Was it a PS2 specific game or a downport of a current gen game?

Oh, wait - it's a November release, and not confirmed to be the final PS2 game. The game in question is the latest entry in the Pro Evolution Soccer franchise, which to my knowledge is very platform-neutral. Whether or not it is a "downport" doesn't matter to me, because it ultimately counts as support for the console.

I have always held the belief that the simplest definition is almost always the preferable one. On a fundamental level it is easier to discuss the context surrounding a fact. Then it is to have a ambiguous fact. A great many of you seem to be making this harder then it has to be. Having a fact doesn't mean you can't put it in context, but it does give you a base line to start from. All you basically need is two qualifiers to describe events prior to that specific date, and events after that specific date. In the context of this forum you would qualify your comments as generational sales, or post generational sales.

If your going to go so far as to introduce transitional phases. Then wouldn't it just be incredibly simple to lump all of them into post generational sales. That way you can get to the point that much faster. You can talk about one, the other, or both as in cumulative. I mean this could save you tens of thousands of words of exposition. Why would you want to write pages of explanation. When you could just sum it up with one or two words.

The world doesn't provide us with points of reference, but that doesn't mean we haven't created them to make our lives easier. We created calendars, clocks, rulers, and scales. So we didn't have to waste precious time trying to create agreed upon definitions every time we tried to arrange something. We just set standards that we could all use.

I don't see how creating a singular point of reference that isn't dependent upon a slew of variables would be a bad thing to do. It seems to me that it is what practical people do. Since all discussion of the next generations starts at the launch of the Wii U it makes sense to make that the line. Competition isn't even a good answer, because it isn't necessary for the Wii U to be what it is.

Can anyone make a argument for why a singular simple point of reference would be a bad thing for discussion on these forums. Beyond it ruining some trollish fun for those that like to play on semantics.

I agree with your reasoning so I think I'll add these terms (generational sales, post-generational sales) to my forum vocabulary.

Generations are defined by products released around the same time, or people born around the same time. In terms of videogames, generational overlap is common, it usually happens the first couple of years of each generation. For example, the 32-bit generation began at the height of the 16-bit generation in 1994.

A good point to determine the end of a generation is when the next generation begins to dominate. So for the case of the 16-bit generation, that would be late 1996 to early 1997.

so since you don't like the idea of two generations at a time you want to split a generation in two?

does that mean we can now say the genesis beat the snes? and it was only post generation sales that made the snes sell more?

The generation is done when all consoles of that generation are discontinued.

Lets talk about the real issue. Does it count if the PS3 passes the 360 now, or can we make the positioning seem irrelevant by setting a cut off date? That seems to be the only reason I've seen this argument brought up recently.

"Nintendo won the previous generation. Microsoft took second, and Sony took third. It doesn't matter to me what any of the players do now in the victory lap, because the race has been decided. In any contest if you run out of time to win that is it. You don't get to keep playing as if the final whistle wasn't blown. Any argument to the contrary is entirely self indulgent, and more importantly disingenuous. I keep getting the feeling reading some threads that the reality hasn't sunk in for some on these forums. That contest is over now, and there isn't any changing what the outcome was."

This just proves the theory. It's all damage control.

So the Wii U launched. We do not declare the sales of the previous gen irrelevant. I believe the PS2 sold another 40m+ after the next gen had begun. We look back at it's sales as they stand now, not as they were on November 16th 2005, when the Xbox360 kicked off a new generation.

The PS3 will likely pass the 360 in sales and take 2nd. Deal with it. If it's truly a victory, or even matters, is a whole different issue to discuss.

Lol, anyone remember that halo game that was released on the Atari 2600 a little while ago?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_2600)

Does that mean that the Atari's gen is still active? No. The Gen is born a new when the first console comes out and starts running the race. This race is over. 1: Wii 2: 360 3: ps3.


Get over it.

A generation ends when it stops being relevant. If a generation receives a competitive amount of games and/or is selling competitively, then it's still active. Relevancy is all that matters.