What constitutes a move to the "next generation"?

[Griffolion]

Hey kids!

So with all the talk of next gen consoles, I got to wondering, exactly when does "next gen" become "current gen"?

Is it simply when a company releases a new console? If so, we've been in the next gen for quite some time with the Wii-U.

Do the "big three" have to have released a new console, and only then do we move them to "current gen" status? If so, how does that tie in to the fact that ownership of these new consoles will still be small compared to what would be classed as "last gen", not to mention the minuscule amount of games. Does a certain threshold of market share percentage have to be crossed in order for it to happen? It would seem, that at least in the early days of a new console release, their predecessors are still very much "current".

What's your process of making the next gen into current gen, and why?

 

[Nabbs]

Interesting.
I've always personally assumed it became the next generation when the majority of mainstream consoles for that generation have been released and running. Any other company left behind at the time aren't holding back a generation, but trailing behind.
If, for example, i'm playing on my iPSBox UZero 2, a generation 8 console (naturally), when two of the three major corporate giants have already released and developed into generation 9, i'm not holding that generation back, but just waiting in a sense. Though one may argue that the start of a new generation is either with some, or all, content. And i'd see where they're coming from with that too.

 

[suntt123]

When a single company releases a new console, that's that company's next gen of consoles. The next gen of gaming on the other hand, starts once people actually start making games to take full advantage of newly available technology. Games for the Wii U have been OK, but they're basically just ports of older games. Plus, I guess one Mario game. We have been in the 'next gen' for some time, but Wii U doesn't have a lot of games that have been made that take full advantage of what advancements its made over the PS360.
Admittedly, the gamepad was actually pretty well used on Mass Effect 3 and Arkham City, but it was still made for last gen and just ported to a next gen console. ZombiU was also OK, but it was nothing that really pushed the console and Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate was basically a port of a 3DS expansion to a Wii game, again not really achieving anything new.

That's what I think anyway.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I find it interesting that SEGA is considered to have released two consoles in a single generation. They released the SG-1000 in 1983 when Nintendo released the NES, then replaced it with the Master System about 3 years later (which was replaced by the Mega Drive about 3 years after that). Both the SG-1000 and the Master System are considered third-generation consoles. It makes sense because both of them were competing against the NES, which had the dominant market share.

But by that metric, wouldn't that make the Dreamcast a late entry into the 5th generation? For most of it's life it competed against the PS1 and N64, only having briefly duked it out with the PS2. Being discontinued in mid-2001, the Dreamcast never really competed with the Gamecube and Xbox at all. Visually, it's exclusives certainly resembled the 6th generation more than the 5th, but nearly all of it's multi-format games were on 5th gen consoles.

I think the 7th gen is the only time the transition has been completely unambiguous; the Xbox 360 definitely kicked off the 7th generation.

Anyway, as for what makes a generation "current" as opposed to "next"? Personally, I think it's after most major titles stop being released for both sets of systems. For instance, in 2005 most major games still came out on the PS2, so you could comfortably stay up to date with it. This goes for 2006 to a lesser degree, too, but by 2007 you needed either a PS3 or 360 (or PC) to keep up with most of the major titles. Of course, the PS2 is an odd bird, since it was still getting major exclusives in 2008 (God of War 2, Persona 4, Yakuza 2)

 

[Estranged180]

Personally, I don't actually count Nintendo as a part of the 'console wars'. Let me explain. Nintendo has been in the business so long (1974) that they have enough of a pedigree to escape most of the backlash people would give their consoles. And there've been so many different consoles throughout the years (since the first Magnavox console) that each generation starts when there have been significant technological advances. Think about it. The more powerful CPUs and GPUs we get, eventually, the most powerful will be selected from to build a console out of. Watch what happens between the release dates of the 'big two' (since Nintendo has always been there in one way or another) and the next generation. What you'll find is major advances in technology coming first.

 

[Bellvedere]

If I were talking exclusively about Nintendo, I would use this gen since the WiiU and the 3DS are already available.

Speaking more broadly I would say next gen becomes this gen, when all the major platforms have entered the market. Maybe problematic if all console manufacturers were putting out a console a year+ apart, but you'd definitely know it was next gen when everything was next gen.