*spin-off* Defining "Next-Gen"

[almighty]

Well your definition then of next gen is nothing more than a replacement of an existing model regardless of capabilities and specs

That's all they are...a console generation is not defined buy it gazillion pixel shaders or it's ability to suck up power at a stupid rate.

It's merely moving from one console cycle to another, Nintendo have just completed that Cycle.

Wii or even Wii U for that matter might not be considered next generation machines by all you graphics whores out there but in my eyes they were next generation in terms of controls.

 

[Dominik D]

We should probably settle on the term used for Wii at launch: "different gen".

 

[liolio]

Semantics... The WiiU is a next generation system / now that it has launched I would say that it is a new generation system (generation 6 starting from the NES?).

As for the answer, does the system provide the usual "generational" jump in power we are used to, from one generation of hardware to another, the answer is both yes and no.
From the Wii and Nintendo pov, yes. It is a quiet massive jump from what the Wii was, in phase with what we are used to. From the competitors pov not at all.
Looking at Nintendo systems the system that set it self apart of the usual "jump" in power from one gen to the other is the Wii, the paradox is that the WiiU bring the kind of jump we are expecting but started from a lower ground.

For me it is a next gen system, as the best definition is to simply follow the "genealogy", it is Nintendo 6th generation system.

 

[BRiT]

Following the same semantics, you have the following:

Wii U is a next-gen Nintendo system.
Wii U is a current-gen gaming console finally joining or trying to join the capabilities of what the other current-gen systems (PS3/XB360) can do.

 

[Prophecy2k]

To be exact (and I do like to be exact about definitions! ), Go and DSXL weren't replacements for their counterparts, but variations.

It's not naivety. It's more open-mindness, and the ability to understand the place of interpretation and semantics in use of language. You opinion is the status quo and generalised interpretation, but far from the be and end all. It's the same issue as "what's the most powerful console". There needs to be a reference point. It's worth noting that the next generation of people is exactly the same hardware as the previous generation - the definition of 'generation' being the 'replacements' brought in. Recognising there are different interpretations is an essential part in people being understood and communicating effectively. If it's assumed everyone has the same interpretation as oneself, confusion arises. Discussing different interpretations is thus a Good Thing.

Is anyone saying otherwise? This reminds me of my poll:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61765&highlight=wii+poll

Only 5% said Wii U would be much more capable than XB360. Whether Wii U is equal to or a little bit more or less is difficult to ascertain at this point.

Well of course Shifty, we can all have different interpretations and ideas about what constitutes a "Next-Gen" console.

I believe that there's value in discussion, and bringing about a commonality of understanding in the meaning and intent of people when using the term in question. It's fine that people like almighty choose to define the term "next-gen" as a simple replacement for the pre-existing consoles sold on the open market. It's also fine that others choose to define it as a certain "x times" increase in HW performance (as step change if you will).

Personally however, I believe the term and its usage is wholly contextual. And in when used in the common context of a console being a "generational leap" over its previous iteration, I believe there can be no dispute about the meaning and intent of the usage of the term. Which was effectively my point, as if one asks the question, "is the WiiU a next-gen console" or "a generational leap over current-gen consoles" then in my understanding the meaning and intent there is clear.

Additionally, by any metric a generation is very rarely referred to as being specific to only a certain group. For example, if we talk about the next generation of people, we are using the term to classify the general next group of people within a narrow or broad age range, born into a certain era. It would be meaningless for me to talk for example about how "certain media and societal influences are affecting the current generation of children" and only actually make reference to a very narrow set of people, or even a specific family alone. Therefore, by the same thinking, why do some classify the HW performance of the WiiU only by the performance of Nintendo's previous console. Again "generation" in my understanding implies a certain time period, and thus in asking if the WiiU is a "generational leap" over last gen, one cannot reasnably constrain one's answer to Nintendo's previous consoles. Nintendo does not exist in a vacuum.

Hence the reason for my slightly trollish rant ;-)

 

[Scott_Arm]

Why is it important to define what "Next-Gen" is at all? I'd say the most likely answer is that it is, because it's Nintendo's next console and a significant upgrade to both the hardware and software from the Wii. But honestly, who cares about the label? Is it actually a useful label?

 

[Nesh]

That's all they are...a console generation is not defined buy it gazillion pixel shaders or it's ability to suck up power at a stupid rate.

It's merely moving from one console cycle to another, Nintendo have just completed that Cycle.

Wii or even Wii U for that matter might not be considered next generation machines by all you graphics whores out there but in my eyes they were next generation in terms of controls.

There is some huge miscommunication here simply by the fact that you have a predefined idea about anyone who expect a different definition of next gen regardless of who he is and where he is coming from.

"You graphics whores"?
Come on. I havent even talked about graphics

 

[dumbo11]

Why is it important to define what "Next-Gen" is at all? I'd say the most likely answer is that it is, because it's Nintendo's next console and a significant upgrade to both the hardware and software from the Wii. But honestly, who cares about the label? Is it actually a useful label?

I think if you use "next-gen" to find a defining feature of a generation of consoles, then it can be useful.

i.e. "this generation" could be seen as the generation of HD, motion control and online.

What will define 'next-gen'?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why is it important to define what "Next-Gen" is at all?

Because it's a common, vernacular term used to summarise a set of products without any real definition. If people are going to use the term, we have to be sure everyone is using it in the same way.

eg. Let's say some historical report looks back at aggregate sales of consoles every generation. Do we add Wii's sales to PS360's, or PS2+XB+GC? What about Wii U's? If the timelines are out of sync (let's say Nintendo takes to a 3 year cycle, Sony and MS 6 year), how do we count generational sales?

Alternative, a more common forum discussion, Joe Gamer is talking about wanting to buy a 'next-gen' machine in 2013. "I console gamed on PS2, but didn't play any of the HD consoles. I've skipped them, but there are new consoles coming out and I want to get me a next-gen machine. What do you recommend?" If his assumptions are the common ones and next-gen to him represents a performance leap, is Wii U a recommendable product? Of course, discussing on such terms instead of individual device merits isn't a very good approach to decision making, but that's the way people operate.

 

[Platon]

Might as well just use it the same way we do for our generations and define it by a time frame. So yes, WiiU is next gen, but just like we can have a huge variation in our capabilities within each generation, you can have Einstein and you can have some poor guy that will never reach an intellect over a 3 year old, the same goes for the consoles. Lets say, that WiiU will most likely not be the Einstein of next gen...

 

[Prophecy2k]

There is some huge miscommunication here simply by the fact that you have a predefined idea about anyone who expect a different definition of next gen regardless of who he is and where he is coming from.

"You graphics whores"?
Come on. I havent even talked about graphics

What's ironic about this is that Almighty is one that spends hundreds (i presume) building PC's with all kinds of crazy water cooling and refrigeration cycles. He's a quitessential PC gamer by my definition and most likely the biggest graphics whore of them all. looool

In the end anyways, almighty says "graphics whores" like its a dirty word. I'm a graphics whore without apology. I have lofty expectations from what I desire of next-gen HW, simply so I can play new games with sexy graphics and thus more realised worlds. Any company that isn't prepared to give me what i'm looking for, and provide a console with a proper next-gen upgrade, won't see my money. And if all of them decide to cheap out, I'll go exclusively PC if I have to, after all i still have my PS3. If i'm not given reason enough to upgrade I simply wont.

 

[almighty]

What's ironic about this is that Almighty is one that spends hundreds (i presume) building PC's with all kinds of crazy water cooling and refrigeration cycles. He's a quitessential PC gamer by my definition and most likely the biggest graphics whore of them all. looool

I like my 24xEdge Detect AA + 24xTrSSAA

And I run phase cooling because I submit quite a bit to HWBot so I need the cooling

Main reason I don't have a console is the IQ, I could live with sightly lower texture and shadow resolutions on consoles but what I can't live with is the Sub-HD rendering and piss poor IQ that's seriously plaguing this generation of consoles.

If the new machines can address these IQ issues then I'll be dropping my money on one of them and may even debate about leaving PC gaming completely.

 

[Platon]

In the end anyways, almighty says "graphics whores" like its a dirty word. I'm a graphics whore without apology.

I'm there with you.

If i'm not given reason enough to upgrade I simply wont.

Exactly right, I mean there should be a reason to upgrade. If they expect you to spend your cash on their console, I expect some form counter effort from their side. There should be a reason why I should not save my money and stick around with my 360 and instead spend them on some new hardware. A version 1.1 of current gen I feel will not cut it.

In the case of the Wii you had the controls selling the system, and they managed due to that even grab many non gamers and expand the market. I get it and understand it, it is not for me (although I got one) but I can see why it became successful.

I don't see why graphics would somehow be a dirty or a lesser reason to upgrade, in the end you will be staring at the damn screen for hours, how could then graphics not be one of the main reasons to get new hardware. I'm not saying that there is not a "good enough" level and I expect this gen of consoles to be underpowered compared to the PCs from the beginning of the generation, but I still expect them to provide a fairy significant jump to the previous gen...

 

[Billy Idol]

What's ironic about this is that Almighty is one that spends hundreds (i presume) building PC's with all kinds of crazy water cooling and refrigeration cycles. He's a quitessential PC gamer by my definition and most likely the biggest graphics whore of them all. looool

In the end anyways, almighty says "graphics whores" like its a dirty word. I'm a graphics whore without apology. I have lofty expectations from what I desire of next-gen HW, simply so I can play new games with sexy graphics and thus more realised worlds. Any company that isn't prepared to give me what i'm looking for, and provide a console with a proper next-gen upgrade, won't see my money. And if all of them decide to cheap out, I'll go exclusively PC if I have to, after all i still have my PS3. If i'm not given reason enough to upgrade I simply wont.

Well said. Same for me.

Furthermore, I don't mind spending lots of money for next gen consoles as long as they have the hardware power! But I fear that the Wii U is only the beginning and that we might have to prepare for a big dissapointment...

 

[Scott_Arm]

Because it's a common, vernacular term used to summarise a set of products without any real definition. If people are going to use the term, we have to be sure everyone is using it in the same way.

eg. Let's say some historical report looks back at aggregate sales of consoles every generation. Do we add Wii's sales to PS360's, or PS2+XB+GC? What about Wii U's? If the timelines are out of sync (let's say Nintendo takes to a 3 year cycle, Sony and MS 6 year), how do we count generational sales?

Alternative, a more common forum discussion, Joe Gamer is talking about wanting to buy a 'next-gen' machine in 2013. "I console gamed on PS2, but didn't play any of the HD consoles. I've skipped them, but there are new consoles coming out and I want to get me a next-gen machine. What do you recommend?" If his assumptions are the common ones and next-gen to him represents a performance leap, is Wii U a recommendable product? Of course, discussing on such terms instead of individual device merits isn't a very good approach to decision making, but that's the way people operate.

There are only three consoles. When people talk about them, they talk about them by name. Talking about them in terms of generations of technology only serves to make conversations confusing. This whole thread is a discussion on the semantics of a label that is basically useless.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There are only three consoles. When people talk about them, they talk about them by name. Talking about them in terms of generations of technology only serves to make conversations confusing. This whole thread is a discussion on the semantics of a label that is basically useless.

Look up 'console generations' on Wikipedia to see that's not true. Some generations/denominations have had clearer names, such as the 8 bit and 16 bit consoles and computers, but a structured grouping is pretty inevitable given that's how people manage their understanding of the world.

In fact the very existence of this thread shows people use the concept - if people didn't talk about generations of consoles, this confusion would never have appeared as a topic of discussion.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I disagree that the term "generation" is useless too.

It's a very commonly used term to describe an effective "step-change" is HW performance and technology in console available on the market in the console gaming industry.

Just as with PC graphics cards there are (less commonly used and more ambiguous) "generations" of PC GPU chip technology, which are categorised by numbered ranges or series of cards (e.g. the GTX 8800s, 9600s, Fermi's, Radeon HD 6000s/7000s/8000s etc etc).

It's a convenient term, that is very useful as a way to generalise or categorise.

 

[liolio]

I disagree that the term "generation" is useless too.

It's a very commonly used term to describe an effective "step-change" is HW performance and technology in console available on the market in the console gaming industry.

Just as with PC graphics cards there are (less commonly used and more ambiguous) "generations" of PC GPU chip technology, which are categorised by numbered ranges or series of cards (e.g. the GTX 8800s, 9600s, Fermi's, Radeon HD 6000s/7000s/8000s etc etc).

It's a convenient term, that is very useful as a way to generalise or categorise.

So I wonder what to use, may be matching the generation with the process/lithography used at the system release?
That give an idea about what to expect about a system, though by that account Wii was the same generation as the ps360 .

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Here's a developer talking about generations:

Last night Gustav Halling, lead designer on Battlefield 3: Armored Kill at Swedish studio DICE, backed up Shishkovtsov, saying on Twitter he was concerned about the impact the next Xbox and PlayStation will have on the Wii U and "annoyed" that Nintendo "don't think ahead at all".
“This is also what I been hearing within the industry, too bad since it will shorten its life a lot when new gen starts,” he said.

It's a phrase that gets used to mean a new round of hardware, and it traditionally assumes a significant upgrade in performance in the vernacular usage.

 

[Rangers]

Like many words/terms, console generation is one that can probably never be defined exactly, yet it still has meaning. Pretty much any genre of music is that way, for example. It's probably impossible to precisely define "rhythm and blues", yet it's still a useful descriptor, and hence will continue to be used.

But for me the gens were:

1. Atari 2600, Colecovision, etc
2. NES/SMS
3. SNES/Sega Genesis/TG-16
4. PS1/N64/Saturn (3DO and Jaguar were early, poorly funded, members)
5. Dreamcast/PS2/Xbox/Gamecube
6. PS3/360/Wii

A lot of people will do things that seem obviously wrong to me, like place the Dreamcast in gen 4, when it was clearly an early member of gen 5. Or the TG-16 in gen 2, 3DO in gen 3, etc. They'll then use that to make erroneous conclusions about reasons for various market successes or failures.


Obviously the whole Wii U gen debate has no complete answer. Chronologically it's in gen 7, power wise it seems to be in gen 6. People will argue endlessly over which gen it's in because they use different definitions.

I suppose I think chronology is the final word in my opinion. Hence why to me Wii clearly belongs to 360/PS3 gen, and Wii U will go in PS4/720 gen. But, both definitions are somewhat valid, I just think chronology has the final word.