[game_preservation] Generations standards?

[Martin Goldberg]

Has the SIG done any work with defining generations standards for
documentation/archiving use?

A recent discussion/debate I had with a collector had me revisit some
issues I've had with the 2nd/3rd generation definitions, and
definitions in general.  The quandary is the different standards
people use to denote "generations".  Release date, intended
competitors, generation of technology, or a mixture of all three.

For example, we can look at the consoles from '76-'89 (collectively
the commonly referred to "second" and "third" generations) in several
different ways:

1) Technology.  All are part of the "8-bit era" of technology, and we
can split that era in to three generations of 8-bit technology: a)
Fairchild, RCA, 2600, Bally, Odyssey2, and Intellivision  b)
Colecovision, Atari 5200, Vectrex, Sega SG1000, etc.  c)Atari 7800,
Famicom/NES, Mark III/Master System.  All three of those represent
defined leaps in technology directly in response to the previous
generation's design and market presence.  An issue with this approach
can be when an "older generation" technology appears during a newer
generation's market.  Such as a Pong console released in 1982 (which
there still were), or for example my company's release of the Atari
Flashback 2/2+ during the current generation.

2) "Bitness".  Related to method 1, some divide 2nd and 3rd by and
refer to it as the 3rd generation as the "8-bit era".  This stems from
the misconception that somehow the earlier generation 8-bit consoles
must not be 8-bit because of their poorer in comparison graphics
capabilities.  This leads to issues with a) Are we describing the
bitness of the CPU or graphics generator?  b) Presentation of
"bitness" arose more as a marketing tool, and in actuality not all
components under the hood were in support of that claim.

3) Market changes.  I.E. Second and Third generation are often defined
by pre and post crash consoles.  The issues with this are that a) The
crash was a U.S. phenomenon.  b) It fails to take in to account the
elements of definition 1, and throws two different 8-bit hardware
generations in to a single "second generation" while throwing the
third in to it's own.

4) Market presence.  When was it on the market and actively being
sold?  Issues with this can be a) Generations overlap, and more so in
the case of the 2600 (1977-1991) and the Famicom/NES (1983-2003).  B)
Consoles being sold at the same time (i.e. "on the market") are not
always actually intended to be direct competitors.  In modern terms
such as when the PS2 sales overlap PS3/Xbox360/Wii.  Or for example
when you have the rebranded 2600 Jr. being sold and marketed at the
same time as the NES/Master System/7800, but clearly not intended to
directly compete.

5) Release date.  This is tied with Market presence.  The problem with
release date and market presence it that they can also be circular in
reasoning for a definition.  They rely on the establishment of
definition of generation to place it within in the first place.


I myself have leaned towards a definition combination of 1 and 4,
being based chiefly on 1.  I.E. what does the technology represent
generation wise, and who were it's actual intended competitors.  And
because we're already long established in the media with the current
generation being Seventh, I've resigned myself to being forced to just
split the "2nd generation" in to "Early Second" and "Late Second".

Thoughts, revelations, etc.?


Marty