Talk:Home video game console

Trimming/sourcing

This article is constantly being WP:EXAMPLES-bloated by non-notable or tangentially related devices. I plan on trimming the article down to items that have their own article, and have reliable sourcing, per the usual, most basic inclusion criteria. From that point on, any unsourced entries will be reverted on sight. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

To me, the consoles listed should be the same that appear in the first table on each of the gen pages. So like this page's 7th gen is bloated as it should only be PS3, X360, and Wii. The linkage to 7th gen will give other consoles that appeared during this generation. --Masem (t) 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think that would be a good approach. (If you’re feeling ambitious, feel free to go for it. Otherwise I’ll do something like this eventually.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with trimming the page is that "List of home video game consoles" redirects here. Splitting this page to maintain a true list will be needed. My apologies, but I don't know enough wiki to do this for you. UrQuan3 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@UrQuan3 You replying to comments from over 3 years ago. A lot has changed since then. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Intellivision Amico

Should the Intellivision Amico be counted apart of this List of home video game consoles?Apha9 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's more of a console reissue / flashback type unit, and I don't think it really belongs here as a serious competition to the major home consoles coming up. It belongs on on the lists where consoles like the Atari Flashback and Ouya are. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Feels a lot like Ouya. We held off putting it in any of the generations, and it worked out well, because it fizzled our before it was commonly considered part of the generation. I could see the same happening with the Amico. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This consoles is categorized as a "Home video game console" for ninth generation. It plays the role of a "Game Wave Family Entertainment System", "VTech V.Smile"/"V.Smile Baby Infant Development System, "Bandai Playdia", or even a "Sega Pico." Some Console aren't looking to be the major thing even the NES ran as an Entertainment System that was because of the Crash of 1983. Plus following generation are going to be more digital than physical. Apha9 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC).

No, someone put "Ninth generation" without any sourcing, which I've removed. At this time, Wikipedia does not recognize a "ninth generation" as there is not enough secondary reliable sources discussing it in those terms. That's why the section here is listed as "Future" rather than "Ninth". -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It could still be counted as an Upcomming Consle, it even says it on the first line of the page, and the "Type" considers it a "Home video game console," which technically indicates that it should be on this page.Apha9 (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a Microconsoles, but here a talk page to discuss that there too. Talk:List of microconsoles Doremon764 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone show me any sourcing suggesting the Amico is a microconsole because every page I have seen has it listed as a home console and the fact it has exclusives and physical media makes it hard for me to have any belief otherwise. TheRealLochNess (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Like prior discussions - it really shouldn't be listed anywhere until the industry/third party sources are consistently classifying it anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The Intellivision Amico is definitely not a retro console, reissue or flashback. It is not designed to play the original Intellivision games. The games sold for it are current, modern games that have graphics at least as good as the Xbox 360 that are sold directly through Intellivision and are new exclusive games , sequels to games from a few years ago or multiplayer ports of current games. It is more like a home console than most of the devices classified as "microconsoles" in that all the current games for launch or in the works are first party games worked on, evaluated and sold as Intellivision games, although much of the programming may be done by third party game designers. Intellivision is also selling collectibles in an Intellivision box that can be used to download one of their individual games. Most microconsoles, like the Ouya or Air Console just let programmers indiscriminately put hundreds of games of mostly low quality in an e-store. The Amico is currently a soon to be release console that appears to lie between a home console and a microconsole, but definitely not a retro console, like a Flashback or Analogue NT.Daltonsatom (talk)

The problem is it is already currently listed in the microconsole wiki and as a retro console. If we need to wait for more sourcing then it needs to be removed. TheRealLochNess (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Intellivision Amico Should be listed under “Not Released Consoles” or “Upcoming Consoles” Doremon764 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The 5200, ColecoVision, and Vectrex are not "Second generation"

The ColecoVision was deliberately marketed as "third generation" and directly competed with the Atari 5200 (Atari's followup to the 2600) and Vectrex. Either there is a short-lived generation in between the Atari 2600 group and the NES group or these handful of machines are in the same generation as the NES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.172.103 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The generation numbers we use today are somewhat retrospective. They didn't exist in the 70s and 80s, or even in the 90s. The numbered generations we know now appeared in the 00s for the most part. Either way, ColecoVision's marketing isn't a strong source at all, and the transition from the 2nd to 3rd generation is generally marked by the industry crash in 1983, which ColecoVision was before. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, you can’t just unilaterally rename all the eras like this. You’ve got to get a WP:CONSENSUS to make major changes like this, and I think you’ll struggle to get it here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The crash isn't relevant though since that was mostly just a sales thing and wasn't even worldwide. All that meant is that these handful of systems died early. The Dreamcast died early too but we don't group it with the PS1. I don't see how we can disregard Coleco's own interpretation of the market--which was contemporary with the era--as irrelevant and then say it's all retrospective. Isn't that "rewriting history"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.172.103 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally, we don’t write Wikipedia in accordance with first party accounts of things, especially ones with a vested interest in how they’re portrayed. Electronic Arts has their own internal version generations too. But sources generally don’t use either of their version of organization, or your confusing “the crash was no big deal” stance. So neither should we. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok but then what are we using to justify this? Nothing is sourced. The way it currently reads sounds like someone with a heavy NES era bias who didn't care about anything "pre-crash" just arbitrarily threw them all into a big pile without any concern for the nuances of that era. The 2600 and 5200 are in the same generation why? The architecture is a clear upgrade. It meets every metric for a "next gen" console. It died early, yes, and the 2600 lived an absurdly long life but we aren't using that to justify the Dreamcast as a PS1 contemporary so why do it for the 5200? Plus it competed directly with the ColecoVision which bills itself using the exact same language we're talking about here. We're currently choosing to use nothing as evidence to make an illogical grouping than use some evidence from the era itself (whether it's marketing materials, hardware architecture, etc.) to dileniate it in a way that actually makes sense and is consistent with the logic used to group later generations. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that changing it would be a big undertaking across tons of articles but that specific grouping is clearly not accurate. Everything NES era and beyond is perfect. Everything pre-2600 era is perfect. But there's a small set of consoles in the early 80s that either belong in their own generation (if the crash is relevant) or in the subsequent one (if the crash isn't). To give some evidence for the latter, the ColecoVision and SG-1000 are internally almost identical. We shouldn't spread a false narrative out of convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.172.103 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see this IEEE paper that slots the 5200 and Colecovision in the 2nd generation. It doesn't try to slot the Vertix, but based on years it would be a 2nd generation. --Masem (t) 03:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And the reason why is the bit size of the console. I have recent rewrote the start of Video game console to explain where the notion of generations and the bit wars came from based on sourced information. This held true until the 6th generation when the bit-size measure went by the wayside and we're not just going by general bulk shifts of the market. It's why we don't by when one manufacturer ups their console (eg Nintendo, as it has two consoles in the 8th generation at this point). --Masem (t) 03:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. Though it, too, differs from this page in numbering (Atari 2600 is called "first generation"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.172.103 (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Actually, the table on page 71 says effectively the same thing I am--that the ColecoVision is a generation beyond the VCS. It calls it "second generation" because it ignores the pre-catridge consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.172.103 (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

True, so as another reference: U.Mich's breakdown of console gens through the 6th here [1] and if you look through Google books, you'll see the same thing. Basically, today, we recognize that the second gen consoles were the ones that were 8-bit processors, had very limited graphics, used cartridges (rather than dedicated games like the 1st gen) and were released before the 1983 crash, while the 3rd gen were still 8-bit but now with better graphics support (spirit and tile support) after the crash. The generations is not based on how manufacturers have one unit that follows another. --Masem (t) 06:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Right but that paper is only calling it "second generation" because it's omitting the pre-cartridge consoles. Check out the table on page 71. It lists the Atari VCS (2600) in one generation and the 5200 and Colecovision in the next generation after that. That's my entire argument--that the 5200 and ColecoVision are in a different generation than the 2600. The paper calls this "Second generation" because it labels the 2600 as the First generation. But that's A) semantics and B) doesn't account for the pre-cartridge systems (which I suppose would be Zero Generation or something by this numbering?). If we accept the pre-cartridge consoles as "First Generation" and also accept this paper as an authoritative source then everything in Page 71's table just gets incremented by 1. Which, again, is the crux of my argument as this would make the Atari 2600 "Second Generation", ColecoVision "Third Generation", NES "Fourth Generation", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.172.103 (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, your argument is completely wrong, because there's massive amounts of sourcing that support the structure of the generations from 3 to 8. That ColecoVision sits on a blurry line between the 2nd and 3rd generations is no where near enough to suggest there's an entire generation to insert and renumber everything following. There may POSSIBLY be an argument that ColecoVision simply belongs in the 3rd generation, with NES etc. I disagree, but you could make that argument. That it represents an entire generation that contradicts the rest of the structure though, no. You aren't going to get anywhere. -- ferret (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The paper's not the only authoritative source but it is important for grouping purposes. As Ferret has said, there are plenty of RSes that establish that the 5200 and Colecovision are part of the 2nd generation of consoles. --Masem (t) 13:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

To add more, I just found this preprint from a professor at U Pitt that actually explains the whole problem around generations and our (Wikipedia) role in screwing up the scheme. [2] It's why the 'minor' consoles (things like the 5200 etc.) will always seem off in our scheme but the key ones like NES, PlayStation, Xbox 360/etc. will be correct. --Masem (t) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Bear with me because I think we're having two different conversations here. Masem, I don't think we're even disagreeing. You say the paper "is important for grouping purposes" and I 100% agree! Let's put aside the numbering for a second. You'll grant me that the journal paper you cited lists the 2600/Channel F, 5200/ColecoVision, and the NES across three separate generations, correct?

That being said, Ferret, where you say "There may POSSIBLY be an argument that ColecoVision simply belongs in the 3rd generation, with NES etc. I disagree, but you could make that argument." I think this is a perfectly fair and defensible compromise and would shake on it immediately. I think this can be defended on the grounds that the 5200/ColecoVision/Vectrex are a generation above the 2600/Channel F, which is corroborated by the above paper. I'd be fine consolidating them with the Famicom/NES (they were just a year apart and spec-wise are extremely similar) and noting that those handful of American-made consoles were killed early by the crash leaving the Japanese ones to thrive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.172.103 (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Input on major reorganization of console articles

I'm proposing a reorganization of several articles that will include or may impact this one that I've outlined at Talk:Video game console#Massive reorganization of several articles proposed and would like input there. --Masem (t) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• As a followup, unless there are any major objections to this, I plan to move the contents of this list into Home video game console. This list content would be kept for the most part. The current content at Home video game console would be mostly overwritten, as it is duplicative and/or exists at History of video game consoles, the individual generation articles, or the individual console pages themselves. There would only need to be some headers and preambles to introduce the structure properly. --Masem (t) 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rename "Upcoming consoles" section

Fully aware that basically anything regarding the infamous Ninth Generation and its article is not going to reach Consensus any time soon, but we should probably change the name of the "Upcoming consoles" section either to Ninth or Current or anything that isn't "upcoming", given that both consoles are no longer upcoming. Also aware that the PS5 is not yet available in some countries but am not aware of any WP protocol that says that should matter. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed ,to "Current". As of now, they are both out in some parts of the world, so no longer upcoming. --Masem (t) 15:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Once both consoles are out in every region (November 19th I believe) does it make sense to spin up a 9th generation page?Zallomallo (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to link here but I've started a more central discussion on WT:VG#The dreaded 9th Gen discussion... as there has been past talk there of waiting further (months from release) to see how the situation is called in sources, even though it could be called that now. --Masem (t) 17:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it should be called "Current". It implies that consoles such as the Nintendo Switch are not "Current", which would not be correct. --ProfessionalCost (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It should surely be Nineth generation, not upcoming or current. --31.125.4.145 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

“Current” overlaps with “eighth” or “ninth”: until a console maker having released an 8th generation console does not release a successor, it's still a “current console” while still being 8th generation.-- Illwieckz (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Add the KFConsole to the ninth generation

Add the KFConsole to the ninth generation Mario Vergara Enciclopedia (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It is a microconsole, no one is taking is seriously as a competitor to the PS5 or Xbox units. --Masem (t) 14:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that if it was a console, it would not be a micro-console. This is about an Intel i9 10900k, Nvidia GPU able to do raytracing, etc. Given this, performances would be in range of Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5, and if sold, cost may outperform theirs. Outside of the fact it looks like more a joke and a communication effort, the problem here is that unless otherwise stated the KFConsole is a PC with console in its name. Information about a game catalog or game store and things like that to artificially discriminates products into consoles are unknown. -- Illwieckz (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I concur. Melmann 00:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Add the Atari VCS to the ninth generation

I added the Atari VCS to the ninth generation. Note that this game console is usually micategorized there and there, sometime miscategorized as a miniconsole or a microconsole.
Unlike the 8th generation Xbox One or PS4 which had pre-Ryzen APU but like others 9th generation consoles (Xbox Series and PS5) the Atari VCS has a Ryzen-based APU. This APU features a 2.5-3.5GHz 2 cores, 4 threads Zen CPU and a Vega (GCN 5) GPU supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, along HDMI 2.0 enabling support for 60Hz refresh rate at 4K resolution. It also comes with 8GB of DDR4 (upgradable to 32GB), 32GB of eMMC memory, M.2 slot to extend the internal storage to the terabyte range, 4 USB 3.0 ports, etc.
While Xbox Series and PS5 were released in November 10 and 12 of 2020, the Atari VCS was released in December 14 of 2020 (that's the backer release, worldwide release is still TBA).
The Atari VCS can't be compared to microconsoles like, for example, the Nvidia Shield TV (2019) (the most recent one listed in List of microconsoles, which only has 2GB of RAM (3GB in PRO version)), or the Amazon Fire TV which GX6250 GPU is said to not support more than OpenGL 3.3. The Atari VCS takes the entry-level in the Zen-generation consoles market (along the PS5 and Xbox series X which are top-level and Xbox Series S which is medium-level, respectively). -- Illwieckz (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is zero source to support any of this. Just bcause it may be using a more powerful CPU does not make it necessarily a more powerful console compared to the PS5 or Xbox Series X. The fact that the product remains to be delivered (per RSes) and the doubt behind the product that they give it means it remains listed as a microconsole. Yes, it may be the most powerful microsonsole out there, but still a microconsole. --Masem (t) 05:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To add, Atari's COO calls it a "mini-PC" [3] which puts this squarely as a microconsole. --Masem (t) 05:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Xbox Series and PS5 also features APUs, so they also fit in mini-PC category (if you were able to install your arbitrary OS). And there is no non-mini-console that exists in non-mini-PC category. Consoles are designed like mini-PC, though powerful mini-PC (even price confirms it). While being mostly a joke, the KFConsole is based on an Intel NUC 9 Extreme (clearly a mini-PC!) but its performances are on the range of Xbox Series and PS 5, so mini-PC hardware can have performance of non-mini-consoles, and mini-PC hardware in a console does not mean miniconsole, at all.

The Atari VCS product is delivered, only to a category of customers (the backers) but this is the final product. It's a bit similar to products being shipped to the country of the brand first and worldwide later, except this time it's about funders first. No one of the mini-PC or “undelivered” argument is valid, then.

The only semi-valid argument is the lack of sources because the delivery is very recent and it looks like English newspapers are late on the topic, but English sources will not contradict the reality (see this screenshot from PC mode for example) neither they will contradict sources in other languages. This lack of source is very-specific to the English language.

We can look at sources from other language like this tom's Hardware French article stating the final release date of the December 14th of 2020 and stating the hardware specifications, and this other Press Citron French article confirming the delivery. This article also says (I translate) “The Atari VCS is not a retro console but a console with a next-gen ambition to play properly and differently in 2020”. So, definitely next-gen, definitely not a retro neither a mini console. This article also says that what is delivered is the final version.

This information is definitely not fake and referenced, our job is to find English third-party references to give credit, not to delete what is real: it's next-gen, it's delivered, it's not a retro-console neither a mini one, it features state of the art AMD APU (state of the art entry level though, which is another fact). We may better spend our time hunting sources instead of fighting a revert war which is already lost. Please help me finding English references instead. -- Illwieckz (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because the hardware may be on par with the power of a console like the PS5 means that we are required to treat it like those consoles. Yes, microconsoles have typically been lower powered consoles, but that's not a requirement. And that article that says a "console with next-gen ambition" does not mean it is a "next-gen console", as that is marketing speak. It is the fact that it is not a closed system like the consoles, and is relying existing games for those systems to populate it, not creating a new console games space as the PS5 and Xbox units do, proving a console-like experience at a lower cost than a console. --Masem (t) 07:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you stop doing reverts you cannot defend properly? You seem to name what is not an Xbox Series or not a PlayStation 5 to be a “miniconsole”. Is non-Xbox and non-PlayStation what you call “console-like”?. You even called the KFConsole with i9 CPU and raytracing GPU to be a “microconsole” (we would agree that the KFConsole does not have its place there given the current situation, but not because it would be a “microconsole” neither a “miniconsole” because it is not)… Those proposed arguments are not acceptable. The Atari VCS is clearly described to not be a miniconsole (neither a “retro” one, retro games are just part of the catalog) and is described to be a “next-gen” console to “take on PS5, Xbox Series” (while we would agree its performance puts it in entry-level): TechRadar reference from “a month ago” (so, December, 2020), IndianExpress reference from October 28, 2020). Also Atari itself canceled its 8th pre-Ryzen design, delaying the product and releasing a 9th generation design instead to keep up with Xbox Series and PlayStation 5. I've now given you 4 international sources on the topic, sourcing the fact the Atari VCS is a 9th generation console competing with Xbox Series and PlayStation 5 and that its not a miniconsole, plus serious arguments you don't manage to defeat, arguments showing comparison with 9th generation consoles is strong (and comparison with 8th generation is weak) and that comparison with other products listed in List of microconsoles is weak. You just make me lose the previous time I would spend to add references. -- Illwieckz (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You said: “It is the fact that it is not a closed system like the consoles”. You have to read more references like the indiegogo campaign (Wikipedia does not allow me to link it but it says: “The main Atari OS and content downloaded will be encrypted in the HDD” and this is verified. The Atari OS and DATA is encrypted and boots using secure boots to prevent unauthorized execution and data extraction, along using HDCP to display “protected” content. The “PC Mode” is very similar to the “OtherOS” feature that was available on PlayStation 3. So, there is a PC Mode, but the closed and locked-up console part can't talk with the PC Mode. The console OS may be based on Linux but the user has no power on it, neither PlayStation 4 users had any power on the PlayStation OS despite being based on FreeBSD. Although being locked-up is not required to be a console. You're just diverting the talk as soon as an argument of yours against the fact it's a console is defeated. I re-enabled the Atari VCS entry in the table and added 7 (seven) serious references: for the Atari VCS being released in 2020, for the Atari VCS being called a game console and targeting the console market, for the Atari VCS being compared to Xbox Series and PlayStation, for the specifications, etc. This is just a pile of facts even if you personally don't want to see it as a console like an Xbox or a PlayStation (which is an opinion). For sure this console is low-end, but that's a 9th generation console released in 2020, fully locked as a console (which is even not necessary to be a console) targeting the console market (not the micro-console one, note that they already sell the Atari Flashback series on the micro-console market, not the Atari VCS). There are serious references for those statements, those are not opinions. Please keep your opinion on what deserves to be called a true console or a “console like” as you said (which describes your very personal feeling) outside of this. I'm not discussing opinion there. -- Illwieckz (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Also against inclusion. This is just like Ouya and 8th gen. Reliable sources don't consider it part of the generation because it's a different kind of product. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You're also opposing an opinion to oppose on something that is factual. Here is the addition that is removed, despite being fully referenced with reliable sources:

| Atari VCS (2020) | December 14, 2020 | Atari (U.S.) | N/A | 2-core AMD Zen R1606G, variable frequency, up to 3.5 GHz with SMT |

The Atari VCS (2020) was released on December 14, 2020 to backers, while global release date was unknown on this date. Quoted among the game consoles seeing a release in the year 2020, The Atari VCS is said to take on Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 as a comeback on the console market as a next-gen machine, though performance is said to be inferior.

How many “reliable source” do you need? I even quoted one more in this talk (so that's already 8 reliable references). So, how many “reliable source” is needed? -- Illwieckz (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Given that the sourcing that is trying to squeeze it as a competitor to the Xbox and PS5 are press releases, we need to wait for independent third-party sources to widely consider the unit as a competitor to the Xbox and PS5 in the same breath. We're actually doing the same wait-and-see for the Nintendo Switch right now as well, though the Switch is of course released and thus has far more visibility. Perhaps after the unit has a public retail release (and it doesn't matter if thats limited to one region) it may see more articles about it. But barring anything else, the fact that it is for all purposes a mimi PC with a modified Linux OS for some locking down, but otherwise fully accessible by the user puts it far far outside the "closed console ecosystem" concept that it most often associated with consoles like Xbox and PS. It doesn't matter if its power is compariable or better to the Xbox/PS5. --Masem (t) 06:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that sourcing is as strong as you think it is. Its most press-releases, and either unreliable or obscure websites. That's not the type of sourcing we need when taking on a major project that defines a generation or industry like this. It is the same sort of thing that kept the Ouya out years back, despite the various angry Ouya fans fighting for it with weak sourcing. And that panned out in the exact same way - no one with a clue would say Ouya was an 8th gen competitor. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Also against inclusion, and quite clearly regardless of the status of the Atari VCS (and it's lack of full comercial release), the topic of the 9th generation remains under discussion and without consensus to create. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

“against inclusion, and quite clearly regardless of the status”, is this the definition of an opinion? This inclusion is about the Atari VCS being a current consoles, whatever the consideration about what generation is or even what a generation is (both considerations being more sensible to opinion). It's factual the Atari VCS 1. is a game console 2. is current 3. is released. The debate about what is a full commercial release is welcome anyway. This is no really about inclusion anyway. What a full commercial release is is a debate by itself, like products being released in one country before others raise the same problematic. It's better if we don't add noise with side topics. It seems that stacking layers of noise is an effective rhetorical ploy to avoid treating certain topics properly. -- Illwieckz (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It is considered by many sources to be a microconsole, which has a different article and list. It's that simple. In fact, it is already listed at List of microconsoles. Take it up with the secondary sources. As for the rest, I'm not going to argue the release date. We aren't new to this, we know what we're talking about. Provide a reliable secondary source that it has retail availability and it'll get updated. It's that simple. "Shipping to backers" isn't the same thing. A great deal of this will clear up, and possibly shift, if and when general availability hits. -- ferret (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact it is listed in List of microconsoles is not an acceptable reference, it's not a secondary source neither a primary source, at this point it must be considered original work. -- Illwieckz (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ferret is an editor of over a decade and an Admin. He wasn't suggesting that Wikipedia article literally was a source. You need to either assume good faith, slow down to help your reading comprehension, or just use some common sense. Otherwise you're just going to bog down discussion in a way that will be unlikely to ever lead to a consensus on your favor. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact the product does not have retail availability is not an acceptable argument against inclusion because this page lists both released and cancelled products. So even if the Atari VCS have failed completely and even backers have received nothing we would have to list the product there given it has enough notoriety (there is a lot of international secondary sources over 3 years). -- Illwieckz (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a precedent for waiting until a product is released to assign a generation or classification it's been been done for many years. It's because we often don't have comprehensive reliable source commentary on the matter. Which is a major argument from multiple editors against you right now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There's some sort of reading comprehension issue here. I've never cited release as a reason to exclude Atari VCS from this list. My original reply was in response to a whole host of edits you made, including introducing a "ninth-generation" header, category, and other details. Additionally, sourcing and consensus that the Atari VCS is a home console versus a microconsole is clearly contested, with only you arguing that it's a home console. As long as consensus says it's a microconsole, then it simply doesn't belong here. The rest of my statement pertained to the 9th generation, a topic still under heavy discussion and debate. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, this discussion should be tabled here at this list talk page. Arguing whether the Atari VCS represents a microconsole or "mini-PC" or a full home console should be handled at Talk:Atari VCS (upcoming console). To decide whether it belongs on this list, or the microconsole list, requires a consensus of sourcing about the topic itself. That should happen at it's own article. Then the lists can be updated, with little fanfare. -- ferret (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary months later break

The Atari VCS has commercially released and is clearly it's own console with mini PC capabilities as an extra feature. It's time to add it. TheRealLochNess (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

so its still being reported as a microsconsole , meaning it would not be included with home consoles.--Masem (t) 13:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And the industry is absolutely not treating it as a new entry in the console market either. Still opposed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not accept this answer. Illwieckz has disproven this claim and you three keep shifting the goalpost. It's a home console at this point you are letting personal bias cloud your judgement and it makes you look unprofessional. TheRealLochNess (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You can not accept it all you want. Wikipedia is built on reliable sourcing. If sources are referring to it as a microconsole and not suggesting it competes against the major home consoles, then that's that. -- ferret (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's your take away, I think you need to re-read the discussion again. It not being available commercially was always just one of many roadblocks to getting it included. My stance has always been that the reliable sourcing was extremely weak when it comes to the industry considering it in the home console market. So right off the bat, any proposals that aren't based around sourcing are doomed to fail. So you coming in and vaguely saying "it's time" isn't changing anything. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A strong sign that the industry does not consider it a competitor to the current PS5 or Xbox Series X/S is that it came out this week with barely a whimper, in constrast to when both of these consoles were released and made a huge impact. Its considered almost as a joke within the industry and definitely not as a mainstream home console. --Masem (t) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Being completive in sales is not a determining factor on rather or not it is a home video game console. It follows the definition -A home video game console is a video game console that is designed to be connected to a display device, such as a television, and an external power source as to play video games. Home consoles are generally less powerful and customizable than personal computers, designed to have advanced graphics abilities but limited memory and storage space to keep the units affordable. Source:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_video_game_console

Secondly if you are going to use it's "competitiveness" as a determining factor if it needs to be listed I can show you multiple consoles on this list that needs to be taken off.

The truth is you are deliberately blocking anything that's not a part of the big three from being a home console and using the umbrella term "microconsole" to do so.

Your decisions are inconsistent and shows you bias. TheRealLochNess (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

But console generations are defined by those consoles that are generally considered to be major market competitors in the same time period. Just because the new Atari VCS may be classified as a console doesn't mean it automatically classifies as a ninth generation console, as if sources do not consider it as part of the console competitive market, neither do we. --Masem (t) 00:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That said, I would agree there are consoles listed in some of the earlier generations that aren't part of those generations proper, under the "competitive" definition. --Masem (t) 00:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Then we need to change the definition that we use because currently the definition makes no sense on how we are determining this. Until we do we must follow the definitions we use. If you are willing to change the definition to better articulate what you mean I am willing to accept this decision. Furthermore, we need more terms than microconsole that we lazily use as an umbrella term. TheRealLochNess (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Or we can create a separate category for consoles that were not competitive in the market. A sorta "Other" or "Non-generational" group. As of right now it is in fact a home console and should be included on the list of "Every Home Video Game Console" TheRealLochNess (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, we're in the business of "documenting" not "creating". Wikipedia is more like a history book, not a news show. You're looking at this all wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I am in a very very slow progress of trying to de-emphasis how the video game console articles have been centric around "generations". It is not that the generations aren't important, but they force a certain structure to these articles that is not useful for many other facets. We need to acknowledge the generations but getting so hung up on them is the problem in the first place. In that fashion, while the Atari VCS would not be listed as a ninth gen, it would be listed as a console released in the 2021 period , however that would be sorted out. But that's a problem that I've not yet figured out how to resolve carefully. --Masem (t) 15:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This I can respect Masem and while we disagree on somethings I truly enjoy the discussion. As for Sergecross if it was truly about documenting you would be arguing for it's inclusion on the list somewhere. Your response is basically shooting yourself in the foot and completely nullifies any point you may of had. Masem has at least tried to stay intellectually consistent and admitted the flaws in the page. As where you have done but been combative. TheRealLochNess (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

So FWIW, I had been working on this but I've now moved in into mainspace: Home video game console generations. This is the article that specifically focuses on the breakdown by generation. What that means to this article is that I would eliminate the generation breakdown in this article (outside of leaving a brief summary) and instead have consoles - inclusive of any console outside of the mass of 1st gen single-game consoles - listed in groupings of 5 year periods, or even just one large table if that's under 100-some entries. This would thus include all the microconsoles since those are home consoles but they would not be part of any generations. --Masem (t) 19:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Again it's not a microconsole. It uses an independent OS as where the PC portion would be closer to a steam machine and according to ferret steam machines are not microconsoles. This is what I mean by inconsistency and umbrella terming. I appreciate the effort to try and fix what's wrong but we need a separate term for this kind of console. TheRealLochNess (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, a microconsole is a home console (not a computer, which the Atari VCS is not) that is lower computational specs compared to equivalent hardware on the market at the same time. This is what the Atari VCS is, 100%. It is a home console, but it is also a microconsole. See [4] which I need to update over at our article on it. --Masem (t) 01:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

There's already a term for it. Microconsole. This is nothing new. The same thing happened a decade back. A few odd editors tried their hardest to POV-push the Ouya into the home console race, arguing endlessly about its "legitimacy" and whatnot, but it never worked, because the industry and the reliable sources that covered it didn't commonly position it like that, not in the Ouya's pre-release, lifespan, or postmortems. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sergecross the Ouya was an Android base system not nearly the same thing. The Atari VCS is more of a mini PC than a microconsole. Again I'm using the definitions that you guys have provided. TheRealLochNess (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about exact parity between the two hardware-wise, the point is that editors were trying to force a point of view that simply wasn't widely held in the industry. Like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Again the issue is it does not match the current definition of microconsole. It by all accounts is a home console that is also a mini PC. PC isn't defined by it's specs either. This is a Windows PC that also has its own independent home console OS. TheRealLochNess (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, if the industry doesn't generally position it as part of the main home console market, neither should we. There's endless sources talking about Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo's respective consoles. There's little to nothing when it comes to consistent reliable source coverage on Atari being a competitor in that market. On Wikipedia, that's a problem. See guidelines like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sergecross again the Alienware console falls in the same category as you are describing yet it is not labeled a microconsole. You are using microconsole as an umbrella term. Either they both are or they both are not. There's no way to argue one without applying to the other. TheRealLochNess (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, again if the competitiveness is the deciding factor for you than I can make you a list of consoles on this list that needs removed as they were not real competitors of the major consoles at the time. TheRealLochNess (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Beating the dead horse isn't going to get you anywhere. Wikipedia is built on what reliable secondary sources say. They have called it a microconsole, so it is. From what I can tell, you've provided zero substantial sourcing that would dispute it. Eventually, this becomes a bit disruptive.. -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Ferret you know by Wikipedia guidelines this does not suffice for disruptive. I've made actual points about the definitions that we use for these terms. It's not disruptive to ask for some form of consistency. TheRealLochNess (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

When we just have to keep explaining the same points over and over again to you it goes into WP:IDHT territory though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I also ask where it is being reported as a microconsole? As far as ign, The Verge, Games radar, dualshockers, and Gamespot are concerned they are reporting it as a console/PC hybrid. TheRealLochNess (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources for micro console

Here's a list of reliable sources calling the Atari VCS a microconsole.

1. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-10-01-atari-partners-with-antstream-responds-to-vcs-concerns
2. https://www.usgamer.net/articles/atari-touts-more-support-and-revenue-split-to-draw-developers-to-its-microconsole
3. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/04/xbox-architect-sues-atari-over-unpaid-work-on-crowdfunded-console/
4. https://www.pcmag.com/news/hands-on-with-the-atari-vcs-a-strange-streaming-slice-of-nostalgia (Not only calls it a microconsole, but literally states it doesn't compete with Xbox/PlayStation)
5. https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/ataribox-atari-vcs-console-details-technical-steam-pc-classic-games/ (This one contains a direct quote from an Atari rep that states that "Atari VCS will of course serve up lots of classic content. But it will do and play much more, and can complement other ‘retro-boxes’ or ‘microconsoles’ that consumers may already have in their homes.” - the wording "other microconsoles" would imply that even they consider it a micro-console of sorts, or his sentence wouldn't make any sense.

I can keep going, this was merely the first hits I found on the first page of the most basic Google search. So it's obviously a pretty commonly stated thing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

While I'd argue larger news outlets like IGN and GamesRadar carry more weight as sources I have to concede to the point that the company called it a microconsole itself even though it doesn't follow the typical definition of what a microconsole is. TheRealLochNess (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Add the Nintendo Switch to the "current consoles" section

As I outlined in WT:VG, regardless of where Consensus is or isn't about whether the Switch is or isn't part of the Ninth Generation, it is absolutely a "current console" and will remain so until Nintendo discontinues it, which isn't likely to happen any time soon. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To me, that's fair, at least until the wording is changed. I support this. Anyone else? Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Clunky. Call me neutral right this moment. It makes sense in concept but at the same time... clunky. As the entire situation is. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as this section is called “Current consoles”, there is no reason to not list the Switch. As said before, the problem is that concepts of “generation” and “current” overlap. If a 6th generation console in its original form was still sold it would still be listed in “current” while not removing it from “6th gen”. One alternative would just be to create a 9th generation section (which is obvious for Xbox Series, PS5 and Atari VCS, they are clearly marketed as a new generation), keeping the debate open for the Dwitch, and just list the current ones in a section about current ones whatever the “generation” and debate over their belonging. So basically the table in actual “Current consoles” section would be moved to the 9th Generation section, and the “Current consoles” section would just name those being currently active. Readers would just have to look upon previous sections for details. -- Illwieckz (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

Change the Nintendo Switch from a Generation 8 Console to a Generation 9 console. For some reason the Switch is listed along side the Wii U in the Generation 8 even though they have nothing to do with one another (can't play the same games and zero connectivity). JmanTheHitMan (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Currently, most sources include the Switch as an 8th generation console due to how it competed with other systems. We are waiting to see if it gets classified as a 9th generation (and perhaps both) but we need sourcing to support that. --Masem (t) 00:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Consoles

This might be better suited discussion for the Microconsoles page but I figured I'd at least bring it up. Seen multiple articles talking about 2021 being the year of alternative consoles when discussing the Atari VCS, Intellivision Amicco, and upcoming Neo-Geo console. Should we separate these from other microconsoles or make it a subcategory because while not being competitive with Xbox Series X or PS5 they will be directly competing with each other? TheRealLochNess (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Xbox S and PS5 Digital

Should the XBOX Series S and PS5 Digital be mentioned on this page? Since they're digital consle and don't except Carriages, Cards, or disk. Since it will start the debate on Micro Consle, Retro Systems, PC's and Alternative Consle into a debate. Doremon764 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no debate. The lack of physical media changes nothing. -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no debate. They're the same things minus a disc drive. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, similar to first generation doesn't need a physical media to be a consle.Doremon764 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of Consles

Should we display a picture of the consle right next to it name? Doremon764 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No, this list is too long for that. --Masem (t) 21:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Leapfrog

Should we add "console" such as Leapland Adventure and LeapTV? Doremon764 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

They're not considered consoles by any reliable sources; they're more like microconsoles since you had a fix set of games preinstalled on them already. --Masem (t) 14:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I made a mistake this system is carriage based. Doremon764 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thars fine, it doesn't really change Masem's argument. And I agree with him. The industry most certainly group PlayStation and Leapfrog in the same sort of category. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I also asked the same question on the Talk:List of handheld game consoles about the Leapster & Leapster Explorer.Doremon764 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is garbage (Opinion changed)!

What happened to this article? This article used to be a fun place to look at all the game consoles. It was fun to go through every generation, look at all the images and compare them all in a spreadsheet. Now it's just a massive spreadsheet of every console. Lame. Sure, I could just go to the history section, but I shouldn't have to do that, nor the people that see this for the first time that get a bad impression of it. Ludexteria (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Vague idle complaints don't help anyone. I can't tell you what happened if you're not more detailed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's way less convenient how it's just a simple list with some statistics. In the past you could easily hop between generations and feel like you're traveling through gaming history. It was fun, yet professional. You don't get that experience with a single spreadsheet. At least have multiple spreadsheets for every generation. It's just flat out cutting valuable information when you don't include the eras of the game consoles or the chart of the major companies and their consoles which included if they were in the top 3 or not. As much as betraying my past self angrily typing is, this article isn't bad, but I feel like it should share some tweaks with its past self. Ludexteria (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You may want Home video game console generations. The problem we have found over the last few years is that there was way too much focus on dividing the market by generation, which itself is an iffy construct that Wikipedia may have partially created. Several articles were re-aligned to de-emphasized the importance of generations in some places while still respecting that division elsewhere. --Masem (t) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Retro consoles

I just noticed that the list in this article excludes "retro style consoles", just a bit after I added the Polymega. I'm unsure if I should keep it or remove it now. Like the Evercade VS, the system is mostly focused on retrogaming, but it also is designed to be able to play non-retro titles. --Mbrickn (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Playdate (console) to "Released systems".

Add Playdate (console) to "Released systems", sorry if I couldn't have added this. Monica Nick (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The Playdate is a handheld video game console, not a home console. SkyWarrior 03:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you!. Monica Nick (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)