Talk:Console wars

message: Why is there a such section in the handheld wars? There is already global statistics, so why are the statistics of one country included separately?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.217.18.61 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ans: US is the largest market for consoles among other things and it's statistics largely influence the global scenario.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.128.126 (talk • contribs) 
The US sales figures for the 7800 are wrong! It sold 3.77 million in the US alone - http://atariage.com/forums/topic/144552-happy-25th-7800-sales-figures-attached/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetroLaird (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Forums are not reliable sources (WP:RS) Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US sales figures

message: These generation names are really terrible.
I can see why you've done it for the PS2 et al onewards as there is no '128 bit' but prior to that the generations do have definate names. They are the 8-bit and 16-bit consoles. Read anything on the console wars not based upon this wikipedia article and you will see talk of 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit consoles. This 'third generation' stuff is purely a wikipedia creation and not a very good one.
At the very least we should give the eras with proper names their proper names (8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit). Ideally we should have better names for the generations after too- Wii et al is the 'current generation' so we don't have to worry about that for the next few years. For the PS2 et al though...I think we should adapt a desciptive name. Maybe the 'DVD era' or 'enter Microsoft' or something of the sort- with the current gen likewise being renamed a few years down the road depending on what defines it (maybe it'll be HD, maybe motion sensing, who knows). But thats irrelevant.<Br> The main point for now- 8 to 32 bit eras deserve their proper names!--Josquius 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't the proper names on Wikipedia, and at the very least this article should follow the format set forth by the other articles this one summarizes as to not be confusing. Beyond that, in things like your "32-bit era", we see a 64-bit game console. - ZakuSage 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not an article to set trends, this is one that follows a scheme set many months ago after deliberation in the respective articles for the console "generations". This article was brought to properly match such articles way back on September 16th. Basing the naming on "bittage" is seriously a horrible idea, and for stylistic purposes at the very least there should be a consistency between articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, please stop removing all references to the American dollar on this page, it's a very childish thing to do. Furthermore, you edits to the Seventh Console Generation, while constructive (the previous version was far to verbose for a summary in that it was longer than the article it links to...), is non-neutral, contains un-encyclopedic opinions (Edge magazine?), contains weasel words, and for some reason makes use of HTML when you don't need to be causing poor formatting. As such, I've re-written much of it. - ZakuSage 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't feel that Wikipedia should simply go by the current standard, however this argument has already been had, and the version I've again brought back is the one chosen as a compromise on other articles. Seriously, other then being as a summery for those articles this one has very little purpose other than to simply to define what a console war is (see below for more details). Also, blindly reverting will get this going nowhere. - ZakuSage 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, it really doesn't matter what Edge magazine or analysts think, their opinions shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZakuSage (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're the one who's been consistently reverting over constructive edits. Your most recent one now just brings back those improper inconsistent names names, once again adds the opinions of Edge magazine (non-encyclopedia information), and adds false information (PS3 came out 2 or 3 days before Wii...). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZakuSage (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are the one who started flatly reverting constructive edits. 
And your information is incorrect- the PS3 came out before the Wii if we look at the earliest available anywhere- 11th of November for the PS3, the 19th for the Wii. And if you consider that the PS3 is not due out until March in Europe I think enough of a case can be made for the Wii being first (it only being second in the US).
And how the hell do you figure that Edge is not relevant to wikipedia? It is THE games magazine in Europe. Its in the league of Famitsu, perhaps even more relevant as its a industry magazine as well as a standard games magazine. What it says carries a lot of weight, go look around computer game articles on wikipedia and you'll find a lot of references to what Edge has to say.--Josquius 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not everyone lives in Europe. The PS3 has come out on the 11th in Japan and the 17th in North America, that's more than reason enough to say it came out first. And it really does not matter if they are respected or not, the opinions of a magazine, person, or other entity do not belong on an encyclopedia and should be removed from any article that has them. - ZakuSage 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Since when do you look at averaging all the release dates for a console to determine when it came out? The sentence from Edge magazine, besides not even being directly sourced, as I have already said is of a matter of opinion not fact, which makes it un-encyclopedic. It's also speculation! - ZakuSage 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In this case it literally doesn't even matter if Europe did exist; the PS3 saw a release before Wii, and besides that it's in alphabetical order. Again, regarding the Edge thing, if you can't find a proper source then it definitely shouldn't be in there. - ZakuSage 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm interested to know why Edge would not be considered a proper source. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? I was under the impression that newpapers and magazines were considered proper sources. I admit that I am not sure, and I am quite open to any evidence that this is not the case. It seems like the easiest way to settle this dispute is to cite a source for this rule. I would agree that from the exchange above, PS3 came out first and "it literally doesn't even matter if Europe did exist", but what is the objection to including the suggested clarification that it only came out first in Japan but second elsewhere? It seems like information people who are researching the topic might like to know. LFAS 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers and magazines can be used as sources for factual information, but not for speculation as it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia in the first place. As for specific dates of PS3's release, if someone wanted to know that they'd go to the PS3 article - ZakuSage 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Might be best to bring that up here. - ZakuSage 01:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation names 

message: As means of solving the current dispute, I am conducting a straw poll on the changes proposed by Josquius with regards to section names the bulk of which can be found here. This should be left open for a week at the very least, and the page revert war should end (IE I will stop, you will stop until we can get some other users input). I realise this is not the most frequented page on Wikipedia, so it may take longer than a week. - ZakuSage 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: Since any changes to generation names here would have to far reaching effects on many more wikipedia articles, I'm opening up further discussion on this topic at CVG project talk. Refer there from now on. - ZakuSage 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving discussion to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games|CVG project talk]] 

message: Why do we need two different articles that essentially deal with then exact same thing, and in most cases contain the exact same information? - ZakuSage 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, either merging these articles together or simply gutting this article down by removing all the individual console wars and placing a "see also" section at the bottom to link to those individual console wars articles is really the only useful thing to do with this particular article. Perhaps this should just be put up for AFD even. It serves no purpose other than to reiterate and add to redundancy. - ZakuSage 03:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the two articles should be merged. Console wars and video game consoles are distinct though related topics, so I think it is useful for Wikipedia to have an entry on both. LFAS 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge this article into [[Video game console]]

message: I think that this whole revert editing war is dumb.  On the page, originally the page read "first generation," "second generation," and so on.  Renaming them to "8-bit," and "16-bit" and so on only implies that previous versions were not as important and that future versions will be "128-bit" or "256-bit," which they are not.  It also makes for a discontinuity in how you would name console wars prior to NES/Master System (what I would call "the third generation war").  Plus, the terms "first," "second," "third," and so on are used as the parts of titles of articles related to this and also on the information bar on individual consoles' articles as well.  Also, I agree that the term "next-gen" is a term that changes with time.  For example, right now it refers to Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3, but should not be used as a permanent description of any generation of game consoles.--Crossman33 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 128-bit and 256-bit doesn't come into it at all as such consoles don't exist. 
The article originally followed standard computer game industry conventions and read 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit and next generation. Problems only arose when next gen was no longer next gen and no definate name emerged for it.
Naming 'first generation', 'second generation' and all that is just wrong over most of the world and only works for America. In Japan the MS vs. NES was the first generation to have a war, in Europe it was the second.--Josquius 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just read through the comments in this section. It seems like people disagree about which was the original generation war, second generation war, etc. What are the objections to naming each section more descriptively (8-bit, 16-bit, etc.), and next generation, then when the next generation becomes something else with time, renaming it and adding the new next generation? LFAS 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objectively verifiable terminology would be better than "first" "second" etc. WAS 4.250 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that this whole revert editing war... 

message: They just announced that they sold 10.4 million through the 2006 year...about half a million over their expectations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.186.152 (talk • contribs).
The PS3 and the Wii are not as updated as their wiki pages, they should be updated too.
If someone could please update the 360/PS3/Wii total sales numbers, it would be much appreciated.  I don't know where else to go to get this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.103.246 (talk • contribs).
:The sources for the total sales of the current generation are all wrong. The Wii sales figures come from an old financial statement issued by Nintendo on October, 2007, and it is cited as information from December, 2007. The PS3 data is also out of place, as the information on the consoles sold doesn't match the numbers cited. The Xbox 360 data is the only "up-to-date" article, citing an article who is citing a Microsoft statement with no sources. This doesn't seem to give the credibility needed in order to establish a valid number. Hopefully we can get some cleaner numbers to clarify the information given. Sigurdvh (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All three consoles need updates 

message: I think the bit about the BBC Micro having "superior technology" over the Commodore 64 definately has to go, since it is more than debabable: The BBC Micro had no hardware-sprites, no scrolling, less colours (8 max at the same time compared to 16 on the c64) and a Soundchip that could not come close to what a SID can do (no Filter, no Ringmodulation) . The only superiority i can see is a faster CPU, twice the RAM (only in the B+128 model though!) and that it also supported higher resolutions, albeit only with 2 colors monochrome, rendering it unsuitable for comparable game graphics quality.  Since the BBC Micro did not have hardware sprites and scrolling, the faster CPU is not really noticeable in most games, as these extra MHz are quickly eaten up by having to calculate software sprites. Rare examples like well-suited Games such as Elite being better on the BBC Micro do not mean general technical superiority, it's the same with the ZX Spectrum... deekay64
I totally agree. Additionally, the C64 made better use of the limited RAM and CPU it had with its machine language and BASIC programmability.75.21.138.94 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical evaluation

message: The Dreamcast should not be mentioned as having been 'fourth' in the DVD era.
Its status is somewhat similar to that of the N64 only the opposite. 
It arrived too early for the main console war and never competed with the Xbox and Gamecube, there was only some slight competition with the PS2, sort of a test run of the console war. To mention it as having been fourth ignores its special circumstances and implies that it actually did finish the generation.--Josquius 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreamcast Fourth 

message: The source for PS2 sales according to continent, I.e. US, Europe etc is incorrect.
That is the number of systems shipped not sold.
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=14940 is a better source for US sales.
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6161370.html?sid=6161370 and for Europe.
If the other figures I.e. gamecube etc are shipments as well, maybe the title for that table should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.196.41.221 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for ps2 sales are incorrect. 

message: We really need sources for the current generation sales figures.  It seems almost like a mini-edit war between fanboys of systems and others who see lower numbers.  None of the figures have sources cited and need citations added.--Crossman33 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need sources 

message: Does anyone know a better source for sales figures rather than VGCharts or NexGenWars?  It appears that A Link to the Past is correct, looking at WP:ATT about said "sources."  I think that we should rely on official releases from the console manufacturers, rather than 3rd party sources; although VGCharts is better than NexGenWars, it is still not a proper source according to WP:ATT.  I invite anyone to discuss this topic here.--Crossman33 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I KNOW who he is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's my question: are we talking about vgchartz.org or vgcharts.com? Vgcharts.com definitely is not proper, while Vgchartz.org is more professional.--Crossman33 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I have no idea why you'd say the latter is more professional - besides using "z" in place of "s", they're run by the same person and only use estimates by a single unprofessional random internet goer from Europe who has absolutely no editorial oversight. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be different as of right now. Vgcharts.com (actually officially videogamecharts.com) hasn't been updated since year's end, while vgchartz.com is still making projections.  However, I don't feel that's the point.  Point is, of course, to find true numbers. --Crossman33 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that one hasn't been updated does NOT serve to say it's different. Hell, it shows me that the owner of vgcharts simply migrated to vgchartz. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, just a side note, I did find out that vgchartz is indeed just a "relaunch" of vgcharts so therefore you are correct. --Crossman33 01:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better source for sales??? 

message: Console Wars is also a funny film on wiitube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Racooon (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Console Wars film. 

message: Is there any countrywise data of sales in Europe and Asia? Anwar 11:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National sales data

message: I believe that the claim that the Sega saturn was the first 32 games console isn't accurate, I think that the Amiga_CD32 was the first 32 bit console available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.122.181 (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  32bit Era 

message: In the current sales figures stated in the current generation section, it is stated that, according to the article Global Xbox 360 sales top 11.6M, the figures for the XBox 360 are 13.4 as of September 30, 2007. However, the article was written in September 20, 10 days prior to the date cited, and the number cited as of consoles sold is also much less than the one stated in the article (11.6 to 13.4). Either they sold 1.8 million consoles in ten days, which to me sounds like an incredible feat, or am I getting the whole data from the sources wrong? Please let me know if there is something going on, so we can set the figures straight with the right number of actual consoles sold.
:Have you taken a look at the infobox at Xbox 360? There it is indicated that the 13.4 million number is Xbox 360 units shipped, with 8.9 million sold. --Silver Edge 06:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the updated link to the sales figures. Now everything seems to be in order. Thanks! Sigurdvh 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked and updated PS3 section. Some joker thought it'd be nice to say PS3 sold 80.59 mil units. The rest looked up to date though. Shouldn't that section be under some for of edit protection anyway? It's a magnet for fanboyism. Rosenvox Jan 19/08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.42.75 (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you have misunderstood some things about that. First, is that the the figure is "more than 70 million", not just "70 million". 70.2 million is an entirely plausible figure for the "more than 70 million" statement. Second, is that the data comes directly from Sony (using these sources: ). Third, is that while the figures are as of the end of September, that doesn't mean that is when they were released to the public. Sony measures its sales by financial quarter, and the quarter to which this refers ended on 30 September 2012. Alphathon  (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide sales figures in current generation 

message: There was a discussion on the VG Project talk page about merging Nintendo DS vs. PlayStation Portable console war into this article. Since the handheld article is since little progress and has been virtually untouched in a week, it is probably best to merge. Any objections? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Though the word "partial" means not 100%, it usually implies a small amount when used normally. The Wii is in fact perfectly backwards compatible with the Gamecube, but that doesn't make it more efficient, the Gamecube was a very simple console with simple games. The Ps3 has to handle two libraries, the Ps2 being the more complicated one, because the games aren't as simple as Gamecube. With Gamecube the Wii just needed to handle half-sized disks that contain games with no internet play or USB controls, the Ps2 was both CD and DVD format games, most with online play and some with USB controls, they are also much older than the Ps3, especially Psx games. Ps3's backwards compatibilty is somewhere near 95%, and that's very good considering the extremely large amount of games in both Psx and Ps2's libraries. Another important note is that the article is outdated, It mentions the downloadable Nintendo and Xbox games, suggesting that there are no Playstation games in the PS Store. Subtalvik (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ps3 Backwards Compatibility

message: When anyone is updating sales numbers make sure you update the citations. As of Sept. 26, 2008 both the Canadian and American (and possibly other) home console sales citations for the current generation do not match the listed sales numbers. Lack of citations to back the numbers up renders the data unreliable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.44.223 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the figures back to the sourced figures.  --Silver Edge (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Updates with Sales Updates 

message: In the section on the DS, the article states that the DS's power is comparable to the N64. The section on the PSP, however, states that it is "more powerful than the Nintendo DS, with graphical power comparable to being in between the original PlayStation and the PlayStation 2". I can't help but think this is a bit confusing, since graphical power in between the PSX and the PS2 would be the N64, surely? Perhaps something along the lines of saying the PSP's power approaches the PS2 or something similar would be more appropriate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.210.5 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a silly argument. The point is that the GameBoy Advance played remakes of SNES titles, whil the DS plays remakes of N64 titles. In that sense, they are comparable. I don't know what there is to argue about. -66.41.19.135 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSP/NDS Power Comparison? 

message: Numbers were subject to vandalism, I corrected then to the numbers on the citations.
85.139.80.147 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US and European Numbers for the Xbox 360 and PS3 

message: I'd be interested in cleaning up and updating this article, It seems that this article needs some more sources to backup the current generations of consoles. Also I think that the catagories need to be streamlined instead of going from 16bit era, 32bit era to Sixth Generation, etc. Also, this entry needs to updated as it hasn't seen any real updates since 2009.Sat6-NJITWILL (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and Update 

message: Discussions relating to this article have been started at WP:ORN#Mega Drive/Genesis sales and WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite?. Please comment there if you have any useful input. Anomie⚔ 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of discussions 

message: A lot of the figures are from different years even in the same categories, I'm sure the data is out there somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.131.247 (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figues 

message: User:Indrian claims that the reliable sources which are providing the information that the Sega Master System was sold 13 Million times have it wrong.
On that assertion he has tried to completely remove the mentioning of the Sega Master System. 
The problem is that he does not provide any proof that the reliable sources have it wrong, so I reverted his edit. Perhaps he wants to provide proof of his assertions here. 16:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sega Master System sales figures 

message: Currently, the sales totals only list the most recent sales to datem but isn't it a bit pointless ?
When people are talking about "console wars", the real interest is to know how consoles were ranked when the competition for this generation was actually relevant. For an example, the monthly PSP sales became superior to the DS one since the 3DS was released, because the potential DS base naturally moved to the successor. Displaying nowaday sales gives the wrong impression about DS and PSP respective popularity during the actual war. 
Overall, we should have a list displaying sales as they were once the next generation started.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.136.41.119 (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That presupposes there is a particular date that is unambiguously considered the "end" of the actual war. To take your suggestion, the release of a console of the next generation doesn't immediately make the old machines irrelevant. Anomie⚔ 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display 2 sales ttals for each generation. 

message: Should the iPod Touch/iPhone/Android be counted as handheld systems?
They have caused a significant revenue decrease for the established competitors by siphoning erstwhile market share from the Nintendo DS/Sony PSP lines.
As such, I would think it just to include the systems in the wars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.165.155 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many times before. These devices are separate from handhelds in many ways and as such do not fit in with them in their "wars". While many use their iPhones etc for gaming, that is not their primary function, and not why most are sold. That is not to say that they shouldn't be mentioned, but if they are it should be similar to the Home computer wars section. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod Touch/iPhone/Android into 7th Generation/Handheld systems 

message: This whole section is awful, full of unsubstantiated claims, personal opinion and wild speculation. It needs to be drastically overhauled or removed entirely. There are no sources cited in this whole section. To be honest, information on competition between smartphone and console markets doesn't seem like it belongs in this article. I'd support it being spun off into its own article, but it'd obviously have to be of a much higher quality to be worthwhile. -Dalziel 86 (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The smartphone market Vs. The console market