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

Forums - Gaming - When is a generation over?

 

When is a gen over?

When the first next gen console comes out 15 9.15%
 
When 2 out of 3 next gen consoles are out 7 4.27%
 
When all next gen consoles are out 56 34.15%
 
When 1 stops production 3 1.83%
 
When 2 out of 3 stop production 8 4.88%
 
When all 3 stop production 40 24.39%
 
When MS says so 0 0%
 
When Nintendo says so 4 2.44%
 
When Sony says so 14 8.54%
 
When I say so 17 10.37%
 
Total:164
Slimebeast said:

I know there are multiple angles to this, and much like human generations you could say that a console generation is never really over since it exists in the history books, but to me personally it feels like the current gen is already almost completely over.

I might not personally own a PS4 within even one year from now, but my mind is so much set on the next-gen that my PS3 and current gen titles just feel kinda old and obsolete. Whenever I launch my PS3 I wonder what the PS4 interface and dashboard will look like. I really want to experience critically acclaimed games like AC3, Dishonored and Bioshock Infinity but in my mind they already feel "old". Not bad in any way, just something from a past era.

I don't want to feel like this, but I still do lol.

I know what you mean.  Every game other than Sly Cooper this year has felt very limited and while not stale...just kinda expected.  I also wonder about DS4 every time I pick up DS3 lol




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Around the Network
sethnintendo said:

So we were in the transition period for 3rd generation up till 2003 in Japan right? NES production in Japan 1983-2003.


Did you read any of my other comments up to that one?

Specifically the one about relevancy or sales?



                            

It`s a tie between the first and third option. But to me, a generation ends when it gets replaced by one console. Even when all are replaced they are still around, so, i think it makes more sense the first option.



Max King of the Wild said:
JakDaSnack said:
My take is that if you crown the winner based on profits(which vgchartz doesn't track), then it should be when all the consoles stop production. But if you crown the winner based off of marketshare, then is should be when all the next-gen consoles come out. Simply because, last gen consoles aren't competing with each other anymore, they are basically fighting to get some scraps, and I can guarantee you that Sony/microsoft/Nintendo won't be caring much about market share with their previous consoles, they will be focusing more on just squeezing a few extra bucks out of their old consoles. But that's just my opinion.



Profits are important for any company. However, using it as a measure of dominance is absolutly ridiculous. The more accurate way of deciding would be through revenue if you were to measure monatary wise. After all that shows where consumers are willing to put their money and at what price. But thats ridiculous also. Each business is ran differently and emphasizes different practices. You can't determine a winner through profits unless there was a standard for each company. If a company is willing to lose money to sell more than thats their prerogative.

But why would they lose money to sell more?  Because they want to make more money in the end, that's the bottom line.  If Sony sold the ps4 for 100 dollars, and was able to ship 100 m units in 2 years, but then go out of business would you consider them the winner?  Absolutely not, unless you are a crazy person, you can't go out of business because of your console AND win that generation.

As for companies not caring about sales after the launch of their new system? I hope to god you never run a business with that mind set. Scraps? yeah I'm sure the 50mil more ps2's sony sold they didn't care about. Thats more than either company sold while they were in their prime last gen. Thats definatly scraps to me. As for them not caring? Oh yeah, I'm sure they don't care about potential future ps4 adopters. They would rather those people not buy the their system.

Please read before you write.  I never said they didn't care about "sales" I said they didn't care about "marketshare," and you also misunderstood what I said about scraps, I was referring to first party support from Sony/microsoft, the scraps is in reference to how the old generations will only be getting a small amount of support compared to the current gen.  And no I will never run a business with that mind set, because I never had that mindset.





Something...Something...Games...Something

Carl2291 said:
sethnintendo said:

So we were in the transition period for 3rd generation up till 2003 in Japan right? NES production in Japan 1983-2003.


Did you read any of my other comments up to that one?

Specifically the one about relevancy or sales?



"when no more systems are sold" You mentioned nothing of relevancy only sales. Nintendo still produced and sold NES till 2003 in Japan. So if you want to add another stipulation to dismiss the NES while counting the PS2 then so be it.

Fact is NES was in production for 20 years.



Around the Network
JakDaSnack said:
Max King of the Wild said:
JakDaSnack said:
My take is that if you crown the winner based on profits(which vgchartz doesn't track), then it should be when all the consoles stop production. But if you crown the winner based off of marketshare, then is should be when all the next-gen consoles come out. Simply because, last gen consoles aren't competing with each other anymore, they are basically fighting to get some scraps, and I can guarantee you that Sony/microsoft/Nintendo won't be caring much about market share with their previous consoles, they will be focusing more on just squeezing a few extra bucks out of their old consoles. But that's just my opinion.



Profits are important for any company. However, using it as a measure of dominance is absolutly ridiculous. The more accurate way of deciding would be through revenue if you were to measure monatary wise. After all that shows where consumers are willing to put their money and at what price. But thats ridiculous also. Each business is ran differently and emphasizes different practices. You can't determine a winner through profits unless there was a standard for each company. If a company is willing to lose money to sell more than thats their prerogative.

But why would they lose money to sell more?  Because they want to make more money in the end, that's the bottom line.  If Sony sold the ps4 for 100 dollars, and was able to ship 100 m units in 2 years, but then go out of business would you consider them the winner?  Absolutely not, unless you are a crazy person, you can't go out of business because of your console AND win that generation.

As for companies not caring about sales after the launch of their new system? I hope to god you never run a business with that mind set. Scraps? yeah I'm sure the 50mil more ps2's sony sold they didn't care about. Thats more than either company sold while they were in their prime last gen. Thats definatly scraps to me. As for them not caring? Oh yeah, I'm sure they don't care about potential future ps4 adopters. They would rather those people not buy the their system.

Please read before you write.  I never said they didn't care about "sales" I said they didn't care about "marketshare," and you also misunderstood what I said about scraps, I was referring to first party support from Sony/microsoft, the scraps is in reference to how the old generations will only be getting a small amount of support compared to the current gen.  And no I will never run a business with that mind set, because I never had that mindset.



I'm not a share holder. If Sony wants to go out with a bang and do that to their company they have the right. However, I think that might be extremely illegal so I will add that they would need to work in the line with laws too. But if they want to lose money on each system then thats their right and me nor you can say much about it other than its a stupid business stragety in general.

If they don't care about marketshare they don't care about sales. Because ya know... sales is what marketshare is dependant on.



sethnintendo said:
Carl2291 said:
sethnintendo said:

So we were in the transition period for 3rd generation up till 2003 in Japan right? NES production in Japan 1983-2003.


Did you read any of my other comments up to that one?

Specifically the one about relevancy or sales?



"when no more systems are sold" You mentioned nothing of relevancy only sales. Nintendo still produced and sold NES till 2003 in Japan. So if you want to add another stipulation to dismiss the NES while counting the PS2 then so be it.

Fact is NES was in production for 20 years.

So do the final numbers for NES need adjusted or were all those produced units tracked?




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Max King of the Wild said:
JakDaSnack said:
Max King of the Wild said:
JakDaSnack said:
My take is that if you crown the winner based on profits(which vgchartz doesn't track), then it should be when all the consoles stop production. But if you crown the winner based off of marketshare, then is should be when all the next-gen consoles come out. Simply because, last gen consoles aren't competing with each other anymore, they are basically fighting to get some scraps, and I can guarantee you that Sony/microsoft/Nintendo won't be caring much about market share with their previous consoles, they will be focusing more on just squeezing a few extra bucks out of their old consoles. But that's just my opinion.



Profits are important for any company. However, using it as a measure of dominance is absolutly ridiculous. The more accurate way of deciding would be through revenue if you were to measure monatary wise. After all that shows where consumers are willing to put their money and at what price. But thats ridiculous also. Each business is ran differently and emphasizes different practices. You can't determine a winner through profits unless there was a standard for each company. If a company is willing to lose money to sell more than thats their prerogative.

But why would they lose money to sell more?  Because they want to make more money in the end, that's the bottom line.  If Sony sold the ps4 for 100 dollars, and was able to ship 100 m units in 2 years, but then go out of business would you consider them the winner?  Absolutely not, unless you are a crazy person, you can't go out of business because of your console AND win that generation.

As for companies not caring about sales after the launch of their new system? I hope to god you never run a business with that mind set. Scraps? yeah I'm sure the 50mil more ps2's sony sold they didn't care about. Thats more than either company sold while they were in their prime last gen. Thats definatly scraps to me. As for them not caring? Oh yeah, I'm sure they don't care about potential future ps4 adopters. They would rather those people not buy the their system.

Please read before you write.  I never said they didn't care about "sales" I said they didn't care about "marketshare," and you also misunderstood what I said about scraps, I was referring to first party support from Sony/microsoft, the scraps is in reference to how the old generations will only be getting a small amount of support compared to the current gen.  And no I will never run a business with that mind set, because I never had that mindset.



I'm not a share holder. If Sony wants to go out with a bang and do that to their company they have the right. However, I think that might be extremely illegal so I will add that they would need to work in the line with laws too. But if they want to lose money on each system then thats their right and me nor you can say much about it other than its a stupid business stragety in general.

I'm just saying that the "winner" of the console wars shouldn't be determined by marketshare.

If they don't care about marketshare they don't care about sales. Because ya know... sales is what marketshare is dependant on.

bleh, their is no easy way to explain this, so i'm just gonna leave it at this.  You can care about sales, and not care about marketshare.





Something...Something...Games...Something

When all 3 stop production as 6th gen has only just ended this year and 7th gen probably won't finish till 2019 



sethnintendo said:

"when no more systems are sold" You mentioned nothing of relevancy only sales. Nintendo still produced and sold NES till 2003 in Japan. So if you want to add another stipulation to dismiss the NES while counting the PS2 then so be it.

Fact is NES was in production for 20 years.


http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5314152

"Our generation ends when theres none of us left or we become so few we are irrelevant"

Im not dismissing the NES. Im saying the generation ended when the numbers became so little that they were no longer relevant.