It's not a straw man. It's reality. PS4 had it's greatest year after the Switch launched. The people who still kept buying the PS4 aren't interested in having the Switch as their main console, otherwise the sales of PS4 would have plummeted.

The same will happen next gen. Those people who want an actual upgrade in power aren't going with Switch, for obvious reasons. That's not to say they won't eventually get one.

Flawed to only those blinded by bias. You can choose to ignore that the HH market shrank incredibly going from DS/PSP to 3DS/Vita, but it doesn't change it from being a fact. Numbers don't lie.

Still going to need that research and data from you. 

Lol, don't get so offended. Didn't say it was all down to luck. In fact, I posted why it succeeded. And pointing to that thread is pointless. You can say why you disagree with how things will turn out, but to actually say that their arguments lacked any logic reeks of bias.

OK, both to make Lewis happy and to move forward with the work, we could start now.

Those that think Google Stadia or any other game streaming platform will win next gen are casual losers!    

You are still arguing against something I didn't say.  Do you know what a straw man is?

They're basically dead because Sony essentially dominates the traditional console business and aside from one hiccup in the mid-2000s they largely just win every time.

So there's not much to discuss.

The PSP and 360 were not losers in there gen respected gens, There is more to a successful product than just a sales numbers.

If we are basing this solely on who sold more at the end of a generation than fine however its an irreverent number to go by, it never was. Eg N64 was a solid success story and didn't need to finish first to achieve that.

The PS3 certainly made an impressive turnaround from a disaster of catastrophic proportions to at least managing to salvage their brand image, but I think it's hard to see it as a winner or a success considering the astronomical amount of money and marketshare it lost. It bled Sony billions of dollars and took them from more than 75% marketshare with the PS2 to just 32%.

We hear the same thing every console generation. It never happens. PC is here to stay.

Besides, you want the PC to be successful, because it's the PC technology that is leading the industry, which is driven by billions of dollars of consumer demand, which then trickles down into other markets such as console and even mobile to an extent.

If something shifts million units world-wide and was profitable, I don't think we could logically categorize them as a failure? Just a marginal success.

Console wars should simply be referred to as '(fixed or dedicated) hardware wars' instead. Trying to directly compare a tank to a stealth bomber isn't going to get you anywhere if someone believes they are the same type of weapon. As long as there are people who don't define certain hardware as a console, even if that's how it's marketed, then someone who does agree that hardware is a console, will never be able to have a legit discussion with them, because they won't be on the same terms.

Now if both are entering a discussion where they understand it's fixed hardware in general that they are battling over, then the discussion will have a more solid base and merit to go off of. They won't be able to directly compare hardware in the same way they used to though, and some dedicated hardware history won't be as useful, if at all, but it would lead to more logical discussion going forward.

Continuing the future console wars as is, will just lead to extremely muddy battlefields, where everyone is stuck in a rut, firing blanks.

No, they are not dead. And this website is like probably the best example why they are not. You can clearly see it in this thread.