are frequently set in those generations, and moved all other existing content in the "generation" pages to broken-out timeline page, roughly split on the onset of each generation, then we have a way to move the Switch/etc. into the last of those generations. In other words, we'll have twice the number of console pages, but one set will specifically be focusing only on the "generation" idea, and less about the other events happening in that period. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest having Generation 8.5, with the Switch, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. Two half-step consoles and one replacement. The generations thing isn't perfect but it's better than crud like "128-bit Era" Nukleon (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Show us reliable secondary sources that call it "Generation 8.5". I've never seen a source use that though. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
There isn't any reliable sources calling it "Generation 8.5" the closest we are getting is sites calling it "current generation" with PlayStation 4 & Xbox One as a whole grouping the Switch in with the existing two consoles. After looking at Google searches these are the only sources I have found that puts Nintendo Switch in the same generation as PlayStation 4 & Xbox One and most of them are going off of the NPD Group reports (typical keywords: top selling current generation console hardware) :
So pretty much its up to the community at this point if these sources justify changing the established consensus of "wait and see" in respects to seeing where RS place Nintendo Switch. We can't just create a "Generation 8.5" article here because that is jumping to conclusion and we don't want a repeat of Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents (see History of video game consoles). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Since no one is aware that the Nintendo Switch is an eight gen or a ninth gen, could I add this to the article:
The failure of the Wii U lead Nintendo into creating another console, the Nintendo Switch, though it's unclear if it's considered a new generation or part of the eight generation.
SansUT (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
No, in general, its best not to make statements of which its only purpose is to declare something unknown. If it's not known, then don't state it. It's also not necessarily the Wii U's failure that makes it hard to classify. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the "failure" part. Whether the Wii U failed or not, they would create a successor anyway. And the Wii U didn't just fail like that, so your addition felt like a biased comment by a Nintendo hater (I'm not a Nintendo fanboy either, just stating my impression). Besides, the Switch is indeed a ninth generation console. --Jv110 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Switch is a ninth generation console, no matter how you look at it. It's a successor to an 8th gen console, released 4.5 years later (very usual life span for game consoles). It's not in the middle of an ongoing generation, it's in the beginning of a new generation. Like the Wii U, being the first 8th gen console, from 2012. Sony and Microsoft are just not done with it yet. Honestly, I don't understand how you can doubt it's a new generation. --Jv110 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no defined rule anywhere (in reliable sources, or whatnot) that if a manufacturer of an Nth generation console releases a completely new (not refresh) console, that that new console is in the (N+1)th generation. It's the whole ranges of consoles that have to shift over, just like with human generations; its the bulk of the population, not just one example. And just like with human generations, there are very very blurry edges. --Masem (t) 05:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the bulk of the population, but the rest of the bulk just hasn't come out yet. When the PlayStation 5 comes out, what generation would you consider this? 9th gen, surely. --Jv110 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
And if Nintendo releases the Switch 2 two months after the Playstation 5, what generation is the Switch 2 in? Would you argue that it must be a 10th generation console simply because it was released after the 9th generation Switch, and therefore is a full generation after the PS5 despite releasing only two months later? This is fuzzy and messy, and there's no point acting like there's a clear-cut unambiguous answer to it. Egomaniac (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eighth_generation_of_video_game_consoles/Archive_3&oldid=1136339090"