There’s no hard and fast rule that says how old a console needs to be for it and it’s games to be considered retro.
There are a lot of people that say that anything from two generations ago is retro. That would put the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and the Wii in the retro camp.
Do you think the PS3 generation is retro or if not what consoles do you consider to be retro systems?
If PS3, XBOX 360 is a retro console then GTA V is a retro game.
I think this is a good point. In order for games to be considered retro they should be stylistically different from modern games, and I don’t think this counts as a big enough difference.
You can also still download and play 360 games online. With Microsoft still maintaining the infrastructure (like for various Call of Duty’s).
You can go download Super Mario Bros, too. That’s probably not a great bar for it.
Ofc it is, shame on Rockstar.
I like the “20 year rule”. So, in this case, not quite yet. :)
20 years after launch? Or after the end of production of new units? Or 20 years after the last title was offered on that console?
After launch. Obviously it’s a rule of thumb though, and not a cast iron date.
TBH I think I first heard it on the retro hour podcast. Thought about it, and yeah it does roughly work out right for me.
I think it might also depend on your age though. Probably someone who is 15 now sees the Wii or even Wii U as retro, whereas I’m an 80s kid.
I think there’s a strong argument for as little as 10 years after launch.
In the year 2002 people with a GameCube, PS2, or Xbox definitely viewed the SNES and Sega Genesis as retro consoles.
In 2007 I think PS3 and Wii owners viewed the PS1 and N64 as retro.
Keep in mind though, console generations were shorter back then so years between devices mattered more.
Back then 5 year lifecycle is pretty average. Since the wii/360/ps3 generation, it shifted from 5 to 7-9 year cycles.
Well it can get even more complicated the closer you look.
The Famicon released in Japan in 1983, while the NES didn’t start to get released elsewhere until 1985. The SNES was 90/91, while the N64 was delayed until late 1996. And do you factor in the Virtual Boy anywhere there?
Then Sega: they dropped the Saturn real quick. The Dreamcast is, in a lot of ways, more similar to the PlayStation and N64 than the PS2 and GameCube. It sits somewhere in-between.
Applying the rule today, the Wii U and 3DS would be considered retro. I’ll admit they aren’t the first things that come to mind when I think of the word retro, but thinking about it I don’t have any strong objections.
The PS4 and Xbox One are right on the bubble. I think what complicates those was the mid-gen upgrades they received. And then the global supply shortages from the pandemic. Microsoft seems to be purposefully trying to blur the lines between generations too. So I think that is where the 10 year mark starts to break down.
You could also look at when games stop being released, but that has issues too. Just Dance 2020 released in 2019 for the Wii. You could look at when consoles stop being supported, but Nintendo was still repairing Famicoms through 2003. The Master System was still being produced in Brazil through 2022 (it might still be?).
Of course, there’s also an argument that the “retro” category should apply to the software rather than the hardware. There’s a lot of retro-inspired games that have been released recently. Undertale and The Witcher 3 both came out in 2015: will both eventually turn the corner to be considered “retro” at the same time?
Everything is subjective here, but I think a decade is a good rule of thumb to start labeling things retro. Culturally, at least in the US, we tend to group things by decade. Our radio stations will have segments dedicated to the '70s, '80s, '90s, etc. Fashion, art, books, movies, and more tend to be grouped similarly. I think videogames are pretty close. The 80’s were the 8-bit systems. The 90’s were split between 16-bit and early 3D (aka 32-bit as long as you ignore Nintendo’s marketing). The 2000’s were mostly the end of storage concerns, and the bump from mostly 240i ot 480i. The 2010’s were the upgrade to 1080p and online services.
I think one major thing helping the Gamecube/Xbox/PS2 generation is not only the device, but the television, as they still were primarily used on 480i devices.
The 360/PS3 although not immediately at the start, were basically on 720p screens, and albeit outside of the switches handheld screen, the resolution is still “usuable” in todays standards and many games on the Xbox One and PS4 was still running at said resolution. People are still using LCD tech which makes it feel weird to call it retro for some.
I think the HDMI port is a big part of it too. Even if the version of it has changed over time, it’s really simple to plug a PS3 into a brand new TV, or a PS5 into a TV from the PS3’s era.
Technically, you can find all sorts of interesting outlier games with visual settings. If I remember correctly, I think the first 16:9 game was on the Genesis (maybe 32X or CD? Pretty sure it was a soccer game). I know for a fact Pac Man World for the PS1 had a 16:9 mode, and some other PS1 games did. Then on the GameCube and PlayStation you often had to read the manual to find a special button combination to hold during startup to enable higher resolutions or progressive scan. Gran Turismo 4 was one of the few PS4 games that supported 1080i. I never had an Xbox or Dreamcast, but I believe they had better support for higher resolutions. Then the PS3 was mostly 720p, but with some 1080p mixed in. I imagine some of the cheap 2D digital-only games were probably 480p. And then we start seeing dynamic resolutions where things get even more mixed: especially on the Switch. There’s the “4K checkerboarding” that a lot of PS4 games use, and now the different modes that are bridging the gaps with PC’s.
For it to be “retro” a paradigm shift has to occur. Considering that PS3 and 360 were both HDMI systems, with online play, friend lists, private messaging, bluetooth/wireless headset supporting, and both have achievements, tell me, is that very different than the systems that are currently available? All that’s really changing with your gaming experience is playing games with worse lighting and the tedious mechanics that plagued a lot of gen 7 games. PS2 and og Xbox are definitely retro, but unless cloud gaming all of a sudden became the norm and consoles just became streaming boxes, I think PS3 and 360 are still modern consoles.
Considering that PS3 and 360 were both HDMI systems, with online play, friend lists, private messaging, bluetooth/wireless headset supporting, and both have achievements, tell me, is that very different than the systems that are currently available?
The 360 orignally didnt have HDMI (started with the launch of the Elite about a year after the 360 originally launched, iirc) and the OG xbox supported many of those when Xbox Live launched. On the other side, the Wii barely had any PS3/360 era hallmarks listed above and the ones it did support were almost never the main focus of the game. I honestly can’t remember the Wii even supporting a headset.
The paradigm shift currently underway is a transition to non-physcial distribution media and games-as-a-service. Streaming boxes aren’t viable enough over the internet, yet, but local downloads sure are. The PS3/360/Wii would all be retro if the defining factor was the average person not relying on an internet connection to play an average game. Yes I know eariler systems had digital downloads too but the average person still played more physical games than digital. Today it’s more even, if not a digitial lead. Most games of the Seventh Gen era didn’t require digitial updates; today you’d be hard pressed to find one that works without needed to download half or more of the game just to install.
Streaming will almost certainly be the next era after the current digtial one, but the internet isn’t quite good enough for a wide enough audience for that, yet.
deleted by creator
But then again game streaming, largely online games, SSD’s and ray tracing were all dreams for the 360
That’s a difficult one to classify as there’s no set period of time wherein something would be classified as retro (as you said). Personally, I’d say the PS2/original Xbox and earlier are retro consoles. The PS3/Xbox 360/Wii are on the precipice, but not quite over the hill yet. Give it another few years and they’ll be seen as “old tech”.
EDIT: I think everyone has a skewed version of what retro actually is. I hear retro and think anything that hadn’t progressed to 3D graphical capabilities; but I also forget the PS3/Xbox 360/Wii are all almost 20 years old!
deleted by creator
Pedantic note: Wii could only output up to 480p, so technically it’s pre-HD
deleted by creator
Nope. It can do 480 line in progressive, but so can the PS2.
Regarding the retro qualifications, I don’t think people realize that there is as much time between the Xbox 360 and now as between the NES and the PS2.
When people think of “retro” as pre-3D stuff they don’t realize they’re talking about maybe 20 years in commercial gaming history. Counterstrike has been online longer than all generations of 2D home consoles.
deleted by creator
Enjoy how old that makes you feel, because I was rounding down a bit. In 2026 you will be able to say that about the X360.
As in, by 2026 there will be as much time since the X360 as between the NES and the X360.
That’s less than three years from now. Tick. Tock.
N64 had 3d games.
Yes. I never said it didn’t. I think you may have misread what I was trying to say or maybe are responding to something else?
When people think of “retro” as pre-3D stuff they don’t realize they’re talking about maybe 20 years in commercial gaming history. Counterstrike has been online longer than all generations of 2D home consoles.
I read this as 3D being the last 20 years, but I assume from your response you meant there was only 20 years of gaming before 3D came into the picture?
It’s released in an HD era
Does anyone consider a 1990 Honda Civic to be a classic car? No, but in 1990, a 1960 Galaxie was a classic.
In Denmark we distinguish “classic” and “veteran” cars.
Classic: a popular veteran car
Veteran: a car over 30 years old registered as such (black number plates optional)
Id say that veteran could be the console alternative to “retro”
Not sure if id say the ps3 is a good console that deserves the classic stamp of approval.
I’d personally say that if a generation of kids didn’t grow up with something like a certain console or a certain toy because the next Gen console or next big toy came out, then yes it’s retro by the time those kids become teens (at least 12-13 years old).
So by that standard, yes I’d consider both of those consoles retro.
I get that it’s a short period of time for things to become retro, but at the same time, I guarantee some kid who never had a 360 and only had an xbox one would probably call a 360 retro.
My brain agrees but my heart strongly disagrees
No
Counterpoint: yes.
