So, what do you consider to be "retro" or "old school" gaming?

[Sanriostar]

I'm probably the Get off my Lawn type:

I still consider Pre-crash to be considered "retro"; a mental relic from the RGVC days.
There's now systems considered old and classic by others that weren't even out when I started collecting.
Get me my Geritol and Whiskey tumbler, and fill it to the top, won't 'cha?

[Sabz5150]

Uses Li-Ion batteries and runs for twenty hours: Modern.
Uses AA batteries and runs for 50 minutes: Old School.

[substantial_snake]

Two generations back = classics

I go by this general rule because once you stop seeing major retailers stop selling a product it tends to fall away from the general gaming conciseness. Their are always special exceptions like the dreamcast and the various failed early to mid-90's consoles simply because their time at the forefront was so short. Also console relevance time frames tend to fall within 10-12 years and thats about enough time for many gamers to grow up and look back on what they played when they were kids as classic.

This was how my friends and I defined classic consoles even when we were growing up and I always thought it was kinda a universal thing when they seemed to go by the same rules here.

32-bit gen (16-bit still relevant) = 8-bit classic
PS2, GC, XBOX gen (32-bit still relevant) = 16-bit classic

And so on and so forth.

[jonebone]

Anything not in the current generation is classic to me. Yes, even Xbox and PS2. I consider "modern" to be the current systems.

[swlovinist]

Anything not in the current generation is classic to me. Yes, even Xbox and PS2. I consider "modern" to be the current systems.

I agree with this. Anything that is hitting that "decade mark" and is last gen would place it in a "classic category".

While I have been a classic gamer and grew up with the NES, that does not mean that the classic game systems should only be the ones I grew up with. As time moves on, so will the the games that people grew up with.