Microsoft screwed up xbox one from the start. I never said xbox one would sell 80 million with gta6. Maybe around 70m. im expecting the next xbox to sell 80m+ because of gta6 and microsoft wouldnt mess up the announcement again. 

There's no point where I would have to admit that I am wrong.

In regards to the question of generations, you've said that it's not definitive yet, so even by your logic Switch might be considered gen 9 eventually when its lifecycle is long enough.

In regards to Switch not competing in the home console market, you've been unable to provide proof for your claim. You like to refer to Switch as a handheld, but it's a $300 console with $60 games, both values being far above the typical prices of handhelds in the past. How do you explain why it sells so well?

In regards to the blue ocean point, you have argued based on the assumption that the Switch has no part in the home console market and must be viewed only in a handheld context, hence why you keep saying monopoly, but ignore the new value proposition of home console games being able to be played on the go on a whim; a value that puts Switch both in the home console and handheld market. What you need for this point is the proof that Switch is not competing in the home console market, but you don't have it.

Ding! Ding! 

Righto you are but for now the Switch is firmly joining the 8th generation ... 

Pricing and system design are not mutually exclusive. For example, TurboExpress by NEC and N-Gage by Nokia both launched at $299 USD ...

As for why Switch is successful at that price point, you forget about inflation. Consumers typically do not keep the same pricing expectations for everything over time and that especially applies to electronics such as game consoles. Either Sony or Microsoft will come out successful regardless of a potential $499 USD launch price tag and I imagine that Nintendo will bump the price of their Switch successor by another $50 to a total of $349 USD ... 

It's "new value proposition" doesn't seem to change the Switch's sales curve all that much since it's performing close enough to the 3DS which was nearly a monopoly back then as well. The Sega Nomad offered a similar concept to the Switch by being able to play "home console games" (whatever that means) on the go as well ... (both sound practically identical in terms of feature set on the high level) 

A portable console being able to play "home console games" (meaningless qualifier) is not a feature unique to the Switch ... 

Your argument of a "unique value proposition" in case of the Switch has NO real meaning since you have yet to truly differentiate between "home console games" and "portable console games" ... (just calling Switch games as "home console games" is not good enough to establish that the Switch is in direct competition to the PS4/X1 which are true home console designs in the sense of the definition) 

Only by unfairly splitting the Switch sales between two generations like the op wants to do.  Why not go by total sales who knows?  Total sales matters the most and not some bullshit split generation comparison.  Even then Switch might still outperform XB4. 

fatslob has noticed a good while ago that a specific method provides great leeway to posting, so he uses it to assume stances that he does not necessarily believe in, and he does so in order to target specific people. What looks like something that is important is ultimately only a game between two people. I choose to play it because the decrease in overall site activity has led to a lower number of threads, but I am in the mood to post more often. If you go back to the earlier posts of this long exchange, you'll find me saying that I know that it's an act by fatslob.

fatslob's motivation is probably best explained by himself, but I suspect that he holds a grudge against me for a variety of reasons. Unlike with many other people that hold a grudge against me, I have a hard time to narrow it down to a single reason in his case.

Generations are defined by time.

Gen 7: DS, PSP, 360, PS3, Wii. Launched from 2004-2006.
Gen 8: 3DS, PSV, Wii U, PS4, XB1. Launched from 2011-2013.
Gen 9: Switch, PS5, XB4. Launched from 2017-2020.

Oh, okay.

Though regarding bold, it's not something I've noticed just now. I've seen people arguing a lot about Switch being one or the other. But I guess it'll be solved automatically when PS5 and XB4 arrives. If Switch 2 is out by then, we'll refer to that as 9th gen. If not, we'll just refer to both Switch, PS5 and XB4 as 9th gen and compare the sales of all of them.

Best way to group a gen is by the games played. If most of the multiplat games Switch plays are the ones on X1 and PS4 it instead of PS5 XB4 then it would make more sense to put it on gen 8.

The problem is that not only did a gen have 2 devices from same corporation (happened as well on one of the arbitrary early gens like Atari) but also migrated/fused 2 gens.

For me it would make more sense to say Nintendo had 3 devices this gen, WiiU (console), 3DS (HH) and Switch (hybrid). Because so far Switch seems to be covering both markets for Nintendo.

That makes sense but in that case wouldn't Wii U be a 7th gen console as the majority of its multiplat games were available on PS3 and Xbox 360?

If Switch 2 launches around the same time as PS5 and XB4 (or 1-2 years after), I'd tend to agree with you. But if Switch gets an incremental upgrade like PS4 Pro whose sales numbers are counted together with the base model, I think it makes sense to consider Switch as part of 9th gen as it competes with the 9th gen consoles.

But really, my point was more so based around the silliness of arguing whether Switch is 8th/9th gen and handheld/home/hybrid. I don't see why it matters.

Edit: Yet, here I am arguing about that. Call it whatever you want. Forget I asked