We were talking about this in the chatbox a while back.  Some of us said consoles that go back anywhere from 10 to 15 years would qualify as retro (it depended on who you asked).  For me 15 years is the ticket. 

I got the idea for this from a comment Laird made about only including the really retro systems in the Battle Of The Bands. Got me wondering what people consider to be retro systems or retro gaming these days.
For me I consider the Dreamcast and anything that came out before it.  The Dreamcast came out in 1999 which makes it the last system to come out in that century and as that's now 13 years ago that seems about right.
That's my opinion anyway, what does everyone else think?

Same as really, for me anything pre-2000 is retro, that's 13 years. In many ways I agree with Trek and the 15 year rule and the Dreamcast certainly shares a lot in common with modern consoles because of it controllers and ability to go online. However as Sega's last forray into the console market it already has a special place in history that lets it just get away with being retro.

To me, retro is more about the games library than the console. I don't consider the PS1 to be a retro console at all, even though it's older than the Dreamcast. If the defining games of the console were predecessors to 'modern gaming' then I don't think of the system as retro.

PS1 ushered in the modern cinematic games... heavy on character development, exploring 3D worlds, and linear FMV stories with endings. Limit the replay value so gamers play for 6-10 hours and go buy another game. Milk the familiar characters forever and sell endless sequels.

Dreamcast was the last retro console for me because most of the library is tied to its arcade roots. Fun, pick up and play gaming with unlimited replay value.

I have to admit I have a very hard time calling the PS1 retro for the same reasons.

Yet the Saturn, which came out at the same time, undoubtably so.

I cringe everytime I hear people on Retro Gamer forum call the PS2 and Gamecube retro, and I am not talking about just a few people either . . . .

The game style also does play a role in determining whether the consoles are retro or not, so I do agree with Tom on this as well.  These eternal games that require hours upon hours of play to get to one point are not retro at all.

Never thought about it like that but I guess you can't just go by how old the system is as I too have a hard time calling the PS1 retro.

I always thought when a cosnole was no longer being supported it became retro. Right now the only one that comes to mind is the Channel - F and the RCA Studio. Seems everything else has some kind of homebrew keeping the systems going.

I always thought when a cosnole was no longer being supported it became retro. Right now the only one that comes to mind is the Channel - F and the RCA Studio. Seems everything else has some kind of homebrew keeping the systems going.

Not true! The Fairchild Channel F got this brilliant homebrew version of Pacman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjFSjEp1tQU

Yes, and I'd say it puts the 2600 version (made my Atari) to shame.

Intermissions included. That is a fine Pac-Man game. Thanks Laird!

Its a difficult question to answer but here goes...

I think for me its anything over 10 years old, its easy to assume once a replacement console is released like the Wii U then the Wii must be retro just because its old news does not make it Retro..for me at least.

Likewise the original Xbox is now 10 Years old so for me its just about Retro as its ever going to get, and its older than the N-Gage and Wonderswan.. But are they considered Retro because the companies involved no longer produce them ie they are the last of their breed so to speak.  In fact the Xbox is only 2 years younger than the Dreamcast one of the most regarded Retro systems out there.

So that's how i see it, Generally they are 10 years old or the company no longer makes systems

The other thing that confuses matters a bit is that the gap between generations has got bigger.

Lots of people on RG are crying for the PS2 to be called retro because it is over 10 years old. But it's still only last gen and people are still making games for it too. The new FIFA and PES games have just come out for it as well as a new Final Fantasy expansion pack.

I'd say that the "official" line for retro ends at about the Dreamcast, but, truth be told, I'm young enough I could technically consider the PS2 retro. I know it sounds kind of weird, sure, but it's such an old, long-lived system that at least part of it holds nostalgia for me. ...Yes, yes, I'm young. I know.

I'd say that the "official" line for retro ends at about the Dreamcast, but, truth be told, I'm young enough I could technically consider the PS2 retro. I know it sounds kind of weird, sure, but it's such an old, long-lived system that at least part of it holds nostalgia for me. ...Yes, yes, I'm young. I know.

Damn kids these days! 

But seriously you bring up a good point. Most of the people on this site are in their 30's or older and therefore have been around video games since the beginning. Nobody has a problem calling the Dreamcast a retro console but yet we all cry bloody murder when someone dares call the PS2 retro even though it only came out a year later. A lot of that has to do with the style of the games on the console which has been mentioned earlier in this thread but that's because we all remember the simpler days of gaming. For the newer generation who got their start on the PS1 I can understand how they may call the PS2 retro, it has been 12 years now and they don't have the memories of the old games like the rest of us.