Jump to content

Talk:Third generation of video game consoles/Archive 1

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

Renaming the article

Would anyone be opposed to renaming this "History of video games (Late 8-bit era)" or "Post-crash era", with the pre-crash systems like the 2600 fitting in the "History of video games (Early 8-bit era)" or "Pre-crash era"? --24.114.252.183 17:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"History of video games (8-bit era)" would be fine if you did this for all similar pages, but I don't really think its necessary. This page should not be named "Nintendo era" regardless That shows favor to Nintendo in an era when there were other systems including Sega's Master System. Should be renamed "8-bit era" at the very least. K1Bond007 00:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I suggested the longer title because it was the format already in use for 16-bit era and 32-bit era (take a look at them) --24.114.252.183 01:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above. For one thing, here (Britain), the term "8-bit era" is often used in connection with computers as well as consoles. That being so, I think the longer title is better. Loganberry 01:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
If there's concensus for a longer title, that also brings up the question of whether it should be extend further into "History of computer and video games (8-bit era)", in order to match the root article History of computer and video games. And then doing the same for the 16 and 32 bit eras and all the other articles.
In most of Europe the term "8-bit era" is often regarded in connection with computers as well as consoles. So I agree with previous propose of extending article to "History of computer and video games (8-bit era)" in order to match the root article History of computer and video games, and then doing the same for 16 and 32 bit eras. Most of console platforms had its counterpart in computer games platforms, so you find technical advances in consoles tend to coincide in time with technical advances in computers into a same generation. Thus, you find computer games market tend to compete directy with console games markets at some rate. We shouldn't regard to a generation of video games mispreciating its impact on computers and isolating consoles from its context and its computer counterpart. This is why I propose to extend topic and purpose of this article to computer game platforms and including a whole paragraph, in the introduction of this article, referring to most common 8-bit game-oriented computer systems at that time, in contrast with consoles, then doing same thing with 16 and 32 bit eras.DeepQuasar (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

--24.114.252.183 01:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Who calls this time period the "Nintendo era" or did someone just make this up? does this cover the USA or Japan or Europe or south america? What's the point of this?

8-bit era would perhaps be more accurate. Nintendo fanboyism or ignorance, I don't know. The PC Engine had a fair amount of success in Japan, and the Sega Master System was very popular in Europe and South America during the so-called "Nintendo era". ~ FriedMilk 08:04, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
i realise no has replied to this for two years, but still, the nintendo era is actually generations 3 and 4 and can be refered to as such because they dominated the global market durring those two generations. gens 1 and 2 are the atari era and gens 5 and 6 are the sony era. I beileve that Nintendo will dominate the market in gens 7 and 8 with their motion sensory technology, as history show that the most inovative console is always the victor so long as the inovation is in the area of game play, thus making gens 7 and 8 the second nintendo era. Gens 9 and 10 will probably be the Microsoft era as they will most likely incorporate holographic technology from their touchlite into the x-box 4 making it the most inovative. the point being that calling something the ninto era or sony era dosn't show favotatism to that company durring that time it just refers to who sold the most colsole.

Third generation of video games in game-oriented 8-bit computers

I considere an article that centres about video games during the 8-bit era couldn't mispreciate the impact 8-bit games had in computers of the time, that got a very important part of the market and, before the massive arrival of Nintendo, Sega and NEC video consoles to most of homes, were quite popular for most of gamers, specially in Europe, but also, partly, in other markets. Not less important is, for exemple, the impact of some very popular japanese franchises of video games that started for 8-bit computers like the MSX and have later had a very important impact in the consoles of future or even same generation, as Metal Gear, and many others from Konami and other japanese companies; but also many European and Northern American franchises of video games that were quite popular for computer users, and had little or almost no impact in consoles, or even were ported for them later. Let's not forget, during mid 80's, most of arcade popular games that were ported for home systms and consoles had their counterparts of versions in all the systems of the times, and this included most of 8-bit computers, like MSX and MSX 2, like Commodore 64, like ZX Spectrum, like Amstrad, like IBM PC and even computers and consoles of next generation like Commodore Amiga, 386 or even 286 with VGA and EGA graphics, as well as PC Engine, Megadrive, etc.; there are many exemples of this (Out Run, Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Arkanoid, R-Type, Space Harrier, Fantasy Zone, Ghost 'n' Goblins, Shinobi, Lotus, Super Monaco GP, Terra Cresta, Contra, Golden Axe, Columns, Street Fighter II). That's why I've thought it'd be a good a idea to include this paragraph, that I've wrotten and added to the introduction, since I think it's not only good to mention a briefing of game platforms of the era for consoles, but game-oriented computers are so important and worthy of mention as those. So here we go:

"Third generation of computers and video games had its counterpart in the field of personal computers with the release and generalization of several game-oriented computers such as Commodore 64 in 1982, Japanese MSX standard in 1983, Brittish and European releases of ZX Spectrum and Amstrad CPC in 1983 and 1984, MSX 2 and 2+ standards in 1985 (as MSX successor), and, in the same year, Commodore 128 (as an extension and successor of Commodore 64). While direct competors of each others, Commodore 64 is considered to have ruled the market of 8-bit computer games in North American during 80's, as European markets were ruled by ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC and Atari 8-bit computers, as well as Commodore 64 itself. MSX was the paramount home computer system in Japan, South Korea, Argentina, and Brazil, with some very popular franchises, like Metal Gear, that started for it, but was also quite popular in Europe (except in UK), and specially in the Netherlands and Spain. ZX Spectrum was extremely popular in the UK, Spain and the Soviet Union (thanks to clones as Pentagon), as well as Amstrad CPC in western European countries. Due to its importance for bussiness and office purposes, and the increasal appearing of clonics that considerably reduced costs, IBM PC compatibles also represented a role in computer games market during 8-bit era, with most of games from other systems being ported for 4 colour CGA graphics. This situation started to change with the massive arrival of 8-bit Nintendo and Sega video consoles at most of homes, by the close of 80's, and the release of first 16-bit consoles, and 32-bit computers such as the Commodore Amiga and i386 or i486 with EGA, VGA and VESA graphic adaptors, by the second half of 80's and beggining of 90's, which is usually considered to mark the end of 8-bit era counterpart in the field of game-oriented personal computers." DeepQuasar (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that video gaming on personal computers was very big at the time, that is beyond the scope of this article, which only covers video game consoles. Video gaming on personal computers is covered by History of personal computers and History of Video Games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but History of personal computers article doesn't centre about third generation of video games, but about computers in general. And I'm including 8-bit era computer games in third generation of videogames because, as its own title says, the article is about the "third generation of COMPUTERS AND VIDEO GAMES", that is, gaming during 8-bit era of video consoles and computers oriented for playing video games. Actually, computers like ZX Spectrum were more commonly use for gaming, than for business or offimatics; thus, these kind of home computers were more often used like video consoles, than like computers. That's why I think video games generation articles should extend to computer games counterparts to video console games of the same generation. It's, besides, a good way for the reader to observe evolution of gaming in different system and platforms, and to contrast evolution of consoles with computer counterparts. You usually encounter games from a same generation are widely ported for both consoles and computers, thus, you have the same game, for exemple, Tomb Raider, ported for Sega Saturn, PlayStation and PC. This way, computer is often a serious alternative for video gaming, and it should be regarded as a gaming platform else with its own peculiarities and evolution, and its own gaming market in direct competition with that one in consoles.DeepQuasar (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Famicom to 2003?

How can this be right? Andre (talk) 21:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. Someone added the Famicom and certain other systems to every gen up to sixth until I and someone else cleaned up some of it up. All of these generation articles need to be cleaned up IMHO. Please note theres an ongoing discussion about the naming of these articles at Wikiproject CVG. K1Bond007 01:07, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

What makes a game a franchise?

I don't think some games like Kid Icarus should be on the list, considering they only had 2 titles or so. Otherwise, we would have to include many more game series on the list that only had 1 or 2 games, like Ikari Warriors or Startropics for example.

It does seem a bit overcrowded. I think a franchise would suggest that it still has relevance today, whereas a game followed up by a couple of sequels might not count. - Diceman 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Can we add Sweet Home? It's a Capcom survival horror game for Famicom(NES). Some people consider it the first game in the Biohazard/ Resident Evil series.

Dunno, maybe you could, I mean what I might be 100% wrong but I think a DC tilte called game Metropolis Street Racer (which I've played, good game.) is the predesor to Xbox game project gotham racing, so if that's the case, don't see not about Sweet Home being the predesor to Resident Evil. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Commodore 64 GS?

I don't recognise this console. How does it differ from the normal Commodore 64 that had a keyboard? Garglebutt / (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It had less connection options, less functionality, S-video, was only availiable in Europe and it's pretty hard to find. For some reason the C64GS doesn't play cart based C64 games without a lot of bugginess. GameJunkieJim 15:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did some of the consoles get chopped off? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.244.206.204 (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Didn't sell? The amstrad and konix are also not listed here.Halbared (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

NEC PC Engine

This console is wrongly listed as belonging to the "8 bit era", and should be removed. If you follow the link you will see that it is refered to as a "16 bit" console everywhere else

It had 2 Processors, one 16 bit just for graphics, and an 8 bit main processor. It was technically an 8-bit console, but it came out in the 16-bit era, and had 16-bit graphics. GameJunkieJim 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Games Computers

Shouldn't 8-bit games computers such as the Commodore 64 and ZX Spectrum be mentioned alongside these consoles, for completeness? Gp100mk 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]

They are not technically consoles, but neither was the Famicom, it evolved into one. The Commodore did that as well, with the Commodore Games System, I think they merit a mention though, since their main purpose was gaming. But it should be noted that they did function nominally as personal computers, and only as a side note. I think the Atari Computer line should also be mentioned. GameJunkieJim 15:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be mentioned also, but the whole thing is a bit iffy, because they don't really fit the description of video games consoles, in fact they don't really belong in anything properley, they were somewhere between computers and consoles, without those two computers included, there is pretty much no information for what was going on in Europe in the 3rd gen, as they were what Europeans were using to play video games at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.243.181 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought PCs were not game consoles, but gaming pcs seem to be a diffrent story, apparently you can hook them up to a tv, if you know you're tricks, though I won't speculate here, but I will say that the C64GS is difently a game console. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:7800.gif

Image:7800.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Game-gear-logo.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge the entire group into a single; edited article?

Judging from some of the comments here and on other related pages (and on various pedia-related boards) the separation of the games in this generation system doesn't quite work. Every REGION (not country) has a different way of looking at the releases; in terms of 'generation' there are no comparisons that directly correlate to all regions. Japan is actually on the 8th generation right now, as they started late and then blasted through 5-7 in a matter of two years. Europe could be argued to be in the 5th generation now.

Switching to the x-bit era terms won't work either. The handholds have ALMOST always been a step or two back. The TEP system was a 16-bit portable mixed in with other 4- and 8bit portables in the 16 bit era. And where do we place systems like the TEP (a TG16/PCE with a built in screen and compressed MB) and the Nintendo DS (Nintendo officially calls it a counsel on internal outside of the US). AND..... Depending on how you measure things there are just so many crossovers that it wouldn't be correct that way either.

How could we go about merging all of these 'generations' into a fluent article and ALSO creating a single Electronic Gaming page to cover Counsel systems, Computer Systems primarily used for gaming (C-64, Palm G, Amega), Cell Phone gaming era and table top games as well as Computer games and Arcade games. That could then branch out to other articles that currently exist and could be re-written to better flow into one another. If anyone is willing to take the time to work with me on various options to make changes and add more systems to the listed one (it's missing SO many) please let me/us know what you think.Lostinlodos 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever heard of this, is there any kind of source? I live in Sweden, and I didn't even know the Master System existed at the time. The NES was king, everyone had one (and/or a Commodore 64), Super Mario Bros was the only game people talked about and I never heard of anyone with a Master System. In fact, the first time I became aware of its existance was several years later when I asked someone if the Mega Drive was Sega's first console. --85.89.75.96 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I too would like some more info on this as it's popularity seems to vary greatly from region to region, I personally would've thought that the MS outsold the NES in Europe as it completely obliterated the NES in UK sales and the UK made up the largest part of the European gaming public at the time, but if the Master System failed in every other European market then the NES may have edged out the Master System in sales overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.24.5 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about this as well, also a Swede I didn't see a single Master System until around 1994 or so when I was at a friend's house and he had one next to his NES and his SNES. Pretty much all video gaming seemed to be about the NES in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.12.118.18 (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Europe has many different countries, so just because the Master System beat the NES overall, that does not mean it won in every country. From my experience in the UK, I can guarantee that the Master System was far more popular here than the NES, to the extent that the Master System continued selling for years even after the Mega Drive arrived. Considering how the UK is the largest gaming market in Europe, that would probably explain the Master System's overall lead over the NES in Europe. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Total sales, 7800?

Anyone got total sales for the Atari 7800, there don't seem to be any on this page, maybe I should find a link. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

All 8 bit consoles are 8 bit.

May I make it all 8 bit consoles, (releaced after '83 anyhow.) are third generation, so that includes the C64GS (which is on here.), the GX4000, all Famicom clones, ofcoarse the NES, Master System and 7800 and the SG1000 mark III (not to be confused with the SG1000 which is second gen.), I will be doing some major contruction on this article, so I thought I would inform ya all. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


America vs. the United States

According to this article, the Nintendo Entertainment System was released in the United States on October 18, 1985 and in America on February 1, 1986. Unless there was some kind of civil war in the 80s that I don't know about, America and the United States are the same country. Somebody should fix that. I'd fix it myself, but I have a hunch "America" might be referring to either North America or the Americas, and I can't be sure. –Cleveland Rock (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the standard abreviation used here for the Americas (South and/or North America). Hence seperate release dates from the US. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Epoch Cassette Vision

Is there a particular reason why the Epoch Cassette Vision is listed here instead of the 2nd generation? It came out pre-crash and has 2nd-generation level tech according to the article. Is there a compelling reason not to move it? Ace of Sevens (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Epoch Cassette Vision is second generation, but Super Cassette Vision is third generation, it came out several years later, was more powerful, and wasn't even backwards compatible with the original Cassette Vision. Super Cassette Vision shares a page with Cassette Vision, which is where the confusion stems from, it really should be split off into it's own page as they have as much in common as Famicom/NES and Super Famicom/NES. 124.121.237.174 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Nearly as pivotal as 3D graphics...

While 3D is a great feature on new consoles, it has yet to be proven as a pivotal point in game history. Still a good source for info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickO5 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Third Generation Did Not Mark the Transition to Scrolling Graphics

Currently this article makes the claim that the third generation represented a major shift in design paradigm in home video games through the dominance of scrolling games. While it is certainly true that by the end of this generation, single-screen games were a thing of the past, it is hardly true that the generation led this change. The move took place in the previous generation through the Atari 5200 (which featured hardware scrolling), the ColecoVision and Intellivision systems(both of which did not support hardware scrolling but still featured several scrolling games), and the Atari 2600 (which no one had ever dreamed could support scrolling when it was released but could be tricked into performing scrolling as well).

Between 1982 and 1983, the Atari 5200 supported ports of Defender, Jungle Hunt, Moon Patrol, Super Cobra, and Vanguard, which represents the majority of the scrolling arcade hits of the 1980-1982 period. During that same time frame, the ColecoVision featured a port of Zaxxon, another major arcade hit of 1982, Konami's Time Pilot, Taito's Front Line, and Universal's Cosmic Avenger, along with the original game B.C.'s Quest for Tires published by Sierra. The Atari 2600 received scrolling ports of several of the above games as well and was also home to original scrolling games like Empire Strikes Back and Spider Man from Parker Brothers and River Raid and Decathlon from Activision, not to mention ports of Data East's Bump 'n Jump and Nichibitsu's Crazy Climber. The Famicom, on the other had, was released in 1983 with three single-screen games, Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr., and Popeye. Six more games were released before the end of the year, none of them with scrolling.

If we extend the time frame to 1984, the Famicom received its first scrolling games, Mappy, Xevious, Lode Runner, and Excitebike. That same year, the Atari 5200 featured ports of Choplifter!, Zaxxon, and Astro Chase as well the original Activision game Zone Ranger. Meanwhile, the ColecoVision received ports of Bump 'n Jump, Choplifter!, and Spy Hunter, while the Atari 2600 saw Konami's Track & Field hit the system. None of this even counts forward scrolling games: the Famicom had one in 1984, F-1 Race, by which time second generation consoles had already hosted the hit racers Pole Position and Turbo and the shooter Buck Rogers from Sega. I also left the Intellivision out, but it received most of the arcade ports listed above and some original games such as a Masters of the Universe scrolling shooter.

Scrolling games became popular in the arcades in the early 1980s through shooters such as Defender, Scramble, Vanguard, Moon Patrol, Zaxxon, Spy Hunter, and Xevious. All of those games received ports save Scramble, though its similar sequel Super Cobra was ported and Scramble itself was ported to the more obscure Vectrex during the period in question, and Xevious, which was under development at the time but never released. There were few non-shooters that scrolled in this early period, but both Crazy Climber and Jungle King received ports. Arcades did not really start going for scrolling in platformers before Pac Land in 1984, so it stands to reason that second generation systems did not have a game like Super Mario Brothers or Mega Man since console makers of the day were following the lead of the arcade for the most part.

In short, there were well over a dozen scrolling games available on second generation home systems before there was even one on the Famicom, which did not have a scrolling game until it had been on the market for a year. To say that the Famicom was responsible for the transition to scrolling games in home consoles is demonstrably false and this information should be removed. Indrian (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Indrian, scrolling games were around long before this generation both in coin and console. You can of course go back even further than the early 80's arcade sampling that Indrian mentioned. Atari's 1978 games Fire Truck, Football, and Sky Raider (the latter of which was ported with scrolling to the 2600 as Activision's River Raid) both used vertical scrolling, and of course 1979's Lunar Lander has horizontal scrolling. That's just off the top of my head, I know there's a lot more. I think you could make more of the argument that side scrolling platformers specifically became popular in this generation, which is probably the intent that was meant. But not scrolling in general, the mechanic was in use long before any claimed shift in this generation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Like Marty pointed out above, I think what the IGN article really meant was that the NES established the side-scrolling video game format rather than scrolling in general (which, as already mentioned, arcade developers like Taito and Atari had been experimenting with since the 70s). It's pretty well known that it was Super Mario Bros. that popularized the side-scrolling format, so I think it would be accurate to credit the NES for establishing side-scrolling games rather than scrolling in general. As for hardware scrolling, I can't really seem to find anything on the Atari 5200 featuring hardware scrolling? Either way, the NES only popularized it on consoles rather than originating it (since the arcades already had it before). Nevertheless, I think we should probably only briefly summarize it as something like "this generation marked the transition to the side-scrolling format" or something along those lines. Jagged 85 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Defender, Scramble, Moon Patrol, Super Cobra, Vanguard, B.C.'s Quest for Tires, Jungle Hunt, and Cosmic Avenger are all horizontally scrolling games. The NES was the first console with lots of scrolling platformers. That's applying scrolling to a particular genre and achieving popularity rather than popularizing the concept of scrolling in general. Side-scrolling has been popular ever since Defender moved 55,000 cabinets in arcades in 1980-81 and sold three million copies on the Atari VCS.
Jagged - No, what I said was side scrolling platformers. Not side scrolling video games. The article most likely meant side-scrolling *platformers*. Likewise, SMB popularized the side-scrolling *platformer* format. Also, side scrolling games such as Defender, Moon Patrol, and others that Indrian mentioned were on both the Atari 2600 and 5200, and Colecovision as well. This generation more marked the transition to the side-scrolling platform genre/format, of which there of course was an abundance of on the NES and Master System. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
What I was referring to is the side-scrolling format popularized by Super Mario Bros, where a character moves from one side of the screen to the other, not horizontal-scrolling space shooters like Defender or Scramble. And that side-scrolling format was not restricted to platformers either, but also applied to other genres at the time such as beat 'em ups, run & gun shooters, and action-adventures. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, I don't see the point in pointing to earlier examples of side-scrolling games. The SNES and Mega Drive had 3D games, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the PS1 and Saturn that popularized 3D graphics on consoles. In the same way, it was the NES that popularized the side-scrolling format on home consoles. Besides, the time gap between the release of the Atari 5200 and ColecoVision and the release of the NES and SG-1000 is only one year, so I don't see the big deal. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm at a loss as to why this is turning so circular when everything has been very clearly laid out. You tried to incorrectly state "The third generation would mark the move away from single-screen or flip-screen graphics, which were more dominant in the previous generation, to scrolling graphics". Not side-scrolling, horizontal scrolling, diagonal scrolling, or anything in between. You stated only "scrolling". We clearly laid out how this was not the case, hence the illustrations of earlier popular games that all included scrolling as a major mechanic and showed a much earlier shift towards scrolling mechanics. Now you're stating "What I was reffring to is the side=scrolling format popularize by Super Mario Bros". Yes, so have we. Thats referred to as a side-scrolling platformer. Simply referring to everything as "side scroller" is not accurate either, as the move towards a side scrolling playfield and characters in coin-op and console was occuring earlier as we also already showed (by the popular game examples you stated you don't understand why we keep showing). If you want to state side-scrolling (horizontal scrolling) began dominating the genres of platformers, beat 'em ups, run & gun shooters, action adventures, and other specific genres during this time geeration, I could agree with that. That's a big difference from what you're currently trying to state, as both the mechanic and the listed genres were popular before this generation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
(I actually wrote the following at the same time Marty did and got an edit conflict, so some of this will be redundant to what he posted above) The big deal is that the source is making a claim that does not hold up to scrutiny, seeing as multiple popular scrolling games appeared on second-generation consoles. The MegaDrive and SNES had barely any 3D games and they usually required special hardware to implement. That is not even close to the situation being discussed here. By 1983, home consoles had multiple popular scrolling games. The NES did not have any until a year later (the system was released in 1983, but there were no scrolling games released that year). Your attempts to qualify the source are original research. The source talks about scrolling period, not side-scrolling, and it talks about a general move to scrolling graphics, not a move specifically to side-scrolling platformers (or run and guns or beat 'em ups or any other specific genre or combination of genres). In fact, the words "side-scrolling," "platform," (in terms of the genre) "Super Mario Bros.," and "character" appear nowhere in the source. How you can conclude that the article is really talking about "side-scrolling games that are not shooters" is beyond me. No one is arguing that scrolling was more common on the NES than it was on the VCS, or that the console hosted scrolling games in a greater variety of genres, but the claim you are trying to put into the article is that the "transition" happened on the NES and that it was a great leap forward. The transition happened in the previous generation and the simple act of scrolling the screen was not a great leap forward for the NES since it had already been done. Better graphics and animation, identifiable mascot characters, and worlds of greater depth are what separate NES games from those that came before. If you want to put any of that in the article with appropriate sources, you will get no argument from me. Indrian (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I never implied there weren't any scrolling games on 2nd-gen consoles, but that it didn't become popular on consoles until the 3rd-gen. One only needs to compare the best-selling games on the Atari VCS / Intellivision / ColeocoVision to the best-selling NES / Master System games to see the difference. Nearly all the best-selling 2nd-gen games, from Space Invaders, Adventure, and Pac-Man, to Donkey Kong, Pitfall, and E.T., were all either single-screen or flip-screen games. Even though 2nd-gen consoles did have scrolling games, they never sold anywhere as much as single/flip-screen games like those did. On the other hand, nearly all the best-selling games on the NES and Master System were scrolling games. This should make it pretty obvious that there was a transition that took place. As for the 16-bit era, there were plenty of 3D games at the time, like for example, Silpheed, Star Cruiser, Hard Drivin', Dirt Trax, Virtua Racing, Virtua Fighter, Star Fox, Stunt Race, Vortex, Winter Gold, etc. It's only when we compare the best-selling games on those systems to the best-selling 32-bit games that it becomes obvious to us that there was a transition to 3D in the 32-bit era. Otherwise, I could say just the same thing about the transition to 3D graphics as what you are saying here about scrolling graphics. Jagged 85 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you know that estimates place the number of video game cartridges sold at 60 million in 1982 and the number for 1983 at 75 million (These are US numbers, so none of that is Famicom)? Did you know that by November 1982 the Atari VCS featured five games that sold five million copies according to one analyst, all of them arcade ports, yet the list on wikipedia only lists one? The truth is, we have no idea what the sales situation was on the Atari VCS and other consoles in the second generation. What we do know is that popular arcade games tended to garner the highest sales, and several of the scrolling games mentioned above were popular arcade games. Oh, and one of them sold more than several games on wikipedia's list according to reliable sources, so that just goes to show once again how incomplete it is. As to your list of games, Virtua Fighter 2 was in 2D on the MegaDrive, while Virtua Fighter required the 32x, an additional and more powerful hardware; Star Fox, Stunt Race, Vortex, and Winter Gold achieved 3D by using an additional graphics chip not actually part of the SNES hardware, Slipheed required the Sega CD add on, Star Cruiser was an obscure port of a PC game, and Hard Drivin' was an outlier than showed exactly why 16-bit consoles were not ready for 3D. That is in contrast to the popular and well-known arcade games that were ported to the systems listed above such as Moon Patrol, Super Cobra, Pole Position, Turbo, Zaxxon, and Defender. Since Dig Dug, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, and Pac Man were also arcade hits, they were of course ported too. Same way Bubble Bobble, Arkanoid, Galaga, and Donkey Kong were all ported to the NES. There were no light bulbs going off in people's heads in 1983-84 with people seeing the NES and going "aha, single screen is dumb, we must scroll," game makers in the previous generation had already decided that porting or cloning popular scrolling games was a good idea. Indrian (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What were those five arcade ports for the 2600 you mention that sold five million? (I know Pac-Man would be one, but what about the others?) If you can show me some kind of source for this, then I'll gladly concede the argument regarding the popularity of scrolling graphics in the 2nd-gen. Jagged 85 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I was not being cryptic, honestly. Unfortunately, the analyst did not say what the games were. Judging from the timeframe, the games were probably Pac Man, Space Invaders, Asteroids, Defender, and one other game. It could not be Donkey Kong because it was still exclusive to ColecoVision at that point, which by the end of 1982 had only sold 550,000 units. My only point is that we actually know very little about sales figures from that period. Since 145 million cartridges were sold in the United States alone between 1982 and 1983, its most likely a statistical impossibility that some of the above games did not sell a million or two. Sadly, there are just no sales figures for individual games from that time frame, which happens to be when almost all of these scrolling games were released. We know Defender sold at least 3 million from an interview with the game's designer, Bob Polaro, in Retro Gamer. We know River Raid sold at least a million units. Several sources state that The Empire Strikes Back was a "best-seller," though I have not seen sales figures. Also, that Black Enterprise magazine that you used as a source for TI Invaders being the top-selling TI-99 game lists Cosmic Avenger as the second most popular ColecoVision game at that time behind Donkey Kong. Furthermore, almost all of the games listed above were high profile releases on mainstream hardware, while of the 3D games you listed above only Star Fox really meets that designation, which required special hardware as stated, and maybe Hard Drivin', which was a pretty wretched game that showed that 16-bit consoles were not ready for 3D. That is why there is realy no comparison between those two eras. Indrian (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the source you're referring to is probably this one? If so, then it doesn't specify the Atari 2600 specifically, but consoles in general at the time, so I would include Coleco's ports of Donkey Kong in that list as well. Nevertheless, assuming the five games were Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Asteroids, Defender, and Donkey Kong, the only one that was scrolling is Defender. This would pretty much be equivalent to Star Fox being the only multi-million selling 3D game on 16-bit consoles. Yes, scrolling games were very popular in arcades around the time of the 2nd-gen consoles, but 3D games were also very popular in the arcades around the time of 16-bit consoles (i.e. Virtua Racing, Hard Drivin', Daytona USA, Sega Rally, Virtua Fighter, Virtua Cop, etc.) and a lot of these games were ported to 16-bit consoles (even if they did often require special chips or accessories, that's besides the point). In other words, I still don't see that much of a difference between the two eras. Jagged 85 (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No, different source, and you are not paying attention. It cannot be Donkey Kong because the statement was made in November 1982, Donkey Kong was exclusive to the ColecoVision in 1982, AND the ColecoVision install base was only 550,000 by the end of that year. Donkey Kong did not reach six million in sales until later, does not matter whether the list was VCS only games or games on every console. Also, if you still don't see the gaping holes in your arguments, I really cannot help you. You can't make a sales figure argument when you have no idea what the unit sales were, and you have no idea what the unit sales were for second generation games, as there are no game breakdowns past 1982, a period when over 100 million cartridges sold in 1983 and 1984 combined, and incomplete figures for the period before 1983 (as proven by both your source and my source reporting numerous five million sellers). You also clearly cannot grasp the market difference. Virtually every popular scrolling arcade game of the early 1980s was ported to a second generation console, while virtually no popular 3D arcade games of the early 1990s were ported to a 16-bit console (and no, 32x ports don't count since that thing has 32-bit processors in it). Second generation consoles could easily accommodate scrolling either through the actual hardware (5200) or through programming (ColecoVision, Intellivision, and VCS), while 16-bit consoles needed special added hardware like the Super FX to do it properly (as the terribleness of the Genesis Hard Drivin' port demonstrates). Anyway, consensus is against you on this one, so there is really no need for me to continue this conversation any longer. Indrian (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Standard term

Is third generation a widely used term for this period?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This question doesn't violate "Not a forum" because it deals with the article's title. I want to know if History of video games (NES generation) is a better name. The later generation articles can also be moved to "SNES generation", "N64 generation", "GameCube generation", "Wii generation", and "Wii U generation". Georgia guy (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't use NES era since that would be emphazing one console which although was clearly the most successful in the era would be slightly POV. Even if we did change the title it would be better to use something more neutral like years etc.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
POV has virtually no bearing on article titles; see WP:POVTITLE. However, I'm 95% sure Georgia guy is just joking. His suggestions of "N64 generation", "GameCube generation", and "Wii U generation" certainly imply that he wasn't expecting to be taken seriously.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
What's the most NPOV title for this article?? Please reveal some web sites that use this term, and please make sure they are not Wikipedia mirrors. Georgia guy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To much inaccurate information pushing for a specific view on this page. Outline of corrections that should be submitted.

This article is a mess. I want to go over the many parts of the article here and show that a lot of the info mostly incorrect, POV, vague, or has references that are not actually showing what the text claims the reference is saying. I am going down from the top of the article to make easy to understand.

"In the history of computer and video games, the third generation (sometimes referred to as the 8-bit era) began on July 15, 1983, with the Japanese release of both the Family Computer (later known as the Nintendo Entertainment System, or NES, in the rest of the world) and SG-1000.[1][2] "

This is highly inaccurate. 1986 along with the SMS(MArkIII and 7800, is when the gen had started, especially if we are using the format wikipedia is using. It makes no sense to randomly only use 2 consoles form 1983 as the start of the 3rd generation. It also does not help there was no such thing as either around the time period. Especially in japan. One argument by a user here which is pretty poor is because the Famicom and the SG-1000 are basically NES and SMS. But why? Vectrex came out in 83 was is that 2nd generation on here? Other 1982-83 systems has hardware scrolling and tile-based graphics. Exactly why does the article randomly select Sega and Nintendos consoles for no reason? This makes even LESS sense when you look at the next sentence. Which says that "marked the end of the crash" what? 1983 marked the end of the crash? This whole area is completely poor.

"a shift in the dominance of home video games from the United States to Japan"

There is no actual proof of this whatsoever. This statement has been removed before. From what? When? Why is this here? Because someone just said it in a book/text from anecdotal POV? Hardware may be the only argument and even that does not make sense because despite the success there were more American systems this gen than Japanese system. Atari had 2 by there selves. Maybe 4th gen yeah but this?

"The best-selling console of this generation was the NES (originally known as the Famicom in Japan), followed by the Master System (which dominated the European and South American markets) and then the Atari 7800"

While I know we don't have complete XE game system numbers (Yet) selling over 2 million in its first year should probably qualify it to be listed.

"Although the previous generation of consoles had also used 8-bit processors, it was at the end of this generation that home consoles were first labeled by their "bits""

How is this relevant? I wasn't even this gen where it started with consoles (computers are a different story). It would make more sense to add this to the fourth generation page because that actually make sense. Something like "4th generation marked the start of using "bits" as a term for power." or something similar.

"the transition from block-based graphics to tile and sprite based graphics, which was a pivotal leap in game design.[1]"

I have looked at those who are in the video games project today, and this talk page, and I have to wonder if they just don't want to be consistent on every page. What transition? There are 2nd generation consoles that had this already. Why is this gen marked for something that was already being done? To say pivotal to game design makes even less sense. Especially when you involve computers, which aren't even needed to prove this is wrong.

"Hardware scrolling, enabling large multi-directionally scrolling tile-based game playfields."

Which was already done.

"This marked a shift in the dominance of home video games from the United States to Japan, to the point that"

None of the sources actually have PROOF of this actual statement. as pointed out above. Even on the NES that statement is quite incorrect.

"The popularity of the Japanese consoles grew so quickly that in 1988 Epyx stated that, coming from a video game hardware industry in 1984 that they had described as "dead", by 1988 the market for Nintendo cartridges was larger than for all home-computer software."

This should be removed. What does any of this have to do with japanese "consoles" growing so quickly? Didn't the very last few sentences before this, which is also wrong, just say that only one Japanese company was going strong and the other had less than Atari? Who btw had two systems, and I am doubting both were counted for the market share because the percents don't make sense. Also where is the source for Epyx saying gaming is dead when Epyx was always a home computer dev most of the time before and around this point anyway outside of a few 7800 and 2600 games? (and later Lynx)

"in 1989 Epyx converted completely to console cartridges."

This had nothing to do with japanese domination continuation this article is trying very hard to lean to instead of being neutral. if anything, Epyx moving the cartridges is related to Ataris success since that's where most of its consoles games were on in the first place.

"Nintendo sold seven million NES in 1988, almost as many as the number of Commodore 64s sold in its first five years.[6] Compute! reported that Nintendo's popularity caused most computer-game companies to have poor sales during Christmas that year, resulting in serious financial problems for some"

None of which has anything to do with the opening to this section. Japanese "consoles" with an "S" being so popular that all this was happening. This is only about one companies success. Nintendo's. Or at least through the medias eyes. Where is the stuff the was mentioned at the start of this part of the article? Nintendo is 5 companies now?

"By 1990 30% of American households owned the NES, compared to 23% for all personal computers"

Pretty sure that there were more "computers" at this point then "NES consoles in NA" unless they are only actually counting "PC's" which were not what home computers were called at that point. That would also be an unfair comparison because PC's were not the only Home Computers.

"The Atari 7800 also had a fairly successful life in the United States."

Yeah but we know nothing of the european success. Reports state the european success was strong. But because we don't know, this should not even bere here. To be honest,t his whole thing should be removed, because it is irrelevant. In fact, the choices of words almost makes the whole section biased.

"Sega was Nintendo's main competitor during the era in terms of market share for console units sold"

When did we get full accurate sales numbers for all consoles except 3, one of which is an estimate? And one of which is constantly debated?

"Sega's SG-1000 (which preceded Sega's more commercially successful Master System) initially had very little to differentiate itself from earlier consoles such as the ColecoVision and contemporary computers such as the MSX, although, "

Neither did the famicom. If you can't see why my claim of a lack of neutral view is correct. I have no idea what to tell you at this point. The NES was different because that was when Nintendo was starting to put more hardware on carts and used more bankswitching by 1987. Look at launch NES games, they don't look any better.

"despite the lack of hardware scrolling, the SG-1000 was able to pull off advanced scrolling effects, including parallax scrolling in Orguss and sprite-scaling in Zoom 909.[1"

And so did some other consoles around back in 1983.

"while the Master System would gain more dominance in the emerging European and South American markets."

I had no idea that we knew the sales numbers of other consoles in europe to declare based on no real factual information the SMS dominated in europe.

"Nintendo also introduced the Game Boy, which almost single-handedly solidified and then proceeded to dominate the previously scattered handheld market for 15 years."

Why is the Lynx not mentioned? And how is a ratio of 1 million units and 500,000 units the first year indicate the gameboy single-handedly did anything? In fact, on wikipedia, the gaemboy is put under fourth gen. Why is this information even here? Where is the Gamegear? Again, lack of neutrality.

"While the Game Boy product line was incrementally updated every few years, until the Game Boy Micro and Nintendo DS, and partially the Game Boy Color, all Game Boy products were backwards compatible with the original released in 1989. Since the Game Boy's release, Nintendo had dominated the handheld market. Additionally two popular 8-bit computers, the Commodore 64 and Amstrad CPC, were repackaged as the Commodore 64 Games System and Amstrad GX4000 respectively, for entry into the console market."

None of the game boy stuff is accurate to this article. In fact, the whole purpose of it being here is to lean as much POV toward Nintendo as possible. All gameboy mentions should be removed from this article, which is not even the same gen the device is categorized on wikipedia.

Why is the XEGS not mentioned in this article at all at this point? not even here where they do a brief mention of computer repackaged consoles?

"The third generation saw the release of many of the first console role-playing video games (RPGs)."

No it didn't there were role playing games on consoles before this. Maybe Jrpgs, but that was not even a thing yet in terms of name.

"Editing and censorship of video games was often used in localizing Japanese games to North America."

This only applies to Nintendo, and has no source.

"During this era, many of the most famous video game franchises of all time were founded that outlived the third generation and continued through releases on later consoles. Some examples are Super Mario Bros., Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, Dragon Quest, Metroid, Mega Man, Metal Gear, Castlevania, Phantasy Star, Megami Tensei, Ninja Gaiden, and Bomberman."

Why do I see MSX born games on this list pretending to have been introduced by Nintendo/Sega?

"he third generation also saw the dawn of the children's educational console market."

Didn't this already exist?

"Nintendo versus Sega"

This whole section was put here for no reason other than to shine a spotlight on two competitors before the RELEVANT competition between the two the next generation. Because it mentioned nothing else. It also implies a intense rivalry in NA (which sega was third in) and Europe (Where the NES was not exactly a player)

"Dragon Quest (NES) by"

YOU MEAN THAT MSX GAME? Because I don't recall dragonquest being on the famicom/NES first. It also was not ported to the MSX later as the page on wiki says (it also shows later that the page writers are not even sure.). It was made for it first.

"Metal Gear (NES"

You mean that MSX game? Why is it considered a landmark title for the NES? Especially since the NES version is a different game and has no stealth whatsoever?

"Final Fantasy (NES)"

Final Fantasy came out on the "NES" in 1987? What?

"The Legend of Zelda (NES)"

Zelda did not come out on the "NES" in 1986. That would be the famicom.

Well that's about it. This article needs severe fixing, less pushing, more neutral, and actual content that is related to what is is claiming. There is also a lot of unrelated information. Including some I did not even cover because there's too much. Some of this was actually discussed on this talk page but not even implemented for some odd reason. It's like the guys that frequent this article to provide accuracy only deal with some pages and remain inconsistent in others. KombatPolice (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, I have a few thoughts on this. The short version is I agree with several points you raise and disagree with others. I'll elaborate further below, but first I want to talk about Wikipedia generally, because your comments still betray a lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works. You express confusion about inconsistency between articles, but this is normal. Wikipedia does not have an editorial board or any organization that works to make sure that articles across a topic all convey the same messages. Users edit topics that interest them and content is added piecemeal by many editors which will naturally result in a lack of consistency. Even if one editor decides to make two articles consistent one day, another editor might change one of the articles a week (or month, or year) later. Anyway my thoughts on each point.
Console Generations: I actually agree with you on this one, but that ship has already sailed. Because several reliable sources have divided the console generations along the lines wikipedia does, we have adopted the same organization. Trying to change this would go against established consensus and I guarantee you would not get very far. Since Wikipedia works on consensus, it is impossible for every user to be happy with every choice.
Japanese Dominance: Total disagreement here, and this is sourced, so you should not change it without providing sources of your own. Nintendo and Sega between them had an 80% share of the market between them in 1987, and that number only went up. That is dominance by any reasonable measure. If you look at publishers, the only major US publisher on consoles was Acclaim (Activision had been big in the past and would be again, but was just struggling to hang on in the late 1980s). Konami and Capcom dominated. In the 16-bit era the success of both EA and Acclaim did change the picture significantly, but in the era under discussion here, there is no question the Japanese were dominant in hardware and software in the console realm.
Atari XEGS: So even sources we generally consider reliable get it wrong sometimes, and this is an example of that. Compute does claim 2 million sales in 1987, but this does not line up with other reliable sources. You may remember the USA Today article that you placed in the Crash article, the one that gives Atari's sales as 600,000 in 1986. The same article also states that Atari has said the XEGS has already sold out in early December 1987. The article then states that Atari Entertainment Division President Michael Katz told them that Atari will sell one million total game systems in 1987. I hope you can see the problem here. As the year is not over, Atari could have slightly exceeded that total, but the XEGS is already sold out. Therefore, if the XEGS really sold 2 million units in 1987, Katz would not be saying that Atari expected to sell only one million total systems.
Referring to consoles by their bits: I believe you are correct about this one. No one cared that this generation used 8-bit processors until more advanced systems used their more powerful processors as a selling point. I am okay with removing that.
Sprites and hardware scrolling: I agree on both points; the transition happened late in the previous generation. I have no problem with removing this.
Epyx Stuff: I agree that quoting Epyx on this stuff is not particularly helpful, and I am fine with removing it. One point you are confused on though: the "market share" referred to in these sources has nothing to do with hardware units sales. What it represents is the dollar share of all hardware, software and accessory sales for the systems from each company. So it's first and third party sales. The numbers make no sense to you because you think they represent something they actually do not.
NES versus computer households: Once again, you are reading this wrong. First, this only refers to computers in households, so any personal computer sold to a business is not part of this statistic. Second, it only applies to households that own a computer, not total units, so a household with two or more personal computers (if someone was using both a PC and a C64 in their home for example) would only count once. Finally, this is measuring market penetration, so it is the percent of households that currently have a computer in use. Therefore, if someone bought a TRS-80 in 1979, stopped using it in 1984, and never bought a computer again, that household would not be counted. Unit sales and household penetration are two very different things.
Sega as main competitor to Nintendo and SG-1000 stuff: We are in complete agreement here. The SMS did not sell as well as the Atari 7800 in the US, and Nintendo was not really trying to compete in Europe during the period. The statement is sourced, but one magazine stating in 1988 that Sega was a competitor says nothing about what the closest competitor was for the entire generation. Clearly the claim cannot be backed by the source. As for the SG-1000 stuff, I agree that the Famicom was also not that great a leap over the ColecoVision. It took expanded cartridge sizes and special support chips embedded in cartridges later in the decade to really set the NES apart from late second generation consoles.
Master System in Europe: Again, this comment betrays a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. We have reliable sources that state the Master System was dominant in Europe, therefore, we can take their word for it unless we have sources to demonstrate that this claim is not true. If you want to try and prove that the Master System did not dominate in Europe, feel free to provide some sources, otherwise the claims in existing reliable sources stand even if you cannot independently verify the numbers.
Handhelds: I agree that the handhelds do not belong in this article. You have your sales numbers wrong though. Nintendo sold five million Game Boys in 1990 versus Atari sales of 500,000 Lynx systems. That's a 10-1 advantage. Giving Atari any kind of credit for helping to create a handheld market would be incredibly POV as well as demonstrably false.
Nintendo versus Sega: Please feel free to kill this whole section for the reasons you gave.
Dragon Quest on MSX: This is out of left field and not supported by any reliable source. Dragon Quest was a Famicom game first. If you really have a reliable source that states otherwise feel free to provide it, but I would be genuinely shocked if you do.
Metal Gear: This on the other hand, I agree with. It's a landmark MSX game, not a landmark console game.
Final Fantasy and Legend of Zelda: This is probably a WP:COMMONNAME issue, though I am not sure. I don't care if you change the console to Famicom and Famicom Disk System respectively, but someone else might based on that policy.
So there are my comments on most of that. If I did not comment on a point, it probably means I have no strong opinion (though I might have missed a point since there were so many). Indrian (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Before I do anything i want to make sure everything is covered.

Console Generations: The issues with this is the whole thing is based on the 1986 releases. The 1983 releases were never formed of the 3rd generation. Otherwise, Vectrex and etc. are third generations systems. Add in the fact the Sg-1000 and the Mark III are complete different, and the NES used chips and bankswitching, that's pretty much were the "generational leap" started.

Japan Dominance:Both Atari consoles outsold the SMS in 1987. Acclaima and LJN among others, had moved a ton of game hardware. In fact, Acclaim and LJN had the majority of the games for the NES (in terms of NA releases) in 1987. The only example you have is Activision. Again, I see no proof of this.

Atari XEGS:I believe you are confused here. Even the official records show the 7800 passed a million, So I know that the statement is probably just a basic statement. It's also most likely he was not referring to the XEGS because earlier the XEGS (and later actually) was pushed as part of the 8-bit line and not made to compete in the console market. The XEGS was introduced to extend the computer line if I recall correctly. other sources from the same site that the 600,000 information is from also states "strong sales" in multiples of them, so it's most likely that the XEGS had nothing to do with the numbers you are thinking. Also, even with the buyback numbers, if we look at the 7800 sales as shipped to retailers and equal them sold under that, it would mean that since the 7800 was sols out at that time at least over 100,000 units extra were made before the end of the year. So again, that statement he made was probably just to say it instead of providing detailed figures. Especially since it was technically a prediction.

Others you missed. _______________________________________________________________

"None of which has anything to do with the opening to this section. Japanese "consoles" with an "S" being so popular that all this was happening. This is only about one companies success. Nintendo's. Or at least through the medias eyes. Where is the stuff the was mentioned at the start of this part of the article? Nintendo is 5 companies now?"

and

"Why is the XEGS not mentioned in this article at all at this point? not even here where they do a brief mention of computer repackaged consoles?"

and

"This only applies to Nintendo, and has no source."

and

"Why do I see MSX born games on this list pretending to have been introduced by Nintendo/Sega?"

You can find the part of the article I am responding to in the first post. I was going to post them again bu since this is the same section I figured that I would make this look like a confusing wall of text. So just use the first post I made as a guide. You haven't responded to these points yet. KombatPolice (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I may not have made myself clear above; what I said was that I might have missed commenting on a topic I cared about, but that if I did not comment on something specifically it most likely meant I had no real opinion either way. If you would like comments though, here is what I think of those last four points, which is basically just apathy: 1. I agree that there was not a "Japanese console boom," just a Nintendo one. I have no problem with the statement that is currently in the article comparing Commodore 64 and Nintendo sales, but it should not refer to Japanese consoles as a general category being extraordinarily popular. I also have no problem with the Commodore comparison being removed. I don't feel strongly about it either way. 2. The XEGS can certainly be mentioned with other repackaged computers. 3. The article says Japanese games often had elements changed. That statement is true. On the other hand, Nintendo forced American companies to change their games too. Therefore, the statement is misleading because it implies that games had to be censored because they were Japanese rather than because they did not conform to Nintendo's morality standards. Therefore, I can take it or leave it. 4. Sure, Bomberman and Metal Gear started as MSX games (Castlevania is sometimes claimed to have been on MSX first in its Vampire Killer form, but this appears to be incorrect), but the point that this sentence is making is that several franchises that first appeared on a console in this generation would continue to appear in future generations. Its a technically correct statement that I do not have a problem with. I also don't feel strongly enough about it to contest its removal. Others might though.
Now as to your responses:
Console Generations: We don't need to discuss this because I honestly do agree with you. What I am telling you is that there is a strong consensus on the generations that was achieved through multiple rounds of discussion back in the day, so I can tell you with certainty that those changes will not be accepted by the community. I think its pretty clear that the ColecoVision, 7800, Famicom, SG-1000, Super Cassette Vision, and probably even the MSX even though it is technically considered a computer really constitute their own generation of hardware in between the 2600/Intellivision and NES/SMS/PC Engine era, but that's not going to fly around here.
Japanese Dominance: You are looking at this wrong. Dominance is not measured in terms of number of releases, its measured in terms of success and influence. The majority of product being purchased was Japanese, driven primarily by Nintendo, Konami, and Capcom. Acclaim was the only major US publisher. I will say though, that having looked at the source being used to support this more closely, I think it is overreaching. It takes a huge leap to go from "no computer game companies are making console games in 1988" to "Japan dominates everything." I don't feel strongly enough about this one to fight it, so if you really want to remove it, I will not revert it again.
Atari XEGS: I am not confused here at all. In fact, the more I examine the issue, the more it seems clear that it is Curt Vendel's sales figures that are confused. First, if one looks at the actual files (not summaries posted elsewhere), the reports do not actually state what sales are being tracked. Vendel *says* they are 7800 sales, but there is no way to verify this from the documents themselves. Clearly they represent unit sales of something (since the words "unit sales" actually appear in the documents), but there is no way to tell what. Second, the price per unit is all over the place in a way that makes no sense at all. This will, of course not be uniform as bulk customers can be expected to get a better price and promotional deals and other factors will cause fluctuations too, but these appear far wilder than that. For example, in the 1987 figures Pace Membership Warehouse has 33 separate sales entries. One of them is for 36 units and $378 in revenue, a price per unit of $10.50, which is way to low for a video game system. Another one is for 208 units and $11,144 in revenue. That's a far more believable price of $53.58 per unit. But then there is another outfit, Ken's T.V. Service, that took 64 units for $785.20, or $12.27 per unit. A system where one gets a better price for taking less product makes no sense at all and implies that some of these lots are not 7800 systems.
None of that really matters though, because the figures in Curt's documents do not match the reported sales reality at all. In November 1988, Atari issued a press release commemorating the sale of its 26 millionth console, which contained the following line: "Since 1985, Atari has sold more than 3 million video game units." This includes the XE, as the press release very specifically calls it a video game system, saying "Atari is the only company to offer three video game systems -- the starter 2600 ($49.95), the arcade-quality 7800 ($79.95) and the highly advanced XE ($149.95)" and "Introduced in 1987, the XE is the most powerful video game system on the market." The press release also states that it is announcing figures based on "third quarter 1988 sales," so these are sales to October 1, which was the end of Atari's third quarter in 1988. So Atari itself unambiguously states that between 1985 and October 1, 1988, the company has only sold 3 million total video game systems. Its impossible for 2 million of those to have been XE systems in 1987, while based on Curt's figures these would have to be an equally impossible 60%-75% 7800s.
The press release also gels with other sales figures released in period newspapers. On June 13 1988, the LA Times stated that "since the second video boom took off 2 1/2 years ago" (which means January 1986) "Atari has sold 2 million systems." At the January 1986 CES, Michael Katz stated that Atari sold over 1 million consoles in 1985 as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 11. Put those two figures together, and you get to 3 million by June 1988, which jives perfectly with the over 3 million figure by October 1.
But wait, there's more! We also have the December 8, 1987 article in USA Today, which again specifically mentions the "XE video game system," so we know that the author is not treating the XE as a computer and therefore ignoring it, which states that Atari has already sold its entire production run of both the XE and the 7800 to retailers and expects to sell one million "home video game consoles" (so 2600, 7800, and XE, all of which are also mentioned by name in the article) for the year. The article also states that Atari could "sell 250,000 more if it had them" which means that this one million figure represents the entire stock they delivered to retailers (at least in regards to the sold out 7800 and XE; the article does say that it still has 2600 units available to retailers, so the final sales number may have been slightly higher than one million based on 2600 sales). The article also states that Atari sold 600,000 systems in 1986. All of this comes straight from Michael Katz. So again, by the end of 1987 you have one million in 1985 plus 600,000 in 1986, plus at least one million in 1987, or roughly 2.6 million by the end of 1987. This jives well with the claim of over three million sold by October 1, 1988 in the Atari press release.
So in summary, we have Atari stating directly in a press release that the company sold "over 3 million video game units" between 1985 and October 1, 1988, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that claims a million in 1985, an article in USA Today that claims around 1.6 million in sales in 1986-87, and an article in the LA Times that claims 2 million in sales between January 1986 and June 1988. All of these articles and press releases gel with each other perfectly and all of them (with the exception of the LA Times article) are quoting Atari sources directly rather than NPD estimates or the like. All of them also use generic terms like "game console" or "game system" rather than a specific console when discussing sales, while all of the articles released after the launch of the XE specifically refer to the XE as a video game system and are thus including it in the sales totals. Neither the Compute article with its claim if 2 million XE systems sold in 1987 nor Curt's documents that have been interpreted as 7800 sales figures jive with these reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The issues with this is that there is more than the Compute! magazine that quotes the 2 million "from atari" or "atari claimed" or stated that atari experienced strong sales since its introduction. The difference is that all the sources you have a parts of news paper inserts, while all the 2 million sources were monthly issues of magazines. So it's really hard to tell which is more reliable. I think more investigation is needed. I have already found several newer articles since your post that may help clear things out. KombatPolice (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is fair to say that we don't have a definitive answer yet and that more investigation is needed. Indrian (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

1983-2003? Nope.

It should be 1983-present , since the Sega Master System hasnt been discontinued in Brazil yet. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. A fairly clear consensus to use the more natural titles. While the discussion about citogenesis is interesting, I struggled to see the relevance to this move – either way the numbered generation in the title and simply putting it in a more natural format does not make it any more "official", especially to the average reader. Jenks24 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


– Move to natural disambiguation rather than parenthetical - and parenthetical of a somewhat misleading style, too, as these are subdivisions and not alternate meanings of "History of video game consoles." Additionally, "History" isn't really needed; these articles are really more general "overviews" of a generation. SnowFire (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This was mentioned and discussed on WT:VG, per above, and more to the point, all RMs are listed on the WP:RM list, so hopefully there's sufficient visibility. Is there some other forum you feel should be notified? SnowFire (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd say talk page on Video_game at a minimum. Honestly this request should have stayed on the Project talk page instead of being dropped here. Not everyone has the Generation pages on their watchlist. You want this discussion happening someplace with enough traffic to assure you had the best visibility. This is a change that literally touches every single video game page on the site. If you're looking for a large wiki perspective on the discussion, post a notice with Wikipedia talk:Categorization and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. BcRIPster (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
BcRIPster, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. This is a boring, everyday move request that as it stands looks like it's going to uncontroversially pass. This isn't fundamentally changing the current name at all; it's a very slightly different phrasing of the current title, just dropping history and parentheses. The "Categories" pages have approximately nothing to do with the current move request; note that Category:First-generation video game consoles already exists and would not change regardless of how this move request is closed. Note that the vast, vast majority of requested moves are merely listed on WP:RM where those interested in them can see them, including requests far more sweeping than this one on much larger and more developed articles. Additionally note that when a category would change name as a result of an article move, it's often done "for free" as an uncontroversial technical request, so even if the categories would change (which they won't), there wouldn't be need to have a separate CFD, much less notify Wikiproject Categories. Now, if you'd like to propose a radical restructuring - say to "8-bit consoles" or the like - then fine, but... Wikipedia editor's attention is valuable, too. This topic already has had way, way, way higher visibility than 99.99% of requested moves. There's no need to notify every noticeboard out there. SnowFire (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment: Requested moves almost always take place on the article(s) that's being moved, with the very rare exceptions generally being RFCs on fraught topics (e.g. all Ireland-related move debates happening on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration). So having a RM debate somewhere that isn't the article itself would be highly irregular IMHO.
  • The video game notification seems harmless enough, but I wouldn't overplay the importance of this move. It's not a radical restructuring or anything; the titles are staying basically the same, so it's not really changing "every single video game page." This is more an issue of WP:AT phrasing nitpicking; I'd be more interested in input from non-gamers interested in Wikipedia title policy, actually, than thinking this requires special video game expertise. (That said, it shouldn't hurt, so thanks for making the notification.) SnowFire (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. Like I already said, I think the general opinion supports a rename. I also realize I left the world "system" out of that statement about every page. It should have read "every single video game system page". Aside from the citogenesis discussion, I've seen this stir up people enough in the past to confirm there are some strong opinions in the mater (regardless if the original editor is no longer active or not). Good luck working this through. BcRIPster (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Not that the naming scheme isn't better, but I do believe that we have to worry about the fact that there is some citogenesis here. To the best of WP:VG's knowledge, Wikipedia approach to breaking down the generations this way, while partially inspired by the idea of 8-bit/16-bit consoles, led to the methodology to be adapted by mainstream sources, creating the loop. I'd rather not see us make the names "official", the parathentic form presently being a good way of suggesting these are working terms for WP rather than official names. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The tradeoff between simpler titles and the potential of legitimizing what might be OR that has achieved citogenesis is the issue here, and the latter par is what is more a concern than the difficulty of finding the article (Remember that redirects are cheap). But it might be too late otherwise, as if sources like the IEEE have adopted this terminology, we can't also put that cat back into the bag either, hence why it is a weak oppose. Without the citogenesis issue, this seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there guidelines about how to handle established citogenesis? i.e., console generations are already in common usage, so is there any reason to go against this "consensus between reliable sources"? I understand stopping citogenesis before or while it happens, but after it has already happened? Though I should note that the current bracketed article titles still describe "console generations," even if it is one step away from it. ~Mable (chat) 15:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, this is a terrible argument. If we change the page names it will require the language on all of the other pages to change to be consistent to follow form. This sounds like you're proposing "Do a little now and decide to do the rest later"? I do not agree and I'm leaning towards Oppose at this point if this is the direction this is going. BcRIPster (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not understand Insertcleverphrase's argument. Can you explain with what you mean with changing the names before proposing a "massive change"? ~Mable (chat) 10:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess I've just been around long enough to see the progression. It's way too much content for a single page and kept growing. As I said early on I'm personally not opposed to a renaming, but seeing other arguments here that it should only be these pages and not every other place in the wiki that references the content this way is what I have a strong objection to. BcRIPster (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, all places on Wikipedia currently refer to "console generations." The History of video games is the most obvious example to this. Is there any place where these topics aren't referred to as console generations? I feel like I'm missing a vital piece of information here... ~Mable (chat) 19:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It would appear these references have been getting changed over the last few months. There are some that I was aware of that are now reworded. It's different users so I'm not going to say there is any mischief afoot so I'll leave it at that. BcRIPster (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, because of semantics. These "Xth generation" articles are about the respective consoles appearing in said generation, including development and technological history of those consoles. So they're not about the history of the Xth generation, but about the consoles appearing in that generation. --Soetermans. T / C 10:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Third 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) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Third 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) 20:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sega SG1000 is a 2nd generation console.

The Colecovision is deemed to be a 2nd generation console because it came out in 1982 and competed with the Atari VCS and Intellivision (and Vectrex). However the Sega SG1000 is deemed a third generation because it came out in 1983 and competed with the Famicom.

However this makes no sense for two reasons.

1 - The Colecovision and Sega SG-1000 have the same hardware, same CPU, Graphics and sound chip. In fact the SG1000 has less video RAM so is a worse console then the Colecovision.

2 - Other third generation consoles like the Amstrad GX4000 competed against the Megadrive and PC Engine / Turbografx, so it can't be time based. Plus the PC Engine is an 8 bit CPU (like the Amstrad) and the Amstrad has more colours too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.125.16.65 (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistence with console articles

Please note – the table has huge inconsistences with the articles of corresponding consoles, for example, their introductory prices. NES has a stated price of $199, but the article states the price of a Deluxe Set of $179, and so on. Master System technical info was wrong too. Can someone verify and clean it all up? --Lone Guardian (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

SMS console war

To add the SMS/NES to the console war is misleading and deceiving, the SMS was not relevant and that section is doing nothing more than inflating the SMS status to make it seem like it was competition. it wasn't, we already have an article about Sega beating the NES in europe and a break down of the reasons for why that was, this section that I have removed is implying as if the Genesis/SNES consensual "console war" happened with the SMS/NES which is not true. Also the section is not supported by a "source" and only one source in that section even refers to the SMS and that's the IGN article, one that has already been deemed unreliable because of a large lack of refferences and the author putting in subjective opinions of how things happened as fact. but even excluding that he only used the SMS to set up for the Genesis. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Come on, it took all of 5 seconds in a Google search to find a reliable source that discusses SMS and NES competing against each other. I'm also confused as to where/how the IGN was whole deemed unusable? Its generally considered usable per WP:VG/S. Look, if you want to remove the link to "Console wars" or something, I don't care, its not a particularly a useful link if you click on it, or clean up the section a bit, sure, but wholesale deletion is not appropriate, its rather clear, along with sources, that SMS and NES were competing at the time. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
You're own source proves my point. it's an article about Sonic, which did not come out until the Genesis. The Nintendo Vs. Sega section is about making the SMS seem like it's in the same position as the Genesis was to the NES which is decieing there was no tension or "warring" going on with the SMS and NES. You basically dumbed it down to "they competed' which if that was the case we could add the 7800 in as well. Hell the article you linked barely even mentions the SMS it mostly just talks about the Genesis did you even look at your own link?
"Competing with each other" is not why i removed the edit, the section is not relevant, it only intentionally makes the SMS seem like it started some kinf of big competitive war with the NES when it didn't. Heck the section doesn't really say anything about "Nintendo versus Sega" at all it just says the the SMS sold well in europe. Okkk? Then it says the NES has games on lock-down, and that they stopped the manufacturing of NES consoles in 2007. Ok??? This section just veers off on its own and brings the focus of the whole article to a screeching halt. The whole point of why this section was added was to act as if this was some extension to the Sega vs. Nintendo console war with he Genesis and the SNES which it's not. it's misleading and deceptive. SMS Vs. NES was no big deal, there's no articles from back then talking about some super tense competition between the NES and SMS, and you're crude interpretation of the what the section was really trying to say doesn't make sense either because it only focuses on the SMS and the NES as if there was close fierce competition and significant rivalry while the reality is the SMS was a distant second/third place and there was no console "war" between the SMS and NES. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Please bother to read my source:
But Nintendo was Goliath. The Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was the biggest game console on the planet. Thirty million American households owned one and they were so prevalent that the word ‘Nintendo’ was synonymous with the medium. You didn’t play video games … you played Nintendo. Sega was nowhere. Its Master System – designed to compete with the NES – had barely made a dent. “We officially claimed that Sega had 10% market share and that Nintendo had 90%,” recalls Shinobu Toyoda, who joined Sega of America in 1989 as executive vice president, having been hand-picked by Sega president Hayao Nakayama to be second in command. “The truth was, Nintendo had 94% market share with their NES system. Sega had only six.”
Again, like I said, I'm all for cleanup - remove the term "console wars" or tweak wording. But the heart of the matter is that they were competing. Deleting wholesale is crude and sloppy. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I did read your source. The title and the way the section was written makes your point irrelevant. it was dressed up to make the SMS seem more significant than it was relative to the NES. Implying there was a tense "console war" and battle. I know they "competed" so did the 7800. that doesn't mean anything by itself.
However, i did edit the section as you recommended. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't stress enough that I do not care about whether or not the term console war is used here or not. My objection was the complete deletion of the entire section, and my source was to show that the content could be fixed through better wording and sourcing rather than outright deletion. Rhank you for now restoring most of it. The title "Marketplace Challenges" is kind of awkward though, it doesn't seem like a great title in relation to most of the content related to Nintendo, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Your recent edit included a link that assumed Atari wasn't in the market and gave a 94% marketshare to Nintendo and a 6% marketshare to Sega which is impossible (outside japan), and it's made worse that they were referencing NA marketshare which Atari has a higher percentage than Sega.
You did specify NA, however this source doesn't make sense. Not only is the 7800 excluded from the claim, but Atari had a higher marketshare in NA than Sega. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I've reworded it to make it more clear that the statement was merely a breakdown between Nintendo/NES and Sega/SMS. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
This still doesn't make any sense and clashes with the rest of the section. I'll replace it with the more reliable NYT report and court case info which gives us a percentage for all three major consoles. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Both are fine for inclusion - they're 3 years apart. There's no valid reason for removal - the content is straight from Sega employee that was published in a reliable third party source. Not ever stat needs to include Atari. Feel free to tweak but stop removing it outright. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes it does if there's an alternate source that has all 3 (like the 88 la times article citing similar ratios at the NYT one) and following your 1989 statement with the NYT one makes the section seem slightly redundant. Remember this is the Third Generation topic, and this section is about the marketplace. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely not "redundant" to have stats on market share 3 years apart from one another. And both stats are clearly about aspects of the 3rd gen market share. Your reasoning is ludicrous, you're being needless difficult at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
No you're being biased and unreasonable. We have sources we can add around the same time that includes all three, and I will be adding that as soon as we find the link. It is also a much more reliable source. but we'll keep your edit until i do. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
My source is straight from a Sega representative and published by a third party reliable source. It's plenty reliable. And you have no reason to suspect me of being biased. I found a source and added it. Please assume good faith and stop stop casting aspersions. I have no motivation or reason to be "biased", nor do you have any reason to suspect me of being biased. Feel free to find more sourced statements on market share though, that's good info for the article and I find the information particularly interesting. But stop removing sourced content. The generation spanned many years. It good to have lots of snapshots of the market share. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying your source isn't reliable, I'm saying there are significantly more reliable sources for NA marketshare. But anyway it's fine. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you identify for me which source you're referring to here? Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_generation_of_video_game_consoles/Archive_1&oldid=1174793203"