| WereKitten said: This drew a smile. But it's a strawman argument. When discussing technology a "generation" is not an historical term. A "generation" in technology is defined by technical criteria. The definition of a technological generation is usually born in restrospect, and by consensus among the specialists. A "second generation web search engine" or a "third generation nuclear power plant" are such because of how they work, not of when they came out. Of course as technology progresses the chronological order is usually respected. But when technology branches it's entirely possible to have the platypusses of this taxonomy. Coming to consoles, I am not sure of when exactly someone thought it was useful to group them in "generations". Is that wikipedia link the only authoritative source? We surely didn't talk of "third generation" when the NES was out. We talked of 16-bit computing and 8-bit consoles, and they were poor but still technical criteria. And if it has no technical content, what is its sense? Not business wise, I already explained why I don't think it makes much sense to put the Wii in the same category as the other consoles. |
Simply because generations have been defined by consensus, and definitions are established by consensus. Until there is provided an alternative consensus that is more widely accepted than the current generational distinction (Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo seem to be in no hurry to do anything but support this), the word will continue to mean what it means.
Is it arbitrary? Yes. There is no basis for it. And it is very new insofar as that goes, largely coming into being only as a point of propaganda once we got three major players on the scene at the same time. It doesn't mean anything and there's no criteria except for the general (and corporate!) consensus.
It's stupid, but that is how it is, and you're not going to be able to change it with arguments unless you manage to convicne the people who establish this dialogue.
