The lines just happen to line up that way due to their release timing and how the longest-lasting systems typically get a 10-12 year production run in the U.S., and how generations used to average 5 years. It's a coincidence. It works out noticeably different in Japan because from the NES through to the PS2 they got most systems well before the West did. The NES came out in Japan at least two years before it was released in U.S. test markets, and the SNES took nine months to come here, and were both in production until 2003 over there, much longer than their production runs in America. The PS1 and PS2 likewise came out many months in advance in Japan.

Errrr.... no.

Yes a company can make a profit of selling only 15M consoles over a period of 4/5yrs. But thats not a sustainable market strategy. And if it were nintendo wouldn't have bothered with teh switch so early or even be saying they want to do wii like numbers..

In addition, having sold as many consoles as possible kinda ensures you get a lot of third party support. Which typically translates to more console sales and you guessed it, more profit.

But hey, if you think it workd for nintndo to sell 15M consoles per generation (a number even less than what they accomplished with the NES back in the 80s) then yh.... good luck to them I guess.

Think of it this way, Nintendo as a company is too big to be sustained from whatever revenue it would get from 15M console per generation.

The lines just happen to line up that way due to their release timing and how the longest-lasting systems typically get a 10-12 year production run in the U.S., and how generations used to average 5 years. It's a coincidence. It works out noticeably different in Japan because from the NES through to the PS2 they got most systems well before the West did. The NES came out in Japan at least two years before it was released in U.S. test markets, and the SNES took nine months to come here, and were both in production until 2003 over there, much longer than their production runs in America. The PS1 and PS2 likewise came out many months in advance in Japan.

Also, if you notice, that whole "x-Gen system ends its life when the x+2-Gen system is released" pattern is falling apart. The PS5 is still several years off (2019 at the earliest, probably 2020), yet the 360 has already been discontinued for nearly a year and the PS3 probably is probably close to done (it's barely selling, and I doubt Sony is making new units but selling through existing stock). The PS4 will probably last until 2023-2025, probably several years before the PS6 is due.

Finally, let's look at a hypothetical sales scenario from here to 2025. For the sake of argument, let's assume the Switch follows a similar track to the 3DS, the PS5 is released in 2020 and does about as well as the PS4, and the Switch's successor is released in Nov. 2022 and follows a sales curve shaped like the GameCube's but 50% larger. Here's what that could look like:

The Switch peaks in 2019, the year before the PS5 is released (and for the sake of argument, let's assume the Xbox 4 comes out at the same time as the PS5, follows a similar sales curve, and both split the high-end market 50/50). The Switch then enters the terminal decline phase in 2020. In both years it enjoys a brief period of having the lead over the PS4 & XBO, which are close to being replaced. But as the aging Switch is losing steam, the PS5, still in its infancy, is gaining. The Switch's successor is released just as the PS5 turns two, and it peaks only a year after the PS5 peaks. If I extended that chart even further, we'd see the Switch's successor decling quicker than the PS5 (because ever since the N64 Nintendo systems have declined quicker after their peaks than PlayStation systems), and while the PS5 is still in production and probably not ready to be replaced, the Switch's successor is already close to being replaced.

This is all entirely possible, maybe even probable, if Nintendo stays on a 5-year cycle while Sony & MS stay on 7-year cycles.

Now, if a very similar scenario does play out, in future retrospect how could any reasonable person look back and call the Switch "9th-gen"? It spends its best years up against the PS4 & XBO. During the PS5's first full calendar year the Switch is already well past its peak and we're already hearing rumors about its replacement, if not having seen it revealed already. The Switch's successor ends up peaking very close to when the PS5 peaks, with both systems entering the decline phase of their lives in near-tandem. If we call the Switch "Gen 9" then that would mean we'd have to call it's successor a "Gen 10" system. Calling the Switch "Gen 9" is ridiculous enough considering it will almost certainly spend its prime years up against the PS4 & XBO and not the PS5 & Xbox 4, but calling Nintendo's next console "Gen 10" would be even more ridiculous considering its life cycle if firmly within that of the 9th-gen PS5.

We have precedent for two consoles in a single brand being released in a single generation. Hynad pointed out the Atari 5200, the most obvious example. Now, our current understanding of the pre-crash "generation" comes from Wikipedia, as does the numbered generations as we know them. Prior to that, there were only a couple of sources that numbered generations. The ones that did listed the 2600 and Intellivision belonging to one generation, while they had the 5200 and ColecoVision as part of another generation. Be that as it may, the 2600 dominated everything from 1977 to the Crash of '83. While older materials may have listed the ColecoVision and 5200 as "next wave" systems, they were still competing with the 2600. Effectively, the 5200 was a second system from Atari released in a single generation.

Competition perhaps defines a generation more than anything else. From the 8-bit era to the current generation, things were pretty clear cut. The NES competed with the Master System, the SNES with the Genesis, etc., on up to the Wii U/PS4/XBO. They're all pretty discrete. The Switch does appear to challenge that understanding. At first. But once it becomes clear that the Switch's primary competition in its life will be the PS4 & XBO, not the PS5 & Xbox 4, it will become clear that it belongs to the current generation, not the generation that is still likely nearly four years off.

It lines up so far, the difference with the ninth gen is based on speculation. Basically the graph you made does prove nothing, because the future is still up to speculation. The graph only proves your point in your eyes because you read it according to your worldview.

Plus thé Switch arriving only 4 years After WiiU, its hard to call it new génération

Warned by axum

Shadow1980 said:

We have precedent for two consoles in a single brand being released in a single generation. Hynad pointed out the Atari 5200, the most obvious example. Now, our current understanding of the pre-crash "generation" comes from Wikipedia, as does the numbered generations as we know them. Prior to that, there were only a couple of sources that numbered generations. The ones that did listed the 2600 and Intellivision belonging to one generation, while they had the 5200 and ColecoVision as part of another generation. Be that as it may, the 2600 dominated everything from 1977 to the Crash of '83. While older materials may have listed the ColecoVision and 5200 as "next wave" systems, they were still competing with the 2600. Effectively, the 5200 was a second system from Atari released in a single generation.

Competition perhaps defines a generation more than anything else. From the 8-bit era to the current generation, things were pretty clear cut. The NES competed with the Master System, the SNES with the Genesis, etc., on up to the Wii U/PS4/XBO. They're all pretty discrete. The Switch does appear to challenge that understanding. At first. But once it becomes clear that the Switch's primary competition in its life will be the PS4 & XBO, not the PS5 & Xbox 4, it will become clear that it belongs to the current generation, not the generation that is still likely nearly four years off.