I'm talking about actual logic:

log·ic  

You are still using arbitray rules though. You are saying that if an established company releases a new console, it is automatically next-gen regardless of specs, but for a new company it has to be significantly more powerful than the best of the last gen. That logically doesn't follow. 

The PC-Engine may have had an 8bit CPU, but it's 16bit graphics chip was FAR more advanced than the NES and Master System and leaps and bounds more advanced than the Atari 7800. I own them all and a Turbo Duo which is the CD system version of the TG-16.

I can tell you from experience that the PC-Engine is a significant upgrade from the NES and Master System. It just isn't as big of a leap as the Genesis and SNES. With each generation the upgrades have become more noticeable. Back in the 80's the generational leaps were all 2D and difficult for many to tell the difference. But I can give testament to the TG-16's graphical and audio abilities and it does deserves to be part of the 16bit generation based on its graphical abilities.

1) Does release date determine gen? no

1ii) Does hardware determine gen no

1iii) Is it a mix of the above?


2) Do consoles even determine gen or is it the game engines?
game engines we usually see new ones at start of gen during a gen they get modified

3) Are PC's involed with gen in anyway? w/o PCs we wouldn't have new game engines there gen usually starts a 1yr or 2 before consoles

4) Do we, or will we, have to start considering tablets/smartphones as being part of gaming gen? idc i only play consoles that have a traditional controller but i believe they will or have there own gens

5) Do we even need the label of gen? yes for teh stats


for me its when it can play 3rd party next gen games so for ex. if the next ps or xbox cant match or exceeded what we saw with BF3 farcry3 and will see with crysis 3 on PCs then it aint next gen

The Wii U can be considered next gen because it replaces the Wii. The Wii loses relevancy while the Wii U gains relevancy. Functionality is also important; there needs to be a considerable difference in functionality between two consoles in different generations.

#2 and #3 combined make a next-gen system. It can't be next-gen if it doesn't succeed another system. Otherwise how can it be "NEXT" generation?

You make a good point: people who think generations are defined by clear-cut and considerable divisions in power need to think back to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gens of gaming.

MOAR POWER!!!!!!

The answer is simple, when fanboys of each company have a new system out to claim supremacy over the other new consoles out, it's officially the next gen - the next generation of extremism and lack of logic, tolerance or human decency.

I think these questions in particular have related answers. Dedicated consoles have been the predominant platform for gaming since they took the title from arcades over 2 decades ago, but that's changing. PC gaming is growing, and mobile gaming is taking off. Now, I don't think "dedicated" consoles are going away -- although they are already becoming less "dedicated" and more multimedia-focused.

But what's happening? PC gaming generations are defined more by software and engines, as you mentioned, than by hardware. Mobile devices iterate yearly (or even more frequently), sometimes improving the hardware dramatically from one model to the next. Compounding that, the specs of mobile devices released in the same year can vary greatly depending on the manufacturer. Mobile generations do not correlate to console generations in any way.

With such a large amount of the market moving away from the traditional generational format, I think generations as we know them will soon be a thing of the past. I wouldn't be surprised if future console releases are completely unrelated from one another. Different release years, prices, specs, services. The only things that will be nearly the same are the games, with them becoming more scalable all the time -- one of the reasons power is perhaps less important than ever.