3rd gen I had a NES, 4th I had SNES, 5th I had a PSone and 6th I had a PS2 =D

That is awesome, wish I have done the same =/ Last gen I did not get the Wii, this gen, did not get the WiiU, but there still time for the WiiU though =D

They won the 2nd gen.

And 1st gen too, since it was all about american pong machines =D

It's sort of a jestful reply to garner a response because I was too lazy to delve deep, but I'm kind of dead serious. Apple has sold the most units in the last 6 years (over 250 million iPhone line devices), their mobile gaming platform and its associated business practices have probably had the most effect on the overall trends of the gaming industry recently, and their brand strength is notably improved by their reliable phone hardware. They meet your own three criteria. The only reason you'd discount them as victor is that they have catered to the casuals instead of the "hardcore" gaming market.

My second point was intended to remind you that it's not so easy to determine who is in either the hardcore or the casual market. Without even getting into distinctions of what the terms actually mean and if you define it by types of game, spending volume, playtime, forum visitation, what have you, I can guarantee you that the PS3 and 360 have sold to quite a few casual consumers no matter the definition. The Wii has also sold to some hardcore consumers, no matter your definition. If you wanted to determine who the generation winner was by which console hardcore gamers favored, the only effective way to do that is hold a poll of people you personally filter through as being hardcore gamers to determine their favorites/what they own, not to look at global sales stats of anything as are provided here.

And I'm not sure how you can say the Wii had no impact on the industry when it appears that Microsoft has based so much of the R&D for the Xbone in integrating Kinect features that were inspired by a want to gain a piece of motion gaming. Sony essentially abandoned the Move but I'm sure there were non-negligible costs behind that as well, and there was pretty much an entire E3 press conference spent on it.

I also am not quite comfortable with the assertion that a specific generation's leader depends upon that company's performance in the following generation. Does this mean the Atari 2600 was not the winner of gen 2? Does this mean Sega was actually a dirt poor competitor in gen 4 because their brand strength clearly didn't carry through to gen 5?

I'm not going to argue with you that Nintendo's strategy with the Wii, while garnering them billions upon untold billions of dollars over about 5 years, was in the end perhaps a limiting business practice that contributes to their struggles today. But I don't think your metrics of "affecting the market" or "brand strength" are necessarily good ones, or lacking from the success of the Wii.

I think this as a whole highlights the actual unimportance of "winning a generation".

Wii did not win. The Wii U is proof of that.

Now, to follow up further from my first long reply, since editing it would be deceptive it you've read it already, I recognize that despite the fact Apple has quite clearly entered the gaming space and presented us with a gaming device that to many people is far more useful and compelling than a console, there can always be the complaint that "Oh, they're a handheld device not a console!" or "Most people don't buy their iphone/tablet for primarily gaming!" I suppose I do agree, but I can take issue with both of these distinctions. For one, a huge segment of the population doesn't make the distinction between playing games on their sofa and playing games in their hand as meaningfully as we do. They simply see the handheld device as more useful than the stationary counterpart for achieving the same task of playing games.

Additionally, a huge amount of time on phones and tablets is spent gaming. Over a third at least, it's the biggest individual thing people do. There are stats on this; they can be found upon request.

All the HD consoles also have vast multimedia capabilities, akin to today's phones. You can play music through them, blu-rays, Netflix, video call. There are people who spend only half their time with a PS360 actually playing games. I've already said that many casuals buy these systems, and many of them might be amongst that crowd. So you can't really call every sale of these consoles as one to a hardcore gamer, as I mentioned earlier. But we consider them all for convenience.

Similarly, the Wii is enough of a gaming system to merit a spot in the gaming market consideration, not just the broader consumer electronics. Wii is actually the most dedicated of the 7th gen, you could hardly do a damn thing with it but play games until Netflix finally came around. So all of its sales might as well count too.

So forget the Apple thing, go ahead and throw out phones as they have become a necessity akin to PCs, but PSWii60 was luxury fun boxes competing against other luxury fun boxes and they all count.

console wars started at gen1.

news flash,  flappy bird and candy crush are just as much games as uncharted,  forza and mario,  don't get all salty and elitist because your point got pearl harbour'd. 

p. s.  entire thread is wrong

winner of gen 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 is the gamer. 

Though I've owned consoles from just about every company I've always been partial to the Nintendo brand. I'd have to say the build up to gen 5 was probably the most exciting time for me personally. The hype on all fronts was definitely in overdrive. Long live the wars!

Woo! Odyssey vs. Telstar vs. TV Pong!

Gen 3 - didn't have my own console, but I played NES & SMS with friends.
Gen 4 - Had a Megadrive, played SNES with friends.
Gen 5 - Had PS1 then 64.  Loved them.
Gen 6 - Had Dreamcast, PS2, GC & Xbox.  Loved all of them.  Very sad when Dreamcast was discontinued.
Gen 7 - Had 360, PS3, and Wii too.  Loved PS3 & 360, not the Wii... worst console eva.
Gen 8 - Have PS4 and Wii U.  Love them.