Preface
Video game historians and enthusiasts have spilled a great deal of ink over the subject of generations within the video game console industry in recent decades. Although there is already a generally accepted list of video game console generations, there is still a lot of dissatisfaction in the community, especially regarding the early generations. While I think that, as a community, it is our responsibility to make sure the “tools” we use are in line with our expectations, I don’t think we can just throw away or drastically change the current generation scheme, because so much material already uses this concept. That being said, I think there is an opportunity to improve the concept and address the main concerns raised in recent years.
Scope & Definition
The main concern is an easy one to solve: everybody has their own scope and definition of what a generation should include. This has led to many disagreements over which consoles should be part of which generation. To solve this problem, let’s lay down some basic definitions. The concept of generations was already being put forward back in 1976/1977, when the new ROM-based consoles were released. But with time, the term became a marketing term, much like the number of bits or teraflops nowadays. This change in how the term was used created a lot of confusion.
By definition, a generation is “all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively”. In terms of consoles, this would translate to “all consoles released in the same time frame”, which would be fundamentally wrong. As an example, the Sega SG-1000 is often said to be part of the 3rd console generation because it was released on the same day as the Nintendo Famicom, but the fact is that the SG-1000 is almost identical to the ColecoVision, which is considered a 2nd generation console (more on this later).
To be correct, we need to add the concept of similarity. To this end, the definition of a cohort is much better suited to what we want to achieve. A cohort is defined as “people within a delineated population who experience the same significant events within a given period of time”. For video game consoles, this would translate to “video game consoles, within a delineated population, that experience the same significant events within a given period of time”.
This definition is really interesting because it includes three very important notions: population, significant events and period of time. Let’s put them in context.
Significant events: This is what triggers the start of a generation. In most cases, the event will be a technological advancement, such as the introduction of ROM-based media, but in some cases it can be a world event, such as the video game crash.
Period of time: Like a cohort, a video game generation has a set start (defined by the events above) but does not necessarily end when the next generation starts. Two generations can coexist during a certain period of time.
Population: I kept this one for last, as it was important to define the significant events first. A population is, by definition, a group of items that belong together. But I recognize that video game consoles have many subgroups that cannot be measured by the same means. For example, handheld consoles may have different significant events than home consoles. The same goes for flashback and mini consoles which, although released in the modern era, have nothing to do with the latest consoles’ generation. Therefore, by definition, home, handheld and “classic” consoles should each have their own generation chart.
Errors of the Past
Even with a clear definition, some generations have skipped significant events that could have been considered. As mentioned previously, I don’t think we can change the current numbering system, as it would render 40+ years of material useless, but there is an easy way out: half generations.
For example, the transition from large-scale integration (LSI) systems to single-chip systems could have been (and, in my opinion, should have been) seen as a significant event, but it wasn’t. Nothing stops us from creating a Generation 1.5 that reflects that change. The other significant event often considered missed is the transition from early 2nd generation systems, such as the Atari 2600, to the much more advanced ColecoVision and Intellivision. Some say that if it hadn’t been for the crash, these would have become their own generation. I would argue that in Japan, where the crash didn’t happen, most of these more advanced systems were available and were unable to make a dent in the market. But again, a Generation 2.5 could easily settle this debate.
Classification
Based on the discussion above, I would therefore propose the following order:
Generation 1 (1972 – 1976)
Major Event: First home video game console
Although the Magnavox Odyssey was the first home video game console, it was outshone by the PONG arcade game in 1972 and its home consumer version.
Generation 1.5 (1976 – 1984)
Major Event: The release of PONG-on-a-chip
The release of PONG-on-a-chip by General Instrument in 1976 made it easy for toy and electronics manufacturers to produce their own PONG-like consoles. With the release of the GIMINI 8600 concept in 1978, also by General Instrument, PONG-on-a-chip systems were able to compete with the early consoles of the second generation.
Generation 2 (1976 – 1979)
Major Event: ROM-Based Cartridges
The release of the Fairchild Channel F changed the landscape of video games forever with the introduction of ROM-based cartridges. Cartridges already existed, but they either just rewired the internal system (as in the case of the Magnavox Odyssey) or added new electronic components (as in the Video 2000 console). The Atari 2600 was the most popular system of that generation.
Generation 2.5 (1979 – 1983)
Major Event: Technology Change
The Intellivision and the Magnavox Odyssey² were among the first systems to introduce advanced graphics, sound and control features. The consoles started to have more than one action button, creating many more gameplay possibilities.
Generation 3 (1983 – 1990)
Major Event: Video Game Crash
The video game crash forced the video game market in North America to reinvent itself in order to succeed. It also marked the end of North American dominance among video game manufacturers and the beginning of Japan’s leadership of the industry.
Generation 4 (1987 – 1995)
Major Event: Technology Change
The fourth generation is considered the golden age of 2D graphics. With the mass adoption of 16-bit processors, systems were more than capable of handling thousands of colors on screen, large sprites, parallax scrolling and more.
Generation 5 (1993 – 1997)
Major Event: 3D
The fifth generation is defined by the native ability to handle 3D graphics. The 3D requirements also forced most console manufacturers to adopt the CD as their base format.
Generation 6 (1998 – 2005)
Major Event: Internet Connectivity
Although network connectivity existed through peripherals in previous generations, the sixth generation introduced Internet connectivity. Hard drives also made their first appearance during this generation. As consoles started to use DVDs, they also began to be marketed as hybrids between media players and video game consoles.
Generation 7 (2005 – 2011)
Major Event: Online Store, Always-On Connectivity
The seventh generation really doubled down on Internet connectivity. The connection was used to download new games, but also system and game patches. This is the first generation in which games could be shipped without being 100% ready, as bugs could be corrected later through a software update.
Generation 8 (2011 – 2020)
Major Event: Technology Change, Mid-Generation Upgrade
The eighth generation is the first to see mid-generation upgrades, such as the PlayStation 4 Pro and the Xbox One X. These systems ran the same games as their counterparts released at the beginning of the generation but delivered better graphics. No exclusive games were made for these consoles.
Generation 9 (2020– present)
Major Event: ??
Editor’s Note: This is a work in progress. Since I intend to use this generation scale in the future, I prefer to publish it now as is and add to it as the community regroups around some of these concepts.