Disruptive can also mean that it's a new feature or capability that when introduced changes how the industry works. It disrupts the status quo of the industry. The most disruptive thing we've seen this generation is the concept of GaaS, which has completely changed how so many games are designed and developed.

I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine a person "upgrading" from PS4 to Switch as opposed to from PS4 to PS5.

It's not an either/or scenario.  It's a both/and scenario.  The disruptive innovation changes how the industry works, because a lot of customers switch to the new model and often new customers come in.  Games as a service is not trying to make games with higher production values (higher functionality).  Instead it is making them easier to try out by making them free to play and such.  That makes the games cheaper and more convenient, and also more reliable because you know if you like the game before you spend money on it.  GaaS exactly fits everything I just said about disruption.

However, none of the generation 5 or 6 consoles fit a disruptive description.  They were all trying to make games with higher production values...increased functionality.  It is the exact opposite of disruption.

The problem with your imagination is that you think most people want an upgrade.  They don't.  Most people just want a new set of fun games to play.  Almost every generation a weaker console wins.  That is because most people are not looking for an upgrade.  A cheap console is the easiest way for them to play a new set of games, and that is why a weaker console wins.

I'm curious about the bolded part. How did you arrive at this deduction?

And the problem with your reasoning is that you think that for a Nintendo console "to win" it needs to take consumers from the others.

Yes, the Switch MIGHT have a chance of outselling the PS5. But if it does, is not gonna be at expense of PS5 numbers. Meaning: PS5 is gonna sell what is gonna sell regardless of how much the Switch sells.

This should have been obvious to you when PS4 sells didnt slow one bit after the Switch came out. In fact, the year when Switch came out was actually PS4's peak year. That right there should tell you that they are selling to two totally different demographics.

---

The point i am trying to make here is that the X1 and WiiU had a debatably better line up which basically says that the console down falls and the PS4 up rise had nothing to do with the game library. All three consoles didnt have system sellers yet 1 sold incredibly well, 1 sold below par and 1 basically flopped.. this shows the power of marketing. 

Also if you do a game comparison list and even do a meta comparison you will see my point in the 1st 2 years of these machines.

Switch didn't affect the PS4 in the same way that the Wii didn't affect the PS2.  PS2 kept selling very well even while the Wii was selling out.  That is because the PS2 released about 6 years earlier.  The Wii did take a chunk out of PS3 sales though.  Switch is going to do the same to PS5.

Online gaming on a console wasn't disruptive? Cross platform play? I feel like you're really selling them short. 

You can easily argue that by attaching non-gaming value to a platform, Sony was able to dominate and change what type of games were being developed as the market opened to a newer, non-gaming audience. PS2 was the first casual console.

The problem with all of these arguments is that you don't know what disruptive means.  It means that you don't sell to your best customers.  Any innovation that sells to the market's best customers is not disruptive.  A new development CAN be innovative and amazing and still not be disruptive.

Disruptive is about changing the status quo from a business perspective.  It's a business term.  Online gaming on a console isn't disruptive, because the best customers in gaming were buying the consoles for online gaming.  It was an innovation targeting the same people.  The term for this is sustaining innovation.  It sustains the current business model.  Usually there are more profits to be made from sustaining innovations than disruptive ones. 

A disruptive innovation changes the marketplace, by going for either marginal customers or customers not in the market yet.  The Wii was a disruptive innovation.  It didn't increase functionality (i.e. hardware power).  It improved on convenience and price instead.  The controls were simple and the flagship games like Wii Sports were short.  All of that is very convenient.  It was made to appeal to people who weren't the main customers of gaming at the time.  That is what made it disruptive.  People still complain about the Wii.  That is how disruptive it is.  

The status quo doesn't like disruptions.  It's like how a teacher doesn't like a disruption to their class.  It's called disruption because it is irritating to the status quo, both to the leading business and the main customers of the leading business.  The status quo of gaming going into generation 7 was Sony.  The Wii was irritating to both Sony and it's best customers.  That is why it gets the name disruptive. Most innovations aren't disruptive, even if they make a lot of money and change the technology standards. 

You actually don't "sell something short" by saying it isn't disruptive.  Instead you "sell something short" by calling it disruptive.  Disruptive products are made for "da cazualz".