That's probably true, just like how people would argue Wii didnt count because its "casual".

The problem with this argument is that all 3 are actually competing for all the demographics.  When Nintendo has exclusives like Bayonnetta or Xenoblade Chronicles, they are competing for the 13-35 year old male.  Not to mention that this category really likes games like BotW or Smash Bros as well.  And when Sony or Microsoft produces games like Little Big Planet, Knack or anything with the Minecraft label, then they are competing outside of the 13-35 male demographic.  On top of this all 3 have plenty of third party games that appeal to a variety of demographics.  

All 3 companies are trying to get all of the current gaming market onto their platform.  They might each have a different focus, but they are similar enough to still be directly competing.  You might as well say Netflix, Hulu, Apple+ and Disney+ are not competing streaming platforms.  They each have a different focus, but they still directly compete with one another.  They are offering a similar type of product and aiming it at the same broad group of consumers.  These companies are directly competing.  The big 3 gaming companies are doing the same thing.

They compete for the same demographics and nintendo aims at a bigger demographic. Switch's ownership already says everything you need to know.

I agree some what with this to a certain extent as I can see where Liquid is coming from Nintendo does compete with Sony and MS directly I think what people are getting mixed up on is that they have associated competing with the position the platform is aiming for and this has been caught up in a the midst of another argument on platforms affecting each other which works on an entirely different concept altogether.

A console's targeted role is what determines just how much it fights for a position in the market that another platform is aiming for like how 360 and PS3 aimed for the same type of role this determines whether it'll impact another platform however this doesn't mean that they're not competing directly with a platform aiming for a different type of position as if the is significant overlap then that flat out means the is direct competition with the platform. Liquid gave some examples here with Bayonetta which competes for the same type of crowd who play games like DMC I'll give another in Dragon Quest we recently got confirmation the next game is in development if both Switch and PS4 got the game then they are direct competing for the DQ fanbase and as the library of both platforms has enough overlap for these situations to occur numerous times they are competing directly even though they aim for different positions in the market. 40% of NS owners according to Nintendo have one of the other platforms as well highlighting the significant overlap.

Basically platforms can directly compete due to overlap and as a result not really impact each other but they are direct competitors essentially even though they're not going for the same position, Wii for one didn't have enough overlap to really directly compete with PS3 and 360 so can be classed not directly competing and only doing that indirectly with them.

Note the words "overlap", "primarily" and "includes" in my post.

Yes, PS4 & XBO also have games aimed at other demographics but they make up a very small percentage of releases and sales on those consoles.

And yes, Nintendo does also aim towards the demographic that PS/XB do but it's not their main focus, their main focus is to aim for all demographics, not any specific one.

People should take some economy class before making some of the arguments here. Even more when they lack evidence and number while trying to win against a proved point from a market analyst with very good access to data.

We could say that is the root of the definition of direct and indirect competition.

Sure any company likes to expand their market over the core, but what defines PS/XB being direct while Nintendo indirect is their target base.

The words "overlap", "primarily" and "includes" all lead to Nintendo being direct competitors to Sony and Microsoft.

The issue that many people seem to be having is they think "direct competitor" is the same as "carbon copy".  In Generation 5, Nintendo, Sony and Sega were all direct competitors but none of them tried to be carbon copies with one another.  The N64 and PS1 had fairly different game libraries in a lot of ways, but they were directly competing with one another, because they were both targeting the same types of customers with a dedicated home system.  Then Microsoft comes along as the carbon copy of Sony and also Sega drops out of the hardware business.  All of the sudden Nintendo looks really different, because Microsoft and Sony are so similar.  The reality is that Nintendo and Sony didn't change.  They are still directly competing.  But Microsoft being a carbon copy of Sony now makes Nintendo look more different.

It is very much like this.  McDonalds, Taco Bell and KFC all directly compete in the same town, because they are all trying to sell fast, cheap, lower quality food.  If KFC goes away and Burger King comes along, then that doesn't change that McDonald's and Taco Bell are still directly competing.  Sure McDonald's and Burger King look really similar, but Taco Bell is still selling to people who want fast, cheap, lower quality food.  Olive Garden is actually an indirect competitor.  It's still a restaurant, but it's slow, more expensive and higher quality food.  The type of food (burgers or tacos) is actually not as important as price, convenience and quality.

Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all make dedicated home systems.  They are all of similar price, convenience and quality.  They compete directly.  Meanwhile smartphones and PC's are indirect competitors.  Smartphone gaming is cheaper, more convenient and is a lower quality experience compared to consoles.  PC's on the other hand tend to be less convenient than a console, but can give a higher quality performance.  PC's can even have really similar games to consoles, but they've always been in different markets.  What matters more is price, convenience and quality.

I think you have one of the better descriptions of your point that I have seen in many years of reading this argument.  BUT, it doesn't change the fact that Nintendo isn't selling the same thing.  The Switch is seldom marketed as a home console.  Nintendo is selling a portable gaming system that happens to hook to the tv too.  To fit it to your analogy, it would mean that Taco Bell would be the only restaurant with a drive thru.  The Switch is clearly getting some of the same user base as the PS4 and the XB1.  But, the number of people buying the Switch as their only HOME console has to be limited.  Just look at the top selling games for the Switch. They are not games that require a TV, if anything they are literally games that work either better or at their best on a handheld. Look at the top selling accessories for the Switch, mostly mobile accessory add ons.  The Switch is really just replacing the DS with modern power levels and better display in a mobile device.  The cost to make it run on a tv is minuscule.  I mentioned it earlier in the thread, having a device connect to the tv doesn't make it a console.

No, that's exactly what you're argument has been, just looking at when they peaked.

I'll go into detail about what caused their sales curves.

360 was coming off of Xbox which only sold ~25 million lifetime and was mostly a Halo box. 360 didnt have Halo or any killer app exclusive at launch and the 3rd party games were just upressed previous gen games and since HDTV adoption rates were low, 360 was not seen as a big upgrade and was mockingly called "Xbox 1.5".

This stigma continued through most of 2006 since new titles made from the ground up for 360 were few and far in between. March had Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter & Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion then nothing notable until August when Dead Rising & Saint's Row released. November saw the release of Gears of War which was the first killer app for the system.

2007 saw a more consistent stream of next-gen titles with Lost Planet in Jan, Crackdwon in Feb, Advanced Warfighter 2 in March, Forza 2 in June, Bioshock in August, Halo 3 in Sept, Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed & Mass Effect in Nov. Halo 3 & Modern Warfare in particular were big system sellers.

This is around the time that HDTV adoption started to become notable going from 3 million shipments in 2006 to 31 million in 2008. This is also when online gaming on consoles started to become notable, Xbox Live took 2.5 years to reach 2 million subscribers on Xbox while it surpassed 10 million subscribers in the same time frame on 360.

By this time most major 3rd party releases had moved fully to the new generation of consoles and with the head start plus being easier to develop for, these games would often run better on 360, on top of that 360 had the superior online service at the time, these allowed 360 to capture a significantly higher marketshare for multiplat games compared to Xbox. Games that were previously exclusive or timed exclusive to PS started making their way to 360 like Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry & Final Fantasy.

By the end of 2009 (4 years on the market) 360 had sold over 50% more than its predecessor, this is before it even had its peak years so how was Wii hurting it?

I'll edit this and finish later