Which leads us back to the point then that the PS1 and xbox wouldn't be part of any generation as they are not successors to anything. Either that or you are choosing to use arbitrary rules. 

Xbox 1 and PS1 was already explaing.  The first generation console was started in 1974.  Since then we have had 8 generations.  Xbox is the first generation microsoft console born in the 6th generation of games.  Self explanatory.

The GC and X360 power consuption question is also self explanatory. They are not a new iteration.  They are modifications on current hardware and im pretty sure you realize that.  Which makes me wonder why you are still argueing but ok.  Everybody has tried explaining this to you already and im pretty sure every question that you just asked, people has explained it to you like 20(exaggeration if you dont know that either) times already

When a console has no forerunner, it falls into the generation of its contemporaries. That's common sense.

Oh god. Help us. It's Mazty again with his world views on the word 'generation'.

I've been in a similar argument with this guy some time ago, needless to say it got him banned to, but it's no use. He just doesn't get it. Some people need to read a dictionary some more, it's so blatently obvious it's painful.

You're wrong on all of these points, your points don't hold water from a marketing or technical standpoint. The WiiU shows technological advances over the PS360 just by the fact that it can use DX11 era instructions & effects and has a more modern architecture (not to mention it has a GPU with more power as well), so your argument is beyond flawed. I would also say wirelessly streaming of the game to the controller is a technological advance. Power per watt is the best ever seen from any console (efficiency is also a technical advance). Also, since generations are commonly based on advances from the predecessor to the specific product, as well as time of relase and what the product is competing against during its life, just consider the massive power leap from the Wii to the WiiU & the fact that sales will be compared to the PS4/Nextbox. Another interesting point, is a massive power jump the only technological advance that exists? (the answer is no in case you actually were wondering)

Funny, why would gameplay or control methods not be considered as a factor in generations of systems designed to play & control games? Your arguments are entertaining.

The point of GPUs very obviously proves you wrong, as does the same poing regarding CPUs, RAM (DDR3 has many different speeds), or pretty much any other computer based technology. A generation of the product is based on instruction / feature set as well as architecture & efficiency technically, as well as general time of release of a particular 'line'. Generations can have a wide range of power specs (Intel core2 series of processor vs i-series processors are generations, but a 1.6GHz i3 is in the same gen as a 3.3GHz i3, they are the same generation of processors because of architecture and feature set).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce#Generations - Note that the generations include the entire line of a specific series of cards (including the weaker and stronger cards in that line).

"GeForce 600 Series / GeForce 700 Series

In September 2010, Nvidia announced that the successor to Fermi would be the Kepler architecture, based on a 28 nm fabrication process. In early 2012, the first members of the 600 series were revealed to be based on the existing Fermi-architecture, intended for the laptop market. On March 22, 2012, the Kepler family debuted with the launch of the GTX680 (GK104 core) and GT640M (GK107 core). The GTX680 is Nvidia's most powerful single-core graphics card to date. On 29 April 2012 Nvidia announced the Kepler dual chip version, the GTX690, that features 2x GTX680. The series introduced significant improvements in energy efficiency.^[18] On May 10, 2012, Nvidia introduced the GTX670 as a cutdown, cheaper version of the GK104, while retaining the same power efficiency improvements that GTX680 and GTX690 enjoyed over the GeForce cards based on the older Fermi architecture. Between August and September 2012, Nvidia introduced the GTX 660 Ti (GK104 core), GTX 660 (GK106 core), and GTX 650 (GK107 core) for budget friendly consumers."

Note that the cutdown, cheaper version of the card above is still in the same generation as the more powerful cards. The generation of GPUs is based on release time, feature set, efficiency, and architecture, not just raw performance. This holds true for pretty much all computer based technology. Your opinion =/= reality on this subject, in fact it is pretty much the opposite.

EDIT: Just thought of something else. The Radeon GPU series that the WiiU's GPU is based on is several GPU generations ahead of the GPU series' the PS3/360's were based on. The number of problems with your argument is staggering. In fact, pretty much every point you've made so far is the antithesis to reality. I saw you 'credential dropping' with your science degree. I see your degree and I raise you a degree in Computer Science & 10 years experience in the IT industry + a current position of Senior Systems Engineer for a Cloud Hosting/IT consulting firm.

Do you really not understand that there is more than 1 factor in determining a console gen, or are you just trolling? You keep focusing on a single factor to make a point, ignoring the other factors (such as the fact that console gens are largely determined by release date and direct competion over the life of the console).

Here's the argument, to be part of gen X, it should have a few of the following factors, A, B, C, D, E. You come back and pick D to make your point, ignoring that there are multiple factors to consider in determining a gen, not all of which have to be met, and the most important of which (from a market standpoint) is competition and release date (A & B).

Actually, since the Wii U is out, it's a current gen system. Next gen is only used to refer to a generation that hasn't begun yet. I'll elaborate further:

A prince is the "Next King" only until he becomes King, he is then the current King. The next-gen Nintendo System is not the Wii U, it's the one they make after the Wii U. If the Wii U had not been released yet, it would still be the next-gen system.

So no, the Wii U is not next-gen, it's the current gen.

lmfao

is just trolling? or could it be serious?

lmao yeah no doubt.  i don't think i've ever seen someone so hard headed lol

No, some of us have a life. I'm not going to stay here arguing with you all day over something I already know. I don't care if you understand something as simple as what we're trying to explain your thick head here. 

As far as I'm concerned, it was late for me and I needed to sleep. But go right ahead. Feel free to believe I dropped out of the argument for the reason you stated. -__-

At this point, you've proven yourself clueless to this matter.

User was banned for this post - Kantor