Wii U version of Project CARS facing troubles, likely cancelled

[Zod95]

RolStoppable said:

Zod95 said:

I agree. The fact that it was launched 4 years after X360 doesn't make me think it is a generation ahead.

Interesting. Isn't that at odds with your "generations are based on power" theory? I don't think the Zeebo received actual ports of 360/PS3 games.

I meant "I agree that it's not 8th gen". Between 7th and 8th gen, it would be 7th. Then, whether it is really 7th or 6th or 5th is of little relevance to this conversation. The point is: just because a console is released 4 years after another one doesn't make it a generation ahead. To some people this is really hard to accept.

The concept of "generation" is poorly defined not only in gaming but also in general. Some claim it changes from grandfather to father, son, etc. Others affirm every year is a different generation. Nobody really knows what a generation is.

In gaming, most people use a logic based on time. But then it fails when we talk about exceptions such as Dreamcast or Zeebo. This shows that people don't really have a criteria. Logic is not rulling the concept. Preconception is. First, people set the results they want (that's the preconception). That's what Goodnightmoon did, for example. Then, they think of what logic they need to grab in order to stand for those results.

Then it fails when we see a console like Dreamcast launched 2 years after N64 and 3 years before Game Cube being called 6th gen. "But but the tech...". Yeah, now they talk about the tech. Then it fails again when we see a console like Zeebo being launched 4 years after X360 not being considered 8th gen. "But but Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft haven't made their move yet". Oh, now it's about what some companies do or don't do. Then it fails again when we talk about PS3 Super Slim. "But it's the same system running the same games". This 3rd "amendment" fails when we talk about Sega Mega CD, which runs games Mega Drive doesn't. "But the system is about the same". Then we can talk about Wii, which is about the same system as Game Cube. And so forth...

Either we use logic and solid criterias or we will be lost on the endless exceptions of a concept that ends to get little to no purpose.

I use logic. My logic is based on the technology. And there's a reason for that (even my selection is based on logic). The reason is that, in my view, console generations are based on gamers' expectations. A new generation means a new (tech) cycle, a new evolutionary step in gaming, something that wasn't possible without the release of a new console (otherwise, why would a new console be released?). Having to buy a new console, a gamer expects something more than the previous one offered.

So far, that expectation has been about technology (power / core capabilities). Had it been about something else and my criteria would have been that something. For example, had the Wii achieved more than half of the market and had the WiiU held that market share, my criteria would have changed (only from the 7th gen onwards) from power to interactivity. In that scenario, gamers would have changed their expectations and would be behaving (buy consoles, games, etc.) according to that, and demanding from future consoles new forms of interaction. Basically, the market behaviour defines generations. For example, Zeebo meant nothing to the market, so it's not 8th gen.