I've never thought quite so much about these generations despite growing up during them. The reason why I don't much care about this lost 2nd generation is that it was too little too late. I was already on my Atari 400 8-bit computer <i>(released in 1979)</i> which had graphics comparable to the 5200 three years later.<p>A definition of a generation needs not only a technical differentiation but also impact in the way of sales volume. This lost generation had the former but not the latter and in fact existed during the decline prior to the NES. I remember this vividly as I worked at my family's computer/game store selling Atari and ColecoVision.<p>I really do like having this all documented and brought into awareness to all the interesting consoles that get mentioned in passing but not collectively discussed. The gen 2.5 naming is fitting.<p>I was very much in the Atari camp--<i>I had C64 friends too</i>. I felt like Atari really dropped the ball--when rolling in cash and had all the tech to release something like the Atari XEGS[0] in 1979/80 but instead they were milking the VCS/2600 profits.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_XEGS" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_XEGS</a>
Neat little article, but the premise is sort of flawed.<p>The author says that the 3rd gen of consoles really begins with the NES (by which I guess he means 1985), and so these early 1980s consoles can't belong to the 3rd generation.<p>Ok, but the SG-1000 was only sold on the Japanese market and was released in 1983. Nintendo also released the Famicom (NES) in Japan that same year.<p>So I think it makes more sense to say that the 3rd generation begins in 1982/1983 with the Colecovision and Atari 5200. I don't think it's fair to exclude them from the 3rd generation just because they weren't as successful as the NES.<p>It's not like the NES/Famicom was radically more advanced than those consoles either. The 5200 and NES have very similar hardware (both are running MOS 6502 variants). The NES was a little more powerful but that's not why it was more successful. The NES beat the competition because it was a better designed product that was ruthlessly marketed and supported by Nintendo.<p>The NES had super durable, and (for the time) ergonomic controllers while the 5200 and Colecovision had shitty, stiff joysticks with 9-digit numpads attached to the body. Nintendo sought out top game design and engineering talent to put out compelling, boundary pushing original titles while Atari and Coleco were still stuck in the arcade port paradigm.