Sure but the problem is that your stated premise is wrong.  Generations are a categorical construct based on the heirarchy of successor/predecessor flagship consoles.   And this isn't my point of view, it's an industry accepted concept.  You are positing that the direction Nintendo took with Wii based on minimal technology enhancements and a marketing concept of new gen, not next gen thereby relegates the Wii (and DS) to 6th generation status. 

Even if you accepted the notion of 'new gen, not next gen' as a means to categorize consoles in a generation, that still mean the Wii and DS are not 6th gen because 6th gen would no longer be new.   Therefore, if it's not 6th gen, because it's a new gen and 6th gen isn't new, and it's not next gen, which would be 7th gen based on incremental numerical increases, then a category other than the term itself (NEW) is required.    Because the term NEW in relation to categorizing of consoles is difficult, it fails to obtain classificational usefulness which brings us back to requiring the use of the original generational heirarchy structure of successor/predecessor numeral generations; meanign Wii and DS are 7th generation.

I understand what you mean, and I know that marketing-wise the Wii is a gen 7 console. However it's a fact that when it comes to what was at the root of the new construct of console generations was technological advancements. In that more traditionalist and purist perspective, the Wii is technically a gen 6 console, though the market has now adapted and since it's rebranded it is now a gen 7 console. I understand all that.

What I was trying to say is that for Yamauchi, and the Nintendo leadership of the time, it is not something they themselves considered next-gen, for reasons of computing and graphical performance.

That's really all this is about, hearing what one of the 3 leaders of the industry had to say about it was somewhat important in my view.

You still have it backwards.  Generations are not measured by the technology in the box but by the succession of flagship consoles.   As I said before, Wii could have had the power of a Magnovox Oddyssey (a 1st gen console) or the K supercomputer in Japan (most powerful computer on Earth) and it still would have been a 7th generation console because it was released after the GC which was a 6th generation console which was released after the N64 which was a 5th generation console which was released after the SNES which was a 4th generation console which was released after the NES which was a 3rd generation console.

Nintendo never marketed the Wii as 7th generation but rather as something new and innovative.  Even their initial console code name was 'revolution'.  But again that's seperate from actual classification.   They could have said, "It's not next gen, it's gesture/IR input, low tech of love gen" and it still owuld hae been a 7th generation console.

And they never considering Wii a new gen because of its lack of high performance ahrdware btu because of its innovative input.  As I said, it could have had the power of the K uspercomputer and Nintendo would have still looked at it differently.  Because they always look at their products differently.

But you're not being honest, the quote is right there, how can you claim this?

No, they haven't always done so. The Nintendo difference mainly started with the Gamecube. What is wrong with your Nintendo history? The Super Nintendo wasn't called Super for nothing, it upped the capabilities of the system from a graphical perspective. It was now a 16-bit system. Then came what, the Nintendo what? the Nintendo 64? Actually, they were gonna call it the ultra 64. So traditionally, Nintendo knew that the reason of being of their consoles was improved hardware capabilities. "Now you're playing with Power, Super Power". Remember??

What if you have it backwards, did that occur to you?

I told you I understood that part, that as it is today, generations are not measured by technology. But traditionally that wasn't the case, let's continue.

Yes, this is all true due to the evolution of the history of video gaming, this is now the state of affairs and I understand it. You also need to couple this with the fact that Nintendo is a primary player in the market. The same can't be said about the Xavix (is it gen 7??? I wouldn't think so).

I understand all this, that it has to do with sequenced launches at this point, and eras of HW releases. But your definition of generations may soon be shattered due to where generations traditionally stem from: ie. Hardware (computational and memory) capabilities. The proof is that once the iPad model inevitably starts to creep into the console market, due to rapid succession of smaller HW incremental improvements, gens will start to fade away. This is all theoretical, but would if true remind us of the importance of the concept of hardware capabilities in the development of the construct known as console gens.

So what does that tell us?

According to your definition yes, but when they explicitely say that their next offering, paraphrased of course, is not next-gen because it isn't cutting edge, then why do you circle back to your view of a generation. We're not talking about how you see, we're talking about how Yamauchi saw it. We all understand how you see, we don't all understand how Yamauchi saw it (quite evident from the discussion we're needing to have).

....it is not something they themselves considered next-gen, for reasons of computing and graphical performance.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think he was mainly reiterating that for society/consumer it may not be considered a next gen so it was stated, "so-called," as a means to back fire or like a labeling scheme to go against the odds (those without knowledge of the video game business). For them it is a next gen because it came after the gamecube anyhow.  It does require a more professional translation on his part.

"Nintendo has no plans to release a so-called 'next-generation' videogame console..." That beginning of the sentence does ring a bell.

All in all, I do gree with Vipers.