Yeah, I was only thinking home consoles. You forgot the black hole that was the Virtual Boy though. A system so bad Nintendo lost to themselves.

I guess a win is a win, but Nintendo lost bad with the N64, GC, and Wii-U. PS had much better numbers with their PSP, and PS3 losses. Put the combined numbers of the PS losses against those of it's Nintendo counterparts. There are levels to these things. 

I guess we just don't have as much practice as Nintendo fans when it comes to dealing with defeat. You know what they say: "You don't get better at something be not doing it." The scenario simply hasn't manifested itself that often.

Occurences of losing:

Nintendo: N64, GC, Wii U.
Sony: PSP, PS3, PSV.
Microsoft: Xbox, 360, One.

Three times for each camp.

Occurences of losing:

Nintendo: N64, GC, Wii U.
Sony: PSP, PS3, PSV.
Microsoft: Xbox, 360, One.

Three times for each camp.

The Vita situation is completely different.  HHs were never Sony's bread and butter.  They were successful with their first attempt.  Unfortunately, the HH market shrank considerably after that gen.  Sony knew it, and saw no way to recover, so dropped focus on it to focus on their actual bread and butter, home consoles.  Even Nintendo knows the HH market shrank.  Why do you think they went with a hybrid?  They had a HH that was the 2nd best selling console of all time, with over 150M in sales and good competition from a 80M+ selling PSP, and within one generation they weren't even going to hit 80M with absolutely no competition from Sony's Vita.  So, again, you are wrong.  Please, do try again, though.

No, that's the price comparison YOU want to do because you think it helps your argument.  Actual price comparisons are done between either entry price points or average prices, not the most expensive model for one vs the cheapest model for another, just because it suits you.  And the base models were not gimped.  They did everything the more expensive models did, only lacked a larger HDD.  And if that's how you wish to do the comparison, then you should do the most expensive for both.  Of course, all 3 real methods, entry point, average price, and most expensive, will just back my point up.

I didn't say you were saying it would do better.  You were arguing that it will cut into PS5's market share, though. Sounded like in the hope that the PS5 wouldn't pass the Switch.  I'm saying we have no idea if that it will be the case.  MS hasn't done a very good job this gen to convince people to continue to stick with them, or stay for next gen.  And with MS really wanting to switch to streaming, it would lower my confidence in them really caring about the HW side of things.  And like I said, their new 1st party has yet to prove itself under MS's guidance.  Their track record in that aspect isn't the greatest.  Nor is the output of their exclusives in the back half of the gen.

I did make one of those predictions.  I've never hid that fact.  But, to say it had no basis in logic after a failed Wii U and a 3DS that failed at the $249 price point is just showing your blind bias.  That has more grounding in logic than the predictions from some Nintendo fans that claimed PS4/XBO were doomed and the console market was dying, all because the successor to the almighty Wii had failed.  Now, I will say that if people had those predictions after a year of the Switch being on the market, then yes, they were blinded by their own bias.  But, before launch, and maybe even slightly after it, there was perfectly sound logic in that assumption.

In other words, you have no argument, so resort to insults.  You are right, these upcoming console wars are going to be fun for me to watch. 

All of your bullet points are good points.  Those are important factors.  In particular the most important factors in launching a successful console are 1) having a strong library of games and 2) price (in that order).  However launching early also helps.  Why? 

Because when a console launches early, that gives it a chance to build up a good library of games.  Then when the competitor launches the first console has a much larger library of games in comparison.  Also, the earlier a console launches, the earlier it can afford to drop its price.  This means that the earlier console can often be priced more competitively than the competition.  Launching early helps a console in both 1) game library and 2) price, and these are the 2 most important factors.  It doesn't guarantee a win or anything, but launching early definitely helps.

What was Sega's most successful console?  The Genesis (or Mega Drive).  It launched 2 years before the SNES.  What was Microsoft's most successful console?  The XBox360.  It launched a year before the PS3.  And of course there is the biggest transfer of fortunes in all of gaming with the PS1 vs. the N64.  The PS1 launched 1-2 years ahead of the N64 (depending on region).  None of these 3 consoles had a particularly strong launch, but they all did a lot better over their generation than their launch would indicate.  Their competition gave them time to get a stronger footing by releasing more games and being in a better position to drop their hardware price.  Releasing early helps quite a bit.  Given it can't save a console doomed to fail like the Saturn or Wii U.  But if the console has some potential, then an early start can give it a much bigger advantage.

One factor that notoriously does not help is power.  Waiting to launch a more powerful console is always a bad move.  History has taught us over and over again that console power does not help, and yet companies still fall into this same trap.  I can understand why.  If you ask a person if they would rather drive a Toyota or a Ferrari, then most will say Ferrari.  And yet every year Toyota sells a lot more cars than Ferrari does.  Price matters.  Price matters a lot more than power does.  Sony may be trying to brand the PS5 as the Ferrari of gaming, but then it is going to sell like the Ferrari of gaming.  Nintendo is very much branding Switch like the Toyota of gaming: simple, efficient, family friendly, etc....  Switch is already selling like the Toyota of gaming.

All of these reasons are why it really is a terrible idea for both Sony and Microsoft to wait until late 2020 to launch.  They are giving Switch a ton of time to build up a huge library of games, and at this point Nintendo can drop the price as much as they want (if they feel they need to).  Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft are delaying to release a powerful console, which is really more of a disadvantage.  Both companies are putting themselves at a huge disadvantage.  They both begging Nintendo to take them to school for generation 9.

See, here's the problem though. The numbers as they are, are indisputable. However, your psychoanalysis of the entire PS fan base is what I take umbrage with, and what drew me into this exchange, as you can see from my initial quote. I don't pretend to know how much you may, or may not, keep track of such matters, but I have an understanding that you may keep a certain amount of data at hand in order to bolster any arguments that come your way in the future. Not a knock. More power to you if you keep some tabs. I wish I had done it on more than a few occasions.

Are you in possession of any information that would convince me that the "Sony fanbase has the most trouble to come to grips with defeats?" In this very thread, a member of which fan base was the recipient of a two week ban? 

360?

And why would the 360 be considered losing?

Nintendo made a hybrid because the technology was far enough advanced to make it possible; that's the hardware side. On the software side it was clear that development times for two distinct platforms were becoming too high as seen by the Wii U and 3DS which both went through extended droughts. So Switch isn't a consequence of a shrinking handheld market, but a consequence of game development times getting longer. If a hybrid hadn't been possible, then Nintendo would have made a home console and a handheld that share all their games between them. And yes, the Vita situation was completely different because all the system had were games. That's not the case for a home console. If you watch E3 2013 again, you'll see that the Vita got a shorter segment at Sony's press conference than the representative of Sony Music who talked about music on the upcoming PS4.

The 360 Arcade was most certainly gimped. It didn't have any HDD, so it ran on memory cards to store save data. That's why the $399 Xbox 360 sold so much better than the entry price model. That's why in the real world consumers compared the more expensive 360 to the PS3 and made their decision based on that, not whatever the crappy 360 SKU costed. That's why the most logical price comparison is to take the best-selling SKU from both manufacturers because those are the ones that the biggest amount of potential customers are looking at.

If you take the route of "we have no idea if that will be the case", you'll have to forego to challenge my argument because you have no idea how things are likely to play out.

The lack of logic in Switch sales predictions was picked apart in January 2017:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=224719

Console wars are usually more fun to watch for the people who are either impartial or on the winning side. Neither will apply to you, unfortunately.