Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles

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

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

Not yet. There's a ton of discussions around about this, but basically, reliable sources aren't consistently calling them 9th gen, so neither should we. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Then in this case, why is the Switch not on THIS article? Devann (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Nintendo Switch should be added as an eighth generation console in the category of "hybrid consoles". It's clear that Nintendo will respond to PS5 and Xbox 4 with a more powerful Switch successor. Everyone here is just waiting the events to happening, a good decision in my opinion. --79.45.240.84 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it also hasn't been classified as 8th. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. There's a ton of discussions around about this, but basically, reliable sources aren't consistently calling them 8th gen, so neither should we. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well if it's not an 8th Generation Console than isn't it a 9th Generation Console — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:403:3f70:f198:290:6391:e04a (talk • contribs)

No, the next set of consoles may be called a half-step, or there may be no more generations altogether. We don't have any type of consensus in sources yet. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We can rule out "no more generations" ought right because the "Switch" is a clear iteration of some kind beyond the "Wii U." Sleyece (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there's another recognized "generation of consoles" in a general sense. Many past generations contain multiple product iterations from a single vendor. -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. Sleyece (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be too early for a ninth generation page because nothing as been announced for the Ataribox like it specs except from what a pre-rendered image has shown. The Nintedo Switch is still up in the air at this point as to what gen it belongs to and most likely won't be resolved by reliable sources until all manufacturers has their "next generation" products out on the market. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The generations as we classify them today are partially a construct of original research conducted here on Wikipedia. Only a couple of older sources use numbered generations, and even then neither source agrees fully on how those generations should be numbered. Wikipedia most notably fused all pre-Crash of '83 cartridge-based systems into a single generation despite no reliable sources doing so (the older sources split the Intellivision, ColecoVision, and Atari 5200 into their own generation separate from the 2600 and other systems released in the 1976-78 period). The current system is basically a product of violation of Wikipedia rules that just happened to stick because it worked, because, from the NES & Master System to the PS4 & XBO, the generations were fairly discrete. Gen 1 systems are Pong machines, Gen 2 was pre-crash cartridge-based consoles, Gen 3 was the NES era, Gen 4 the 16-bit era, and so on.

Now we have the Switch launching in the middle of an ongoing generation and because of that unprecedented release timing nobody can agree on how it should be classified. Some say "It's 9th gen because it follows the Wii U, which was 8th gen," while others argue "It's 8th gen because its still nominally competing with the PS4 & XBO, which are 8th gen." The media has been no help, because not only can nobody agree, they largely don't use numbered generations, and when they do, it's always been in the time since the "Wikipedia Consensus on Generations" was formed. They used to use bits ("16-bit era," etc.), then stopped doing that around the time the PS2 was released. But as long as Nintendo continues to run on shorter generations than PlayStation and Xbox, there's going to be confusion because there is going to be no consensus and no sources to help.

What I think will eventually happen is that either A) Wikipedia stops including Nintendo in generational articles, B) in a few years a determination will be made on the Switch's classification based on the release timing of its own successor, or C) Wikipedia will stop using generations altogether for forthcoming systems. But until then, the Switch will not find a place in any page dedicated to a specific console generation. JGoodman (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

b) and c) are possible, a) is not. a) is essentially omitting information for convenience, which will not happen on this site. JGoodman, you also left out the, still very real, possibility that the Switch is 9th gen. Sleyece (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Please see previous conversations on this. It's too early to do any of that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to start planning to just get rid of the "generation" concept. It feels more and more like original research. I don't honestly know that the use of the "generation" concept would be so widespread if it hadn't been embraced here. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

History wise, "generation" had been established before WP, with the 8-bit and 16-bit generation. It is just our fault that we opted to try to do "1st"/"2nd"/etc. to classify the post-16-bit generations into nice groupings, which took off in the media.

As a random idea, and by no means perfect, we could have a "Current generation of video game consoles", which we know presently includes those in the 8th gen (this page), as well as consoles that have yet to be classified like the Switch, Ataribox, and others. If/when the Switch is named 8th/9th we can move things around as needed, but we'd always have a placeholder article that succeeds the last numbered generation that we can drop stuff into in anticipating of moving later. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The template organizes it as "Other generation", and Switch is currently listed under that as a Hybrid console. Current may not always be accurate. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully recognize that a "Current" generation articles needs constant upkeep as time progresses, so it's not a great solution but at least drops the Switch + others onto the timing. A question is that do we have any consoles besides the Switch that fall into this "other generation" classification, and more specifically anything ~pre-2015? I just feel if we can have a vague-enough landing page that the Switch can be included on and amended to the timeline, we'd avoid all these questions. We'd have to be 100% clear that units on this page are only included because they have not been properly classified into the numbered generations. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There are currently 18 consoles in the "Other" category, including the two Classic NES/SNES releases as dedicated consoles. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, that won't work. I feel though we'll head off a lot of questions if on this 8th gen page we have some section dedicated to consoles made after 2012 that are not classified by reliable sources. Not necessarily listing off full specs, but just an awareness that on a time-scale, these consoles technically fall here, but in terms of generation we don't know. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The Switch is not the only problem, IMO. The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X already push the definition of what it means to be current vs next gen. And heck, maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's just a single adjustment for 4K and they'll revert to regular generations soon enough. But I just find it hard to believe that the ninth gen will see all the major manufacturers release new hardware around the same time. Maybe that's the "solution"? Consider the Switch a one-off for now and see what happens with the next releases? Can't hurt to try to plan ahead, though. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that I would support Masem's idea here, i.e. briefly mention consoles that were released in the 8th gen timespan but without necessarily tying them to the 8th gen. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The generations system is certainly flawed, but I don't really like the idea of putting the Xbox One X somewhere separate when Microsoft says things like it's not a "half step" or "new generation". Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, maybe my wording was a little misleading. I don't think the Xbox One X belongs in a separate generation; rather, I think its existence suggests an end to the entire generational concept. It seems like manufacturers are moving away from huge, new console releases every few years, and toward iterative updates to a similar platform every 2-3 years.

Here's an idea: maybe we just drop the "generation" branding from article titles. Instead of "Eighth generation of video game consoles," we say "History of video game consoles (2012-present)," and in the opening say something like "commonly referred to as the eighth generation." Wicka wicka (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Depending on future hardware releases however we might definitely have to come up with a subsequent category that isn't numbered, or is along the line of "8th generation of consoles and subsequent developments". Although one might argue that the half-gen models that are being released are reminiscent of the 4th gen console add-ons situation.

In the meanwhile however I still feel like the release time of the Switch will be favorable to its inclusion in the current gen, regardless of how we will end up naming it.SteelSkin667 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well no, my suggestion would never involve using numbered generations as the name of the article. All articles would be defined solely by timespan, e.g. "History of video game consoles (2000-2010)." And if that timespan also has an established, well-sourced name, such as "fifth generation" or "16-bit era," we can simply include that in the first line (e.g. "frequently known as the 16-bit era"). But we'd never HAVE to do that. The only thing we'd have to do is agree on what timespans to divide the articles into, and I don't think that is considered original research. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to come up with a plan for repealing the generations concept. Efforts were lengthy and fruitless when we tried back at the end of the 7th gen. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that...I don't really have a plan, nor am I trying to say anyone has done anything wrong, or that I can do better, just that I don't see how we can continue doing what we're doing. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The main issue in repealing the main generations concept is that there would be too much rewrite. The model still mostly works for past products (albeit with some glitches like the 32X), as there were still clear generation jumps up until the 8th, with actors referring to their products as "next generation".SteelSkin667 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There would be very little to rewrite, IMO. It'd mostly just involve renaming articles and removing a few references to "generations" where they might not be supported/accurate. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Renaming things and removing inconvenient information never works out here. Sleyece (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The dedicated consoles could just be included in an "other console" section of their respective generations with a note that these were just released during that time frame. Some of the generation articles already have that section. While the article for some like V.Smile has "sixth generation" listed in its infobox. One idea that I have is we leave the 1st-8th generation consoles as they are and for now just create an article that is titled "History of video game consoles (2016-present)" which includes all of the current/upgraded models available at retail like the Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 Pro, Xbox One X while the PlayStation 4 Slim and Xbox One S can remain with the Eighth generation of video game consoles for the time being as they are just revisions of the launch models. The new article titled "History of video game consoles (2016-present)" can be very clear that PS4 Pro and XOne X are eighth generation consoles while the Switch currently isn't part of a generation (due to reliable sources not clearly placing it in a generation at this time). That way if the whole "generation" classification goes by the wayside in the future then we already have a new way of naming future periods while leaving the established generations alone. If reliable sources classify the Switch as part of the 8th generation then this new article can just be integrated back into the 8th generation article at that time. However this new article would resolve some issues for the time being. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see an example of the proposed article I am suggesting I created a rough skeleton draft in my sandbox.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like the proposals/layouts that shows that the Switch is specifically competing against the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X opposed to their regular counterparts. We don't know what will happen with the One X, but at least the the PS4 Pro, that really hasn't been the case, with the regular PS4 still being the primary version in regards to sales and promotion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Well to be far though the sources really haven't compared Nintendo to Sony/Microsoft since the sixth generation. Since Nintendo introduced the Wii while Sony/Microsoft introduced the PS3/Xbox 360 most of the sources have put Nintendo in a class of its own and regularly compare Sony/Microsoft against each other except when Sony/MS introduced their motion controllers. My idea was just a way to rectify the issue that Nintendo's console isn't fitting into the whole "generation" thing by the sources and going forward maybe separating the history out by periods instead of "generations" while keeping the previous eight articles in their current state. The thing is if the Switch was classed as "eighth" gen by sources we would have to redo that massive table in the 8th gen article to fit it in. My idea was to kinda separate the 2016-17 systems out of that article and into their own leaving the PS4 Slim / Xbox One S in the eighth generation article since they are just revisions of the original hardware and were not substantially changed. Something has to be done otherwise this debate will keep happening until we are in the theoretical 9th generation. To me this just seemed like the easiest route based on the sources that are given. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If sources were going to compare the Switch to either version of the PS4/X1, they would have done it by now. All specs for all systems are well known. They haven't (best I can see). It's why forcing a comparison by just having a untitled generation page is a problem. I fully appreciate that there's a need as a tech nerd to put the Switch in a table with the other consoles to see how the specs line up, I totally get that, but unless we're doing it across the board for all major console systems (eg removing any selectivity bias), or otherwise aligning with how sources do it, we're doing a bit of SYNTH in original research to make that comparison. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Masem, What do you mean exactly by "SYNTH" of the original research? Sleyece (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. -- ferret (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As a gross example, imagine if I put the N64 specs against the original Xbox specs (which I don't think anyone else in the world has ever done). Obviously the Xbox specs are going to look super great compared to that, and that's going to give a false impression that the Xbox is a better system. (Some may argue the N64 was otherwise much more enjoyable of a console). That's synthesis there. We can compare the XBox One to the PS4 to the Wii and Wii U as others have already made that so while the same conclusion can be reached that the Wii's are weaker systems, its not us introducing that idea. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Innovation is not limited to raw tech specs. Switch may have a less powerful CPU than ONE or PS4, but there are some things a hybrid console can do that the others cannot. The "Ataribox" has been suggested to be a hybrid in other ways (classic and current generation content). Maybe hybridism is the defining characteristic of 9th gen. It's not really up to the users to decide which innovations matter for generational purposes. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no idea to introduce the Switch is less powerful than its contemporaries One or PS4. There are reliable sources stating that clearly. Even for Switch's article it states "The Switch competes on the console gaming market with contemporaries Sony PlayStation 4 and Microsoft Xbox One" in the lead in. The whole idea of the article I proposed (which I wish I didn't now) is a temporary fix/compromise to the whole generation thing since the Switch doesn't fit within either an 8th generation or 9th generation article based on reliable sources. The idea was to take ALL consoles (home/handheld/hybrid/dedicated) released from November 2016 - present and place them into their own overview article. The reason why Switch is grouped in with One X and PS4 Pro is based on how Nintendo is treating the Switch which is a home console first that you can take anywhere with you. I am not introducing WP:SYNTH with this idea because if the Switch was considered 8th generation by reliable sources then one of the following would happen:

• It would be placed at the end of the table for home consoles so its layout would be: | Wii U | PS4/Slim/Pro | Xbox One/S/X | Switch | or
• An entire new "Hybrid console" section for just the Switch only would have been created

So when I came up with the idea for that article it was with the intent of treating the Switch just like Nintendo is doing (a home console first). If the whole objection to the article is that the Switch is being compared to One X and PS4 Pro then separate the Switch from home consoles into a section called hybrid consoles like this. My intent was to discuss if an article like what I proposed could work in the meantime as a resolution to solve the whole 8th/9th gen debate for both the Switch and the Ataribox (if it ever gets released) not about introducing original research. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think you understand the core problems at hand here. A mere rename doesn't address hardly anything. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the "generation" concept is tenuous at best. My solution is to stop using that concept and replace it with timeframes. There is no original research involved with saying "these consoles were released between these two years."

I get the feeling that you've spent so long telling people "this can't be solved" that you no longer want it to be solved. If that's not the case, please explain to me why this doesn't solve the problem. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

By all means, make an actual proposal (what years you'd use, which systems you'd include in each one, etc) and start up an WP:RFC on it. See how it goes for you. Perhaps then you'll understand. Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that users CAN'T remove inconvenient information for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Generations were used for the entire existence of consoles, and now that a single generation is blurring the lines, some users here want to throw out generations all together. I don't want to be a dream killer, but I promise, WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. Please, to all the users in this section who are suggesting the "solution" is to throw out generations entirely, reconsider that position -- Sleyece (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to point it out if you've seen it, but I haven't noticed even one single user suggesting that we throw out generations entirely. I, personally, have very clearly stated that we should continue to reference generations where they can be authoritatively sourced, just not in page titles (as that forces us to only create new pages when we can source a new generation, which is less and less feasible). Wicka wicka (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Sergecross73 is not being "rude and disrespectful" to you. @Wicka wicka:, you are continually suggesting that users erase or ignore information. This is not acceptable for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. What is "less feasible?" I assume there are sources to back that claim. Please, share. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we erase or ignore information, so please don't lie about what I've said. And the problem with continuing with generations is that there aren't sources to authoritatively define them. In fact, Wikipedia frequently becomes that source, which is not what it's supposed to be. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've read some more of your comments here, Sleyece, and I sincerely can't tell if you are extremely confused about what's being proposed, or if you are intentionally lying in an attempt to undermine a solution you don't like. If it's the former, I apologize for accusing you of lying, but if that's the case, ask for clarification. Don't just run around saying "YOU ALL WANT TO ERASE GENERATIONS!!!!!!!!" when that is patently false. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to me, I don't know how you're coming off as so offended. You told me I was being too negative. So I gave you a "Fine, go try it see for youself and see". Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So, Wicka wicka, I'm either lying or stupid? I don't appreciate either accusation. I respect WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73, you repeatedly say this idea won't work, and yet you never explain why. Please explain why you think it won't work, instead of dismissing me outright. To suggest that you were being sincere in suggesting that I "go try it and see for yourself" is laughable, and again, I am shocked that an admin behaves this way. Please, for all that is holy, stop doing this and just tell me where you think the problem is. Then, hopefully, we can move forward this conversation productively.

Sleyece, I didn't call you stupid, so you are now literally lying. You keep arguing against our suggestions by claiming people are saying things that they are objectively not saying. If you have misunderstood our suggestions, that's fine, that certainly doesn't make you stupid, but please show some good faith and simply ask us to clarify what we mean. You have not done so yet, and instead you repeatedly build strawmen. Furthermore, I don't understand your obsession with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is of no relevance here. No one just doesn't like "generations." The concept itself is broken and unsustainable. It's like you involved yourself in a conversation without reading any of it. The reason this topic gets brought up again and again is because these generational articles are difficult to source and come very close to being original research. These are huge problems that need to be addressed, and they have nothing to do with what anyone does or doesn't like. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, you said "It's like you involved yourself in a conversation without reading any of it." For the record, I started the conversation. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sleyece, please then scroll up to the very beginning of the conversation and read JGoodman's comment about how generations are defined. It should provide a neat rebuttal to your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument - in short, it's not because we don't like it, it's because we have to. I doubt there will be continued disagreement here if you would simply pay attention to what's being said. Be open to the fact that you may be wrong, don't just argue for the sake of arguing. This whole current thread was started by you claiming that we want to "remove inconvenient information," but that has objectively never been suggested. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can have a productive discussion about how to move forward. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka:, I responded to JGoodman's comment more than a month ago (September 14). -- Sleyece (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And now we have a reliable source categorizing the Switch as "current-gen" along with the PS4 & XBO: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171019005513/en/Nintendo-News-Nintendo-Systems-Claim-Two-Thirds-September. While it's not much, we basically have both NPD and Nintendo's own PR placing the Switch in the ongoing generation and not in a new one, so unless we require more sources, I think we can call this one "Switch confirmed 8th Gen." JGoodman (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Press releases are not good sources to use for this, particularly Nintendo's. The generations are defined by how the rest of the media groups them, not how manufacturers do. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

To be fair the media usually goes off how the manufacturers PR spins the machines. If it wasn't for Sony and Microsoft clearly specifying that the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X were part of the current gen then the media would have put them into the "next gen" grouping. Since NPD is classifying the Switch as a current gen system that should have significance since the media will follow what the sales reporting agencies classify these systems as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Very tentatively, I'd say NPD is pretty strong for sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not just Nintendo PR. NPD themselves call it "current-gen." See: https://venturebeat.com/2017/10/23/september-2017-npd-super-nes-classic-was-the-top-selling-hardware-in-september/. The media in general never really used the numbered generation scheme, which, as I mentioned a couple of months ago, is in its current form at least partially a product of original research here at Wikipedia. Some articles in the media did refer to last generation as "the Seventh Generation," but that was well after Wikipedia started to refer to it as such. Prior to last generation, there were no references to specific, sequentially numbered generations. They referred to the NES & SMS as 8-bit, the SNES & Genesis as 16-bit, and the PS1, Saturn, and N64 as 32- & 64-bit, then they just kind of stopped using the "bits" thing starting with the Dreamcast. Fast-forward to today, and the media still doesn't really refer to the current generation as "the Eighth Generation," aside from a couple of isolated cases. The only primary sources predating the "Wikipedia consensus" on the issue that have numbered generations don't even match Wikipedia's system, or each other, for that matter.

Long point short, the NPD, essentially the sales tracker in the U.S., classifies the Switch as being in the same generation as the PS4 & XBO. There really haven't been any other reliable media sources assigning the Switch to either Gen 8 or Gen 9. NPD is a reliable source if there ever was one, and their data is used by all of the Big Three as well as third parties. We're not likely to get anything better than that, what with the video games media and sales trackers largely ignoring the numbered generations scheme used here at Wikipedia (it's used primarily in discussion forums). JGoodman (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

An idea of a solution that I've had is to recognize that when it comes to "Generations" it generally only refers to the home consoles (not portables), and only to make cross-comparisons against the major players in those generations. Thus if we recognize that when we say, for example "7th Generation", that is explicitly the family of consoles of PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii. Nothing else. If we limited the content on the "generation" pages to only those consoles that are frequently set in those generations, and moved all other existing content in the "generation" pages to broken-out timeline page, roughly split on the onset of each generation, then we have a way to move the Switch/etc. into the last of those generations. In other words, we'll have twice the number of console pages, but one set will specifically be focusing only on the "generation" idea, and less about the other events happening in that period. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest having Generation 8.5, with the Switch, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. Two half-step consoles and one replacement. The generations thing isn't perfect but it's better than crud like "128-bit Era" Nukleon (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Show us reliable secondary sources that call it "Generation 8.5". I've never seen a source use that though. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any reliable sources calling it "Generation 8.5" the closest we are getting is sites calling it "current generation" with PlayStation 4 & Xbox One as a whole grouping the Switch in with the existing two consoles. After looking at Google searches these are the only sources I have found that puts Nintendo Switch in the same generation as PlayStation 4 & Xbox One and most of them are going off of the NPD Group reports (typical keywords: top selling current generation console hardware) :

• WP:VG/RS verified RS: VentureBeat, TechRadar article about L.A. Noire coming to current-generation hardware including Switch
• Commonly acceptable RS (non video game specific): Fortune, BusinessWire/Nintendo PR, WTVY NBC Dothan, Alabama Affiliate/states source is from NBC News
• Platform specific sources not verified by WP:VG/RS: Nintendo Everything
• General gaming article that implies Switch is in same generation as PlayStation 4: TechnoBuffalo
• Sources deemed by WP:VG/RS to be situational when it comes to contributor articles: Forbes
• General sources that I'm unsure about: TheStreet.com, Twinfinite List of current generation consoles by exclusives, consoles mentioned Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, PlayStation Vita, PlayStation 4, Nintendo 3DS

So pretty much its up to the community at this point if these sources justify changing the established consensus of "wait and see" in respects to seeing where RS place Nintendo Switch. We can't just create a "Generation 8.5" article here because that is jumping to conclusion and we don't want a repeat of Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents (see History of video game consoles). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Since no one is aware that the Nintendo Switch is an eight gen or a ninth gen, could I add this to the article:

The failure of the Wii U lead Nintendo into creating another console, the Nintendo Switch, though it's unclear if it's considered a new generation or part of the eight generation.

SansUT (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, in general, its best not to make statements of which its only purpose is to declare something unknown. If it's not known, then don't state it. It's also not necessarily the Wii U's failure that makes it hard to classify. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "failure" part. Whether the Wii U failed or not, they would create a successor anyway. And the Wii U didn't just fail like that, so your addition felt like a biased comment by a Nintendo hater (I'm not a Nintendo fanboy either, just stating my impression). Besides, the Switch is indeed a ninth generation console. --Jv110 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20150201023943/https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5060/~/ps4-online-multiplayer-requirements to https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5060/~/ps4-online-multiplayer-requirements
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711110912/http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=149462 to http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=149462

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

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

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

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

A possible approach to the Switch

Please see this IGN article released today about the Switch sales #s, directing attention to the line "The Switch will win out if it can maintain its remarkable momentum, but that’s far from a sure thing. To see why, let’s look at the last generation of consoles (including Wii U)...."

Now, traditionally, we've slotted the Wii U with 8th gen, not 7th gen, but if one considers it a 7th gen (yes, along with the Wii), then that makes the Switch an 8th gen, particularly since it is fairly frequently compared to XBox One and PS4. However, I know the Wii U has not been traditionally put in 7th gen, but it does make sense.

So, the idea I had is if we acknowledge that the Wii U could be classified as both 7th gen and 8th gen (8th gen before the Switch, then treated more as 7th gen once the Switch's capabilities came out), we don't break any current comparisons on this page, we can add the Switch to this page, and we'd just need to add a duplicate entry for the Wii U on 7th gen.

We'd probably need more sources for this but I feel this is a working solution since no one has really talked of a ninth generation now that we are 9 months from the Switch's release. (Though similar searching show little to justify it 8th gen). Similarly, the Wii U as a 7th gen console is not readily there but it is an idea. And given no move on MS or Sony on a new new console, and how frequently the Switch is compared with XO and PS4, I think this is the right solution that just needs stronger source considerations. --Masem (t) 20:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm becoming comfortable with Switch being placed as 8th gen, and we could probably move forward with it. I'm not entirely sure I'd agree we have enough sourcing to add Wii U to 7th gen though. Nothing precludes a manufacturer from having two consoles in a general "era"... There's certainly no need to move quickly on that. -- ferret (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. I agree that it's rather apparent that no one considers there to be a 9th gen, even after Xbox One X's launch, though. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe right now, all we worry about is putting the Switch as 8th (but let's give it to its anniversary in March just to make sure). I do however, keep the idea open that as more sources accept the Switch as 8th they may retroactively slot the Wii U as 7th. If that does end up being the case, then we can maybe talk duplication of the Wii U as needed, but that's less an issue than putting Switch as 8th in the short term. --Masem (t) 23:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Especially with likely "1yr Retrosoective" articles that journalists will probably write around that time. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Either that, the end of this month with Nintendo's Q3 results that might show the Switch outselling the Wii U, and if not then, by late April for the full FY results. But definitely Real Soon Now. --Masem (t) 00:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting wrench thrown into our progress, potentially. Current report from Microsoft general manager made this statement: But yes Xbox outsold PS4 in December for Gen 8 consoles according to NPD data, while Nintendo also had a great month as Switch had most overall units. That wording kind of makes it sound like they don't classify Switch as 8th gen. That being said, it also could be a "marketing spin" thing too, where they're just trying to "discount the competition as to declare themselves the best sellers" or something too. It doesn't necessarily change my stance, but it's another thing to factor, especially if third parties start echoing that sort of approach. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would still be comfortable at this point including the Switch on this table (pending its year anniversary to check sources), and if/when 9th generation is definied and the Switch is re-classified as that, then we can move it there. --Masem (t) 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this comment is more of an outlier. Still, wanted to have it for consideration for when we finally try to make a call on it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's also possible they worded it that way by treating Switch as a handheld/hybrid, i.e. not a traditional home console. Note this is a tweet from a Microsoft rep, not the actual NPD statements. Very likely just marketing speak to say "We beat PS4!", while acting as if Switch isn't direct competition. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to say. You said it better. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Microsoft and Sony don't really consider Nintendo to be competing directly with them, hence the wording of that tweet. Don't think that impacts your potential decision to put the Switch in the 8th gen, though. As others have said, it's just marketing speak. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to start a whole thing, but...I'm re-reading that IGN article and I don't think it was actually attempting to reclassify the Wii U as a 7th gen console. I think they were just saying "let's look at sales figures for 7th gen consoles and the Wii U," because those are the most recent consoles for which they have lifetime sales figures. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

End the generational articles

I've been reading the debates on this page and propose that we delete all the 'generation of video game consoles' articles.

The articles for the specific consoles replicate all this information anyway, and typically have comparisons to contemporary consoles in those articles.

This generation of consoles idea made some sense when it started, but makes less sense as console makers are updating their hardware within generations, and now Nintendo may be forever off track from the other console cycles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.129.140.158 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The generations are notable topics; we can't eliminate them. I do think there's other ways to present similar information and avoid the issue we're having with the Switch, for example, but they are not simple solutions. When both Sony and MS release their next console (5 some years?) the picture may be more obvious. --Masem (t) 23:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)