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

Forums - Gaming - What defines a Generation?

Shadow1980 said:
Norris2k said:

But it's not that surprising the graphics improved enough (especially first generation titles), considering that the 7 years from PS3 to PS4 is still really a very long period in electronic, we switched from specific and hard to optimize architecture to easy to develop PC architecture, and for the first time we got away from memory constrained hardware  (x16, on par with PC). The diminishing return rate will only increase, and I believe there is no big hardware revolution to come for the next generation. In this context, I believe the PS4.5 (and any hardware with similar specs) could make this generation last for a very long time. It's not a prediction but an example of such scenario, if a (true) new generation of XBox/Nintendo launches in the next 2 years and last 5 years, that means the PS4.5 will not face a significantly better hardware for the next 7 years, making the PS4 last 10 years overall.

I refuse to believe that this time definitely for sure we've hit or are about to hit the apex of game graphics. There is still tons of room for improvement, and not just consistent framerates and higher resolutions (e.g., 2160p60 as a possible standard). There's still a lot that can be done with respect to lighting and textures, minimizing/eliminating "popping" (still an issue today), aliasing, AI, and other things. While games that have properly leveraged the power of the PS4 look far better than anything offered by last-gen games (and even then they often have to target 30fps to get those visuals), I still see plenty of ways graphics can be improved noticeably beyond what we have today. And it's not like GPUs and computers in general just aren't improving anymore.

Now, if it is taking longer to produce those sorts of advancements, I could maybe see the technological justification for releasing incremental improvements to existing platforms rather than creating an entire new platform, but I have my doubts that it can sustain the console market in decade-long generations. There's more than just technological justification for releasing new platforms, after all. There's business justifications as well, i.e., the realities of a console hardware market that has historical exhibited clearly cyclical behavior, with pronounced growth-peak-decline periods. If it's real, the PS4 Neo and possible future upgrades would have to set some sort of new precedent in regards to long-term sales of a platform, which have always followed a roughly bell-shaped platform. Hardware revisions and price cuts (the latter often concurrent with the former) have always had limits. Every system reached a "sweet spot" price where the system reaches peak sales, after which no further price cuts could keep it from continually declining in sales. Even in the rare occasions we had actual spec upgrades to existing systems in the past, the new models didn't keep the platform afloat sales-wise for long.

Sooner or later, perhaps sooner, Sony will have to come out with a PlayStation 5. If lack of any real, substanial advancements in hardware does prohibit any real technological justification for a totally new platform by 2020, and if PS4 sales (including all possible hardware revisions) are in a terminal decline phase at least a year or two before then, then Sony may end up having to sustain their revenues and profits primarily on the sales of software and accessories. If the PS5 won't be out until 2023-ish, then PS4 hardware revisions may very well need to be able to keep hardware sales steady for the bulk of that time.

But I'm not telling it will not improve, in fact we can already see that the current high spec PC are a lot more powerful, and also dev teams improve, with more assets, know-how, bigger teams and budget. But the diminishing return is a fact, and the console reached an optimal architecture (easy to develop, standard, lot of memory, hard drive, no big bottleneck). Again, that's my example, but a new generation that launches within 2 years after the PS4.5 will not show big significant difference. So they have 2 choices. They wait, and this generation last longer. Or they launch quicklyy with no big difference compared to PS4.5... and this generation last even longer.

But this is a discussion about graphics, you talk about many other thing. On business side, that's a very different topic. I don't know if they still want to go for billion dollar investment in R&D and marketing, every generation take the risk to lose and fail on a single product, wait years to reach the peak...  A constant market of 2 or 3 compliant console, some declining, some rising, relatively small steps, small risk, small investment, perhaps that's the way to go. That's how the business model is for PC and smartphones.

Last but not least, AI. I have lost any hope for a better AI, what ever the improvement we got in CPU, memory, whatever games promised, it never happened, 10 years pass and mostly no change, just a few game here and there that invested time on better script. Unfortunately, a real AI seems out of reach, and the scripts are good enough and takes a very small amount of CPU. And about that, you can have a taste of the future. PC's CPU are vastly more powerful, and no change in AI.



Around the Network
Miguel_Zorro said:
The definition of generation is clearly very fuzzy.

One of the weirdest examples for me is the Atari 2600/5200. The 5200 was far more powerful and was released 5 years later, but for some reason, they're both "2nd generation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_generation_of_video_game_consoles

You also needed an adapter to play 2600 games on the 5200, so the "same games" argument doesn't really hold up.

It doesn't seem to be based on power - there's obviously a big range of power within a generation, with some consoles deemed to be part of a generation actually having specs closer to the previous generation.

I think the only reason the 5200 still falls into the 2nd generation category is because of the videogame crash. When the crash happened, it was the end of an era. The 5200 along with other consoles that had no chance got caught up in it. By the time the third generation came along, there was a new world order. In many ways, it was a new industry, at least in North America. I think had the crash not happened, the 5200 would be seen as a 3rd generation console and a competitor to the NES, even if it wouldn't have ben successful.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

arcaneguyver said:
Specific sets of consoles, all around the same general time and level of power, dictate when a new generation has arrived, in my eyes. Outliers exist (Neo Geo), but their impact during their gen isn't enough to warrant inclusion. Handhelds have never applied to generations, since the Gameboy lingered forever and competitors have mostly crumbled. PC almost has its own generations based on what's the most dominant iteration of Windows (95/98, XP, 7, 10). (And yeah, this is based on my experience, hence gens 1-2 aren't represented here.)

3 - NES, SMS
4 - SMD, SNES
5 - PS1, N64
6 - NGC, PS2, XBox
7 - XB360, Wii, PS3
8 - PS4, XB1, NNX (?)

oh my, at least try trolling harder than that.



Just a message for the many that seem unable to figure something so simple:

Had the dreamcast released as it did and no other console released for a long time after it, would it be 5th gen? HELL NO. Only one player needs to make a move to start a new gen. If no one follows, it's a gen with no competition but a new gen regardless. In the same example, if new consoles only released 3-6 years after the dreamcast, they would be 7th gen, with every company excep sega skipping the 6th gen.

The NX is either a 9th gen home console or handheld. If it's a home console and sony/ms/? don't release new consoles before late 2019 (hint, they wont do this, new xbox/ps probably around 2017 and 2018), that means they skipped the 9th gen. And for the ones who wrongly mention the minimum 3 year gap between ps4/x1 and wii u's successor, that's 4 years after wii u AND competition that soon followed. No console that started a gen remained more than like 2 years without a competitor releasing. If the first new console after a new gen releases only comes 3+ years later, it's already a new gen.



Intrinsic said:

Simple answer to your question.

If you can play NX games on a WiiU, then the NX is an 8th gen console.

A generation is simply hardware that comes with its own exclusive games and accessories over any period of time.

Neo plays every PS4 game and is compatible with every PS4 accessory and every Game made under the Playstation 4 banner or accessory will work on both skus. So it's still an 8th gen console. not that complicated.

And if consoles become hardware agnostic like how PC stuff is, then like the PC we will cease to have "generations" in the console space. Which I think is what this is all really about. 

Why sell 100M consoles. then toss all that away and start all over again investing billions in R&D and marketing when you can spend a fraction of that cost and just iterate on the hardware and keep going and selling to the exact same install base. 

No genius, that would mean NX isn't a new system, just a wii u, wich we know is not the case.



Around the Network
AllWisdon said:
Intrinsic said:

Simple answer to your question.

If you can play NX games on a WiiU, then the NX is an 8th gen console.

A generation is simply hardware that comes with its own exclusive games and accessories over any period of time.

Neo plays every PS4 game and is compatible with every PS4 accessory and every Game made under the Playstation 4 banner or accessory will work on both skus. So it's still an 8th gen console. not that complicated.

And if consoles become hardware agnostic like how PC stuff is, then like the PC we will cease to have "generations" in the console space. Which I think is what this is all really about. 

Why sell 100M consoles. then toss all that away and start all over again investing billions in R&D and marketing when you can spend a fraction of that cost and just iterate on the hardware and keep going and selling to the exact same install base. 

No genius, that would mean NX isn't a new system, just a wii u, wich we know is not the case.

hahahahahahha...... isn't it funny when someone tries to sound smart but comes off failing instead?

ok. do we agree that the WiiU is an 8th gen console? As in the same gen of the PS4/XB1? if yes then let's move on. 

so my statement says "if you can play NX games on a wiiU" "then that means it's 8th gen too"

meaning, and I don't believe I have to explain this...... if the Games for the NX can also be played on the wiiU then as u "smartly" pointed out, it means it's not a new generation of console. cause you don't have to buy it to play it's games if you already have a WiiU. 

So you brilliantly just came on to agree with me by telling me how much you disagree with me. 



Intrinsic said:
AllWisdon said:

No genius, that would mean NX isn't a new system, just a wii u, wich we know is not the case.

hahahahahahha...... isn't it funny when someone tries to sound smart but comes off failing instead?

ok. do we agree that the WiiU is an 8th gen console? As in the same gen of the PS4/XB1? if yes then let's move on. 

so my statement says "if you can play NX games on a wiiU" "then that means it's 8th gen too"

meaning, and I don't believe I have to explain this...... if the Games for the NX can also be played on the wiiU then as u "smartly" pointed out, it means it's not a new generation of console. cause you don't have to buy it to play it's games if you already have a WiiU. 

So you brilliantly just came on to agree with me by telling me how much you disagree with me. 

if the "NX" games run on wii u, they wouldn't be NX games, genius. Learn basic logic.