Colecovision is 'third wave' meaning 'third generation'?

[Pixelboy]

Back in the day... the ColecoVision, Atari 5200 and Vectrex were referred to as "3rd Generation" or "Third Wave". Now-a-days, these system are classified as "2nd Generation" and why this change was made still baffles me.

 

It was created by people that think videogaming started in 1985.

 

Anyone that has given console gaming from that time even passing attention can tell you that the Atari 5200, Colecovision, and a few others represent a significant and distinct jump in capabilities from those that preceded them. Yet people that barely have given either generation any attention choose instead to minimize their importance to videogaming and lump them together as an afterthought.

 

1st generation are the dedicated consoles. 2nd generation were the first wave of reprogrammable consoles like the 2600 and Intellivision, and the 3rd generation is where things like the Colecovision clearly belong. The NES belongs to the 4th generation of videogaming.

 

Hmm... I guess it all comes down to the definition of the word "generation". If you look at it only from a technical standpoint, your classification is okay.

 

But I can't help seing it differently. I have to place the ColecoVision in the same "generation" as the 2600 and Intellivision, because to me, a "generation" of consoles has a "market era" aspect to it. The Atari 2600 (and other similar cartridge-based consoles) were not competitors to the earlier non-programmable consoles, they were clearly a technological evolution, which was meant to replace the previous technology of Pong-like consoles. On the other hand, the Atari 2600, ColecoVision, Intellivision, Vectrex and others were clearly direct competitors during the same period (namely the early 80s) as they shared the same shelves in retail stores, and had the same target demographics.

 

The NES and SMS did not really compete with the Atari 2600/5200/7800, the ColecoVision or the Intellivision. They were again replacements, but only because of the Crash of 84 which left a void that Nintendo and Sega came in to fill, and that's how Nintendo became a household name, especially in North America. And that, to me, constitutes a change of generation, beyond any strict technical comparison of the consoles.

 

Of course, it's not a black-and-white thing. Where do such consoles as the Odyssey 2, the Astrocade of the Channel F fit into that generational classification is open to interpretation and even debate, but that's how I see it, for the most part.

[cimerians]

Regarding what people have been saying on generations here - saying something adamantly here about your personal opinion doesn't make it correct.

 

It doesn't make 'historians' and 'instutions' correct either. This is a debatable subject and it probably always will be.

What you say about waves WITHIN a generation is very interesting. Like you mentioned it can get very complex.

 

 

But I can't help seing it differently. I have to place the ColecoVision in the same "generation" as the 2600 and Intellivision, because to me, a "generation" of consoles has a "market era" aspect to it. The Atari 2600 (and other similar cartridge-based consoles) were not competitors to the earlier non-programmable consoles, they were clearly a technological evolution, which was meant to replace the previous technology of Pong-like consoles. On the other hand, the Atari 2600, ColecoVision, Intellivision, Vectrex and others were clearly direct competitors during the same period (namely the early 80s) as they shared the same shelves in retail stores, and had the same target demographics.

 

Thats another interesting viewpoint but I'm not sure. The 2600 and Intellivision were competitors. The 5200 was up against the Colecovision and some say the CV would have been a competitor for the NES if the crash didnt happen in the USA.

 

The thing that everyone looks at is the crash and then the Japan takeover as being a break of generations. But the NES really puts a monkey wrench in there. Because A). Its a Japan console and it took time for it to be a huge seller here. It did NOT hit big in the US in 1985. B). The market there was different than ours and still is. (Look at the last place Xbox 360!)

 

So you really have different markets in the world.

Edited April 12, 2012 by cimerians

[boxpressed]

It seems as though there are at least two different conversations going on here. The graphic in the original post says nothing about "generation," and the original poster is asking whether "wave" and "generation" are the same thing.

 

One conversation is what is meant by "third wave" and whether it is the same thing as "third generation" (I'm curious whether the writer was quoting Coleco PR copy by putting "third wave" in quotes).

 

The other conversation, which seems to be the one people want to have, is which console belongs to which generation. If we try to answer this question with any kind of authority, we should be prepared to be wrong in about six to twelve years, as previously discrete generations morph into the same generation because of new technology (the only reason why some would put the 2600 and Colecovision in the same generation).

[Atariboy]

The NES and SMS did not really compete with the Atari 2600/5200/7800, the ColecoVision or the Intellivision. They were again replacements, but only because of the Crash of 84 which left a void that Nintendo and Sega came in to fill, and that's how Nintendo became a household name, especially in North America. And that, to me, constitutes a change of generation, beyond any strict technical comparison of the consoles.

 

While it certainly wasn't much competition, the NES and SMS most certainly competed with the 7800.

 

And the Atari 2600 had a thriving rerelease after the NES hit that was quite successful with millions of consoles sold. And there's internal sales data on game sales during the NES era for the 2600 floating around here somewhere that would provide some facts for just how well the 2600 did during the second half of the 80s.

 

I don't understand the point of minimizing what consoles like the Vectrex, Colecovision, and Atari 5200 achieved. The Colecovision especially would've most certainly outlived earlier consoles had the market not crashed, Coleco lost focus with the PC market, and Coleco hadn't started to struggle internally.

 

If we had a crash happen in 2008 and the PS2 with its 150 million or so systems sold had managed to outlive the 360/PS3/Wii which were prematurely discontinued due to a small userbase, declining consumer interest, declining retailer confidence, and the poor financial state of the industry, would you be here trying to argue that they weren't 7th generation consoles but rather later 6th generation game consoles just because the PS2 outlived them and spent some time on the market alongside the WiiU/720/PS4?

 

To me, I see no sense penalizing a period of gaming due to an extreme market event that changed the industry significantly. When I fire up something like my Colecovision, I see a system that is significantly more modern than things like the 2600. It had far more power, offerred up new types of games, was better able to handle faithful arcade ports, had new ideas like incorporating a keypad into the controller, etc. To me, I see exactly what I see when I do something like fire up a Super Nintendo after playing a NES or putting in a PSOne game after playing a SuperNes game.

 

Just because it ultimately enjoyed just a short life and the most successful console ever at the time, the 2600 (And to a lesser extent, the Intellivision) managed to outlive it due to a strange combination of conditions at the time doesn't mean it should be stripped of its birthright and be treated as a mere afterthought or speed bump. Heck, I still saw brand new PSOne's around here back around 2006 or so after new Xbox and GCN consoles had dried up. To me that hardly means that the following generation of consoles should belong to the same era as the PSOne just because it managed to survive throughout the lifespan of 2 of the 3 consoles on the market the last generation.

 

Heck, there's been overlap in most every generation. I just bought a new PS2 at Wal-Mart a couple of weeks ago. The 360, Wii, and PS3 have been in competition with it throughout their lifespan and it was a significant force in the marketplace for several years earlier in their lifespan. Or the Super Nintendo which continued to sell millions of consoles in North America and Europe into the 2000's into the twilight of its replacement and managed to outlive its replacement in Japan. Going off this market era aspect you're discussing, why don't they fall into the same generation? Heck, the Wii by most accounts is just about done yet I can still buy the occasional new PS2 game (A baseball game just came out a few weeks ago), pick up brand new rereleases of earlier games, and buy new PS2 hardware and accessories today.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Atariboy

[high voltage]

Exactly, the VCS was released 77, the Coleco late 82, 5 years difference, the NES (famicom) was released 83, 11 months after the Coleco. Coleco and NES are same generation, VCS and Coleco are not.

 

And as much as the NES kids confuse the Odyssey with 'zero generation', that is totally wrong. Odyssey was first generation of the home video game.

[akator]

I disagree that the CV, 5200, and Vectrex were in the same generation as the 2600, even from a consumer perspective. The 2600 had lost much of its luster by the time the "third wave" of consoles had been released, and I don't recall any discussions at the time with friends or adults that suggested the 2600 was even vaguely in the same category. As consumers or nerds, we discussed the merits of the CV vs. the 5200 vs. home computers -- the 2600 had already been handed down to younger siblings, or sold in the classified section of the newspaper to pay for the newer and better hardware.

 

Even today when other non-video game fanatics have played the consoles in my collection, they did not think the 2600 and CV/5200/Vectrex should be lumped together. These systems feel vastly different, even more than the differences between the PS2/Xbox and PS3/360.

 

This is my take on it, based not only on hardware and marketing but also on gameplay characteristics:

1. Odyssey, Pong, dedicated consoles
   
2. Atari 2600, Odyssey 2, Intellivision, and many other late 70s early 80s programmable consoles
   
3. CV, 5200, Vectrex
   
4. NES, SMS, 7800
   
5. Genesis, SNES, TurboGrafx, Neo Geo
   
6. (Interactive Media, FMV, and Transitional 3D) Sega CD, 32X, CD-i, 3DO, Jaguar, etc.
   
7. (3D Gets Refined) PSX, Saturn, N64
   
8. blah blah blah
   

Just my take on it

[Atariboy]

The interesting problem to me is the Famicom/NES.

 

It was released in 1983 or so in Japan and many of the early games (Even as late as 1985/1986 with the North American release) wouldn't of been out of place on something like the Colecovision. Yet clearly the system eventually outdistanced its North American contemporaries at the time of its Japanese launch by a significant margin (Although they weren't given the same opportunities that the Famicom recieved that saw its hardware pushed so far that most of the launch lineup seemed archaic after a few years).

 

Rather than an argument about where things like the Colecovision belongs (Which I think quite clearly represents a generational leap above the 1st generation of reprogrammable consoles), I think the interesting debate should revolve around where that console belongs in the history books.

 

Not to say that I think it should be viewed as part of the same generation as the 5200/Colecovision/Vectrex, but if there's room to debate about where a console belongs in this fan created timeline, the NES is it I think due to its early Japanese release not long after consoles like the Colecovision were released in North America.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Atariboy

[spiffyone]

I'm resurrecting the thread because I really do think this needs to be hashed out.

 

BTW, I go with the earlier statements by Retro Rogue, and the list supplied by BillyHW, with some changes (NEO GEO stays with TG16/Genesis/SNES as it was part of that gen, but 32x, although an add-on to Genesis would be itself part of the later gen. Everything else stays as he listed, with WiiU, 720, and PS4 making up the 8th/9th gen (depending on how one lists the Pong and Oddyssey 1 as either gen 0 or 1).

 

Back in the day... the ColecoVision, Atari 5200 and Vectrex were referred to as "3rd Generation" or "Third Wave". Now-a-days, these system are classified as "2nd Generation" and why this change was made still baffles me.

 

It was created by people that think videogaming started in 1985.

 

Actually, it wasn't. Look at the discussion page of the Wiki, and you'll see noted "Atari historians" overruling things left and right.

 

I've had my disagreement with them, but those disagreements were labeled "original research", which is not applicable in an encyclopedia.

 

I call it "common sense".

 

Historically, Atari stated that 5200 was a "high end companion model" to 2600. That is, not a "replacement". Common sense, however, shows that had it taken off it very well might have been, but regardless it was the successor model and by being positioned as a "high end" model, Atari was, in fact, basically stating that it was a next gen product.

 

1st generation are the dedicated consoles. 2nd generation were the first wave of reprogrammable consoles like the 2600 and Intellivision, and the 3rd generation is where things like the Colecovision clearly belong. The NES belongs to the 4th generation of videogaming.

 

Well, yes, of course. That right there's just common sense, isn't it?

 

Now go argue that on the Wiki, and prepare to be shot down because they have "proof" which is not really proof at all that 5200 should be lumped in with 2600 in the same gen.; it's only proof of Atari's desire not to "replace" 2600 outright/discontinue it, which isn't abnormal because it's very much how the console industry has operated each gen since that time.

Atari introduced 5200 to ensure that if consumers went for a next gen system, they'd go for Atari's next gen system. I think anyone can agree to that. So why then is 5200 and, by extension, ColecoVision (which was marketed as a "3rd wave"/"3rd generation" console, btw), and possibly Vectrex as well, lumped in with 2600 in the 2nd gen? Because Atari kept the 2600 alive? Because they used the terms "high end" and "companion model"? So what? "High end" simply denotes that they were going after a certain consumer (those who wanted to upgrade from 2600, or wanted something more substantial than 2600 could provide, i.e. next gen console consumers), and "companion" simply denotes that both products were to be on market at the same time, meaning Atari wasn't killing 2600, and would target it to those either uninterested in, or unwilling or unable to purchase into (due to higher costs) the next gen who were still interested in getting a game system.

 

Guess what?

 

That's no different than what happens EVERY gen, particularly with the best selling console of the previous gen. It's kept alive as a "low end" model targeted to budget conscious consumers. Proof? NES, SNES/Genesis, PS1, and PS2. All kept alive as "low end/budget models" long after the next gen products were introduced onto market.

 

Nintendo kept NES alive until around '95 in the US and '03 in Japan, well after SNES was released. Hell, when SNES was released Nintendo made no real mention of "replacing" NES, if memory serves right. But common sense showed that that's exactly what it was as far as the early adopter, "core" gamer consumer market was concerned. It would "replace" their old NES consoles. But to newer, budget consumers it would be their most likely purchase, which is why Nintendo kept it on market for all that time. 5200, like SNES later, was Atari's salvo to keep that "core" group buying Atari products; that 2600 was still there as the "lower end" product simply meant that it served the same exact sort of strategic placement that NES did all through the '90s while SNES was shoring up more and more of a consumer base.

 

Again, I argued it, as have others in this very topic. But that's "original research"

 

NOTE: I don't hold ill will or disrespect toward the Atari historians. I just think they have this one issue completely wrong, but they seem very much against that idea.

[BillyHW]

I put Neo Geo with Genesis/SNES/TG16.

[spiffyone]

The interesting problem to me is the Famicom/NES.

 

It was released in 1983 or so in Japan and many of the early games (Even as late as 1985/1986 with the North American release) wouldn't of been out of place on something like the Colecovision.

 

This does bring up an interesting problem, actually.

 

Then again, would Famicom have been released at all in the US/NA market? If ColecoVision and Atari 5200 had been given fuller life cycles, if The Crash had been avoided completely, would Nintendo have even entered the market? Remember, they did approach Atari with the rights to Famicom even after The Crash had occurred, so fearful were they of competing on Atari's turf (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em is apparently also an old Japanese saying ).

 

Also, Famicom was released in July '83, but recalled and reissued later on. So, when was that? How long did it take to fix the manufacturing issues, hash out new marketing, consumer and retail relations, etc. That's a key question as well.

 

And, of course, gens do have some overlap, and some models are discontinued early but still part of whatever gen they're introduced in (so even though Atari most likely would've discontinued 5200...perhaps, it still would've been of the same gen as ColecoVision, with 7800 being a next gen product).

 

Eh...I like the list I agreed to earlier. Keeps everything nice and simple.

[+pboland]

The interesting problem to me is the Famicom/NES.

 

It was released in 1983 or so in Japan and many of the early games (Even as late as 1985/1986 with the North American release) wouldn't of been out of place on something like the Colecovision.

 

This does bring up an interesting problem, actually.

 

Then again, would Famicom have been released at all in the US/NA market? If ColecoVision and Atari 5200 had been given fuller life cycles, if The Crash had been avoided completely, would Nintendo have even entered the market?

 

Interesting idea. This article may shed a little light on that. It basically states that Nintendo looked at the ColecoVision when they started development of the Famicom:

 

Deciding on the Specs

[+pboland]

But I can't help seing it differently. I have to place the ColecoVision in the same "generation" as the 2600 and Intellivision, because to me, a "generation" of consoles has a "market era" aspect to it. The Atari 2600 (and other similar cartridge-based consoles) were not competitors to the earlier non-programmable consoles, they were clearly a technological evolution, which was meant to replace the previous technology of Pong-like consoles. On the other hand, the Atari 2600, ColecoVision, Intellivision, Vectrex and others were clearly direct competitors during the same period (namely the early 80s) as they shared the same shelves in retail stores, and had the same target demographics.

 

This is an interesting idea as well. However, that would mean the Sega Genesis should be in the same gen as the NES. The Genesis was released in 1989 as a direct competitor to unseat NES as the number one game system and Genesis had the same target demographics to boot.

 

 

Of course, it's not a black-and-white thing. Where do such consoles as the Odyssey 2, the Astrocade of the Channel F fit into that generational classification is open to interpretation and even debate, but that's how I see it, for the most part.

 

I don't see how the Odyssey 2 is open for debate on its classification. I believe it was state by Ralph Baer that the Odyssey 2 was brought to market to compete with the Atari 2600. Heck, it even came out after the 2600.

 

Here's another oddball. What about the Emerson Arcadia 2001. It wasn't released until 1982. So for those that say the ColecoVision & 5200 are gen 3, is the Emerson Arcadia 2001 as well (even though most classify it with the atari 2600).

[high voltage]

Right found it:

 

 

Coleco introduces the 'NEXT GENERATION'

 

 

 

 

Atari 5200 is 'THIRD GENERATION'

 

 

 

 

Emerson Arcadia (Hanimex HMG 2650, Bandai Arcadia ...etc) is 'THIRD GENERATION'

 

 

 

 

Also Odyssey 3 (Philips G7400, not released in USA) which was also in the third generation, and actually the first console to be backwards compatible.

 

As usual the Wikipedia generation page is fuck wrong and everyone here who says Atari 5200, Colecovision is 2nd gen, IS WRONG!!!!!!!

 

 

This book is also available in English and I am gonna point this out to Wikipedia to get it changed once in for all.

Edited June 4, 2012 by high voltage

[Pixelboy]

As usual the Wikipedia generation page is fuck wrong and everyone here who says Atari 5200, Colecovision is 2nd gen, IS WRONG!!!!!!!

 

I can admire the strength at which you state your opinion. But it's still just that, an opinion based on a specific perception of reality.

[NIAD]

Great research High_Voltage! I'd give you a...

BIG +1

 

but seeing as that system has been replaced here on AtariAge, I'll just have to hit the "LIKE" button.

 

Pixelboy... "an opinion based on a specific perception of reality" !!! Color me stupid , but I don't get what you're trying to say here, especially since there have been numerous pictures posted as proof... including the first picture in Post #1 that has been removed. Seems to me to be a delusional statement on your part especially considering that High_Voltage was the only one that spent some time researching the facts to back up his opinions/thoughts/memories.

[+5-11under]

There's only 4 generations:

1: Pong, Odyssey, etc.

2: Atari 2600, etc.

3: Atari 5200, ColecoVision, etc.

4: All the stuff that came after that.

[Atariboy]

As usual the Wikipedia generation page is fuck wrong and everyone here who says Atari 5200, Colecovision is 2nd gen, IS WRONG!!!!!!!

 

I can admire the strength at which you state your opinion. But it's still just that, an opinion based on a specific perception of reality.

 

It's not really opinion. It's how every other era of gaming consoles is handled at that page and there is even evidence that the console manufacturer's themselves labeled these systems as 3rd generation gaming consoles.

 

Why this era should be handled in some strange and different way from all the others is puzzling. Uniformity would make the most sense if people insist on grouping consoles into generations.

[NIAD]

There's only 4 generations:

1: Pong, Odyssey, etc.

2: Atari 2600, etc.

3: Atari 5200, ColecoVision, etc.

4: All the stuff that came after that.

Well said!

 

While I owned systems such as the NES, SMS and Genesis, I just never had that WOW factor that I had with the numerous Pong systems, the Atari 2600 and then the ColecoVision. I guess I can attribute this sad fact to growing older and finding other interests such as girls, beer, tequila and a well rolled and super fat led zepplin!