| Shadow1980 said: The problem with including Nintendo into the standard generational classifications is that PlayStation & Xbox are now running longer generations than the historical average. It used to be that systems peaked by their second full year (maybe later in unusual circumstances), and were replaced in 5-6 years tops. But last generation was longer, perhaps deliberately, with the PS3 & 360 lasting 7 and 8 years respectively before being replaced and not peaking until 2011, far later than any systems that preceded them. The Wii meanwhile lasted only 6 years before the Wii U came out, and the Wii U has already been replaced despite coming out only 4-½ years ago. Nintendo's systems still follow historically "normal" sales curves. The Wii peaked in 2008, and the Wii U peaked in 2014. In all likelihood, the Switch will peak no later than 2019. Meanwhile, the PS4 and XBO are only just now cresting their peaks, and depending on how fast they decline, probably won't be replaced until 2020, plus or minus a year. This means that the Switch will have passed its own peak and entered the terminal decline phase of its life when the PS5 and Xbox 4 are in their infancy, and the Switch's successor will likely come out no later than Nov. 2022. This is an extremely likely scenario based on historical trends. It also leads one to ask, "If the Switch is Gen 9, then will its successor be Gen 10 even though it came out only two years after the PS5 did?" And looking even further out, we are faced with the prospect of Nintendo kickstarting Gen 11 right when Sony & MS are only just entering Gen 10. A decade from now, the whole idea of continuing to shoehorn Nintendo into the traditional numbered generations thing will look absurd if we insist that each subsequent console from them heralds the start of a new numbered generation. If we must assign consoles into a numbered generation, it ought to be defined in terms of competition. The Switch will be spending its prime years being nominal competition for the PS4 and XBO, not for the PS5 & X4. The idea of two consoles from one brand in a single generation is not unprecedented; in the conventional numbering scheme widely used today, which lumps all pre-crash-of-'83 cartridge-based systems into the "Second Generation," Atari did just that, releasing the 2600 and 5200 in the same generation. It is worth pointing out that http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nakamura/iar515p/gallagher_innovation.pdf">older sources split Gen 2 into two separate generations, though, with the 5200 & Colecovision being considered a different generation than the systems released in the late 70s; interestingly, Coleco referred to the ColecoVision as a "third wave" system, and several media sources from back in 1982 referred to both the ColecoVision and 5200 in the same way. But the Wikipedia convention, which has since become the standard on internet discussions (even though their fusion of all pre-crash cartridge-based systems into a single gen is largely original research), lumps the 2600 and 5200 into the same generation. That pre-crash generation was a bit of a clusterfuck, but it is what it is. In any case, Nintendo is effectively desynchronized from PlayStation & Xbox. That means we should either start to exclude them from the standard numbered generations, or classify their systems based on what their primary competition is during the main part of their life cycle. |
No dude gen doesn't mean sychronized releases of platforms and similar power, Mega Drive released 2-3 years after the Master System launched and 2 years before the SNES. NES itself launched in 83 in Japan and had a 7 year life span while SNES had a 6 year span, N64 launched 2 years after the competition and was in the same gen while DC launched in 98 2 years after the N64 but is still classed in the same gen as PS2/GC/Xbox.
Gen classification is being over thought by some people here, Switch is Gen 9 because it follows their Gen 8 platforms.
