Mazty said:
But thats a really arbitary rule saying that the rules change if it's the first console. And if it's to do with release date then why is the PS3 super slim not 8th gen as that came out a few months before Wii U?
Because A) you'd obviously have to use another metric if there's nothing else from the same company to compare to, and B) the super slim is still a PS3. Being a different form factor with different storage doesn't suddenly make it a brand new console. If you were that strict about it, you could say the non-BC PS3s are different consoles, too, which wouldn't make any sense either.
a) Using another metric is nonsensical as you should use a standard metric - not switch between them for no reason.
b) To determine the super slim is still a PS3 you have to look at hardware. It's unavoidable that hardware is a key component in next-gen status.
As stated in the first post, this is merely a metric and nothing to do with the quality of a console. If you think it is petty then please look at point 5 - would you then say that we don't need the gen label at all?
I would say we do need the label. Generational shifts are important markers in the industry timeline, both for us as gamers, investors, and the companies themselves. What we don't need is people using declarations of what systems belong where as a club to beat each other over the head. Doesn't seem like many people around here got the memo...
I think we need the marker but need to be honest with it - we need benchmarks to determine the power of machines and until said benchmarks of existing consoles are battered, the generation isnt over.
|
