By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - What makes a console "next-gen"...?

 

What makes a console "next-gen"...?

Significant power improvement 38 24.20%
 
Release date 17 10.83%
 
Successor to existing console 61 38.85%
 
Significant change in controller interface 0 0%
 
Mix of the above 39 24.84%
 
Total:155
MDMAlliance on 05 February 2013
Mazty said:
MDMAlliance said:

Let me put it this way...

Let's say you are a third generation American, your parents are second generation Americans, and your grand parents are first generation Americans (they were the ones who moved to America).  You can look like your parents but you still will be considered third generation.  You can be less capable than your parents, but you are still third generation.  A redesign would be like your grand parents getting plastic surgery to change how they look.  They will generally perform the same, they are the same person, but look different.  They are still first generation.  


Biology works on a genetic level to improve the child every time...So in fact if you want to use people as a comparison then you are saying performance is everything. 


... are you trolling?  Do you even know how biology really works?  I think you want to prove too badly that the Wii U isn't next generation that you are willing to make up stuff on the spot to make it seem like you're right.



Around the Network
Mazty on 05 February 2013
MDMAlliance said:
Mazty said:
MDMAlliance said:

Let me put it this way...

Let's say you are a third generation American, your parents are second generation Americans, and your grand parents are first generation Americans (they were the ones who moved to America).  You can look like your parents but you still will be considered third generation.  You can be less capable than your parents, but you are still third generation.  A redesign would be like your grand parents getting plastic surgery to change how they look.  They will generally perform the same, they are the same person, but look different.  They are still first generation.  


Biology works on a genetic level to improve the child every time...So in fact if you want to use people as a comparison then you are saying performance is everything. 


... are you trolling?  Do you even know how biology really works?  I think you want to prove too badly that the Wii U isn't next generation that you are willing to make up stuff on the spot to make it seem like you're right.

Feel free to link papers if you think I'm wrong. 



gigantor21 on 05 February 2013
Mazty said:
gigantor21 said:

To me, the main determining factors are release date, and increase in power relative to the preceding console from the SAME company. Comparing the console with it's competitors to make this determination makes no sense. In the Wii U's case, especially, when we don't even know what the other two consoles even look like.

A console being underpowered =/= not being next gen.

The issue with that is the xbox wouldn't be part of any generation. Same goes for the first console made by any company. 

A company's first console is the only case where I would make cross-company comparisons. I put it like that mainly because people keep saying the Wii U doesn't count as next-gen for some reason. And even then, I would put release date up as the main metric--I'd put stuff like the Steam Box and Ouya in the same generation as the Wii U/PS4/720 for that reason, even though the latter may well end up being even weaker than current gen stuff.

I just see a lot of these debates as an excuse for people to look down on other consoles they don't like, more than anything else. It's so petty.



Have some time to kill? Read my shitty games blog. http://www.pixlbit.com/blogs/586/gigantor21

:D

Mazty on 06 February 2013
gigantor21 said:
Mazty said:
gigantor21 said:

To me, the main determining factors are release date, and increase in power relative to the preceding console from the SAME company. Comparing the console with it's competitors to make this determination makes no sense. In the Wii U's case, especially, when we don't even know what the other two consoles even look like.

A console being underpowered =/= not being next gen.

The issue with that is the xbox wouldn't be part of any generation. Same goes for the first console made by any company. 

A company's first console is the only case where I would make cross-company comparisons. I put it like that mainly because people keep saying the Wii U doesn't count as next-gen for some reason. And even then, I would put release date up as the main metric--I'd put stuff like the Steam Box and Ouya in the same generation as the Wii U/PS4/720 for that reason, even though the latter may well end up being even weaker than current gen stuff.

I just see a lot of these debates as an excuse for people to look down on other consoles they don't like, more than anything else. It's so petty.


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?

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?



gigantor21 on 06 February 2013
Mazty said:
gigantor21 said:
Mazty said:
gigantor21 said:

To me, the main determining factors are release date, and increase in power relative to the preceding console from the SAME company. Comparing the console with it's competitors to make this determination makes no sense. In the Wii U's case, especially, when we don't even know what the other two consoles even look like.

A console being underpowered =/= not being next gen.

The issue with that is the xbox wouldn't be part of any generation. Same goes for the first console made by any company. 

A company's first console is the only case where I would make cross-company comparisons. I put it like that mainly because people keep saying the Wii U doesn't count as next-gen for some reason. And even then, I would put release date up as the main metric--I'd put stuff like the Steam Box and Ouya in the same generation as the Wii U/PS4/720 for that reason, even though the latter may well end up being even weaker than current gen stuff.

I just see a lot of these debates as an excuse for people to look down on other consoles they don't like, more than anything else. It's so petty.


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.

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...





Have some time to kill? Read my shitty games blog. http://www.pixlbit.com/blogs/586/gigantor21

:D

Around the Network
Mazty on 06 February 2013
gigantor21 said:
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.







Farsala on 06 February 2013

The generations successor is its next gen offering.



ethomaz on 06 February 2013

Graphics...

Without graphics you don't need a new generation... in fact the consoles needs a new generation to not look outdated when compared to PC.

That's the unique point to have a new console/generation.



Aielyn on 06 February 2013

The simplest and most rational definition of 'next-generation" is one that segregates roughly by time, and otherwise by capability.

Note that I didn't refer to power. By "capability", the best way to think of it is "would the top games of the system be capable of being played on the previous console?"

There are a number of Wii games that wouldn't have been possible on the GC (or Xbox or PS2) in terms of graphics. Many more wouldn't be possible on the GC (or Xbox or PS2) in terms of controls, etc. This makes the Wii next-gen. Meanwhile, PS3 and 360 had games that couldn't have been done on the Xbox or PS2.

The reason why the Atari 5200 is generally considered to be the same generation as the Atari 2600 is that there wasn't really any notable example of a game for the 5200 that couldn't have been done on the 2600.

It's not 100% clear, of course. The DSi is generally considered to be part of the DS generation, although it had extra hardware and had downloadable games that you couldn't play on your DS. But that's why the time element is the first part of the definition.

Mind you, our generation definition is merely a matter of convenience, anyway. It allows us to refer to game systems whose lifetimes roughly aligned, without having to specify the years or the systems themselves. When someone says "Generation 7", we all know that it's talking about Wii, PS3, and 360 in consoles, and DS and PSP in handhelds (although sometimes people use a handheld generation count separately). Even those who declare with absolute confidence that "Wii was not next-gen" will still refer to the Wii as a 7th gen console.

So, yeah - the Wii U and Sony and MS's new consoles, along with the 3DS and Vita, are the 8th generation. They are all "next-gen" to the DS, PSP, Wii, 360, and PS3.



Aielyn on 06 February 2013

And for the record, we don't need a "generation" term to refer to graphical capabilities. We can do that much more directly, without need to use "generation" terminology.

And ethomaz - I'm sorry, but there's more than just graphics that improve with each generation, that can't be improved in-generation.