AlbiNecroxz said:
Switch is Gen 8.5, period.

/s or maybe not :)

Gen 8 - WiiU, 3DS, Vita, PS4, and XB1
Gen 8.5 - Switch(March 2017), PS4pro(November 2016), and Xbox One X(November 2017)

The best part, Switch itself is in a hybrid generation so it can be either gen 8 or gen 9. 



Around the Network

The two most pointless, stupid, and the done-to-death arguments on VGhartz:

- "The Switch is [x] gen."

- "The Switch is a handheld/console/hybrid."

Last edited by curl-6 - on 03 February 2020

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

RolStoppable said:
Welfare said:
NPD hasn't used 8th/7th gen for years. Hardware is considered either current or legacy.

I don't remember NPD ever using numbers to describe generations.

I remember them changing to the current/legacy distinction a few years ago, so they did something before then.

Basically just means that whatever is currently selling is "current" so NPD can't be used as an argument towards Switch being 8th gen. Going forward, who really cares as the numbering is meaningless now anyway. Today it's just "here's a group of machines that are viable for business right now." and that will change over the years.



Won bet with t3mporary_126 - I correctly predicted that the Wii U's LTD at the end of 2014 would be closer to 9 million than 10 million. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6673287

zorg1000 said:

Current gen=/=gen 8, it means the current devices on the market. I cannot recall NPD, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft ever referring to generations by numbers.

It should be obvious from the language used in the press releases that they are comparing the Switch's LTD sales to the PS4 & XBO, and that the NPD therefore considers the Switch to belong to the same generation as the PS4 & XBO.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

This post is a mess.  But now I see that your misunderstanding about the Switch comes from a misunderstanding of console history.  The short version is that Atari 2600, 5200, and 7800 were 3 different generations.

If that's the case, then we might as well get rid of numbered generations entirely, because there's no way you could split those three into three separate generations and have them make sense, unless you believe that Gen 2 is actually two separate gens, in which case you think either A) everybody's been getting it wrong on the numbers for the post-Crash generations, or B) you think the Pong machines era was either not a generation or was a "Gen Zero."

Nu-13 said:

That's all nice but has nothing to do with generations. A systems's gen is set in stone the moment it releases. Switch came too long after the start of the 8th gen, therefore it's 9th gen. Ps5 and xsx are coming too long after the start of the 9th gen, therefore they will be 10th gen. Eventually everyone will agree on that due to different reasons.

*heavy sigh*

No. Just... no. I mean, Switch the sole Gen 9 console, and Sony & MS skip Gen 9 and go straight to Gen 10? You started this whole off-topic argument, and this ends up being what you expect us to accept? Really? Really?

This is exactly why I consider NPD far more authoritative than the opinions of random forum-dwellers.

RolStoppable said:

You missed the portion in Nintendo's press releases where it's explicitly stated that the statement is according to NPD. If I personally relay information and therefore say that Switch was the best-selling current generation hardware according to NPD, then that isn't at odds with my stance that Switch does not belong to the same generation as the 3DS and the Wii U, because I am merely stating which classification someone else uses.

As for the rest of your long post, logical consistence demands that you call the Dreamcast a generation 5 console, putting it into the same generation as the Saturn. As long as you do not explicitly do that, I won't bother to write a more elaborate response.

At minimum, Nintendo clearly doesn't reject NPD's classifying the Switch as belonging to the same generation as the PS4 & XBO. It's not explicit approval, but it is implicit approval.

And with that, I've said all I care to say about the generations argument in this thread. This is an NPD thread, NPD obviously considers the Switch as being part of the same generation as the PS4 & XBO, and therefore that's what I'm going to have it as in my charts. If any of you have a problem with me including the Switch in Gen 8 in my charts, keep it to yourself from now on. If you want to argue the nuances of generational classifications, save it for another thread dedicated to the topic and @ me.

I never even got around to finishing up my quarterly charts because of this distraction.

Moving along...

Back to Rol. Re: The Dreamcast. Don't be obtuse. You know as well as I do that the Dreamcast's life was cut short. Sega obviously didn't initially release it with the intention of discontinuing it early 2001. The Dreamcast launched only 13 months before the PS2 in NA (it was about 15 months in Japan), and had it had a more normal lifespan it would have been competing directly with the PS2, GC, & Xbox for most of its life and most of that generation. It was clearly intended to compete with next-gen offerings from Nintendo and Sony. And for what it's worth, even though it was discontinued on March 31, 2001, it was still available for sale for a good while after that, and NPD and Famitsu continued tracking it to Dec. '01 and Feb. '02, respectively, making the tracking period for DC sales after the PS2's launch longer than the tracking period before the PS2's launch.

The data I am basing my claims on are numerous.

1. The sales curves of previous Nintendo home consoles and handhelds were influenced by Nintendo's need to support two distinct platforms with top-tier first party software concurrently. This means that Nintendo's top development teams have not been able to provide second half of lifecycle support that was anywhere close to the level of first half of lifecycle support. You can verify this for yourself by checking the release dates of top-selling Nintendo software across the lifecycle of their consoles. The only consistent late life support has been new Pokémon games on their handhelds, but their home consoles have hardly had any megahits see releases during the second half of the lifecycle. (Lifecycle for the purpose of this paragraph refers to the period between launch and the launch of a successor.)

PlayStation sales curves have no relevance here because Sony has never put their top development teams on handhelds like Nintendo has done. That's part of the reason why PS home consoles have experienced no significant changes despite the presence of PS handhelds.

2. Switch is now only one month away from making it a full three years before its first price cut. It will be the first console to accomplish this feat. There are multiple ways in which Switch doesn't line up with previous consoles, that's why it doesn't make sense to apply those old models to extrapolate future sales for Switch. As you already know, Switch continues to see growth whereas all the Nintendo home consoles you have on your graphs had entered their decline phase in the third year already. 

3. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2020/200131_2e.pdf

Starting with the final paragraph on page 8, Nintendo explains why Switch will have a longer lifecycle than previous Nintendo consoles. Because you've made an appeal to authority (Nintendo themselves) to argue that Switch is generation 8, you now have no choice but to concede to what Nintendo is saying in the above linked document, unless you are fine with being a hypocrite.

The length of the lifecycle is an especially crucial point because you are basing your prediction on the assumption that there's no way that Switch will have more than six years before it's getting replaced. Your thought process for sales extrapolation has proper logic within its contained realm, but the issue is that it is a construct built on fundamental assumptions that are very likely to be false. Too much of it rests on "this is how it was in the past, so that's how it will be in the future" despite Switch having already broken away from the pattern of previous Nintendo home consoles.

Switch is not like the past. One Nintendo console means that all first and third party software gets concentrated on one platform instead of being split. What your historic sales graphs should show you is that consoles with strong software support have softer declines and therefore longer tails. But what you do is look at Nintendo home consoles of the past, take the 17.0m LTD of Switch and do something like 7m in 2020, 6m in 2021, BOOM, DEAD! and arrive at 35m lifetime in the USA. Despite Switch's more robust software support and its long time to get its first price cut, you still apply a late life sales curve that logically shouldn't be considered anymore. Switch is tracking ahead of the PS4 in the USA and there's no good reason to believe that it will fall behind eventually.


Re: #1. The actual overall shape of the sales curves during the generation proper appear to be influenced more by pricing than overall software support (though pricing, software libraries, and other things that help determine overall market share determine the size of the curve). Prior to Gen 7, all consoles peaked by Year 3 and declined steadily after that. It's why generations were shorter on average back then. And it has nothing to do with whether or not a company is supporting a home console and a handheld or just a home console alone.

A system's post-replacement legs do appear to be determined largely by post-replacement support (and by whether or not most of the addressable market has bought a system yet), as we saw with the NES and SNES doing okay post-replacement but the N64 and afterward doing awful, and the PS1 & PS2 having good legs post-replacement (the PS3's were relatively weak, but by the end of 2013 nearly everyone that was going to buy a PS3 had done so, thanks to the late peak). But Nintendo has effectively dropped support for every console from the N64 to the present once they've released a replacement, so we ought not expect Nintendo to do something they haven't done since the SNES, and therefore we ought not expect the Switch to have outstanding post-replacement legs. The Switch will likely sell at least 95% of its lifetime sales by time its replacement is released. That means it'll have to get close to if not surpass 40M by time its successor comes out in order to pass the Wii.

Re: #2. The base model hasn't had a price cut, but there is a less expensive model. Unlike quite a few other hardware revisions in the past (for both Nintendo and non-Nintendo system), it hasn't exactly done wonders as far as stimulating sales (probably since it's inferior to the regular model in nearly every way), but it did have an impact. Sept. 2019 was +43.4% from the previous month (after adjusting for September being a 5-week period), and +66.2% from Sept. 2019, the best month by far for year-over-year growth in 2019. And even with a new hardware revision and a main-series (and hugely successful) Pokemon game, that growth has been slowing. Overall growth in Switch sales in 2019 was nearly identical to what it was in 2018, but if you break it down by quarterly results, we see some interesting data. Essentially all YoY growth in 2018 was in Q4, which was up 32.85% from Q4 2017. In 2019, Q1 was up 20.65%, Q2 was up 16.62%, Q3 was up 27.24% (though the overwhelming majority of that was in September, thanks to the Lite; July+Aug. period sales were up only 5.57%), and Q4 sales were up only 11.6% (November was up only 5.3%, despite Pokemon S&S).

While it's entirely possible that the Switch could keep growing, these results aren't exactly encouraging for continued strong growth. Barring unusual circumstances, once a system experiences a period of strong year-over-year growth like this and that growth starts to slow, it never starts to speed back up later in the system's life. Even the DS saw its YoY improvements diminish steadily over time; granted, it was slow enough to have each year from 2006 to 2009 be bigger than the previous, but the growth continually slowed (and the Switch's growth appears to be slowing much faster than the DS's). But the fact that the general trend (aside from the Sept. 2019 boost from the Lite) has been declines in the size of the YoY gains indicates that those gains will start to evaporate sooner rather than later, and will start to become losses. We'll have to see how things pan out this year to see if that pattern continues or if, as you insist, the Switch does something unprecedented, but I don't count on seeing any statistically significant growth in 2020. It's not impossible, but I really don't see it doing something like 7.5M barring a price cut.


Re #3: Plans don't always go according to plan. I'm sure Nintendo planned on the Wii U being a big hit instead of a flop, but that's not what happened (and I honestly loved the Wii U; I hated seeing it do so poorly). Nintendo may plan on a longer life cycle for the Switch, but come hell or high water the Switch will pass its peak regardless of how well it's supported. You couldn't get a console that was better supported than the PS2, but it peaked in Year 2 and it was downhill from there. It had good legs because of that good support, but once it passed its peak it would never experience any sort of long-term rebound. Once it declined enough, it needed to be replaced. So it goes for all consoles. If the Switch is already significantly (say, >15%) below 2019 in 2021, then I really don't see the it having primary lifespan significantly longer than past Nintendo consoles, regardless of what Nintendo wants. A system can't simply sell at healthy, sustainable levels indefinitely just on will power and good games. It's a matter of maximum addressable audience, and I don't see a Nintendo system in the U.S. selling over 40M units without some sort of periphery demographic like the Wii and DS had. There's only so many people that are willing and able to buy any given system, and eventually you get to a point where enough of those people do buy one that sales start to slow.

40M is an incredibly difficult milestone for any system to pass in the U.S. Even if you give the Switch until, say, March 2024 (a 7-year cycle), that means that to reach 40M then it would realistically have to average about 5.25M per year in that time. Whether or not that's possible is going to hinge on its performance over the next two years. If it fails to produce any substantial YoY growth this year, and if there's any significant decline next year (say, any more than 10%), then 40M is likely out of the question. If it has non-trivial growth this year, then 40M becomes a more distinct possibility. Even then, passing any of the three home consoles that sold more than 40M poses an even bigger obstacle than just the 40M milestone. Realistically, even affording a 7-year cycle for the Switch, to have a chance of passing the Wii, 360, and PS2, that would require an annual average of no less than about 5.7M, 6M, and 6.8M, respectively. Unless it's either up big time this year, or stays flat this year and drops only very modestly in 2021, I don't see it passing the Wii, much less the other two.



Shadow1980 said:

Moving along...

Back to Rol. Re: The Dreamcast. Don't be obtuse. You know as well as I do that the Dreamcast's life was cut short. Sega obviously didn't initially release it with the intention of discontinuing it early 2001. The Dreamcast launched only 13 months before the PS2 in NA (it was about 15 months in Japan), and had it had a more normal lifespan it would have been competing directly with the PS2, GC, & Xbox for most of its life and most of that generation. It was clearly intended to compete with next-gen offerings from Nintendo and Sony. And for what it's worth, even though it was discontinued on March 31, 2001, it was still available for sale for a good while after that, and NPD and Famitsu continued tracking it to Dec. '01 and Feb. '02, respectively, making the tracking period for DC sales after the PS2's launch longer than the tracking period before the PS2's launch.

The data I am basing my claims on are numerous.

1. The sales curves of previous Nintendo home consoles and handhelds were influenced by Nintendo's need to support two distinct platforms with top-tier first party software concurrently. This means that Nintendo's top development teams have not been able to provide second half of lifecycle support that was anywhere close to the level of first half of lifecycle support. You can verify this for yourself by checking the release dates of top-selling Nintendo software across the lifecycle of their consoles. The only consistent late life support has been new Pokémon games on their handhelds, but their home consoles have hardly had any megahits see releases during the second half of the lifecycle. (Lifecycle for the purpose of this paragraph refers to the period between launch and the launch of a successor.)

PlayStation sales curves have no relevance here because Sony has never put their top development teams on handhelds like Nintendo has done. That's part of the reason why PS home consoles have experienced no significant changes despite the presence of PS handhelds.

2. Switch is now only one month away from making it a full three years before its first price cut. It will be the first console to accomplish this feat. There are multiple ways in which Switch doesn't line up with previous consoles, that's why it doesn't make sense to apply those old models to extrapolate future sales for Switch. As you already know, Switch continues to see growth whereas all the Nintendo home consoles you have on your graphs had entered their decline phase in the third year already. 

3. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2020/200131_2e.pdf

Starting with the final paragraph on page 8, Nintendo explains why Switch will have a longer lifecycle than previous Nintendo consoles. Because you've made an appeal to authority (Nintendo themselves) to argue that Switch is generation 8, you now have no choice but to concede to what Nintendo is saying in the above linked document, unless you are fine with being a hypocrite.

The length of the lifecycle is an especially crucial point because you are basing your prediction on the assumption that there's no way that Switch will have more than six years before it's getting replaced. Your thought process for sales extrapolation has proper logic within its contained realm, but the issue is that it is a construct built on fundamental assumptions that are very likely to be false. Too much of it rests on "this is how it was in the past, so that's how it will be in the future" despite Switch having already broken away from the pattern of previous Nintendo home consoles.

Switch is not like the past. One Nintendo console means that all first and third party software gets concentrated on one platform instead of being split. What your historic sales graphs should show you is that consoles with strong software support have softer declines and therefore longer tails. But what you do is look at Nintendo home consoles of the past, take the 17.0m LTD of Switch and do something like 7m in 2020, 6m in 2021, BOOM, DEAD! and arrive at 35m lifetime in the USA. Despite Switch's more robust software support and its long time to get its first price cut, you still apply a late life sales curve that logically shouldn't be considered anymore. Switch is tracking ahead of the PS4 in the USA and there's no good reason to believe that it will fall behind eventually.


Re: #1. The actual overall shape of the sales curves during the generation proper appear to be influenced more by pricing than overall software support (though pricing, software libraries, and other things that help determine overall market share determine the size of the curve). Prior to Gen 7, all consoles peaked by Year 3 and declined steadily after that. It's why generations were shorter on average back then. And it has nothing to do with whether or not a company is supporting a home console and a handheld or just a home console alone.

A system's post-replacement legs do appear to be determined largely by post-replacement support (and by whether or not most of the addressable market has bought a system yet), as we saw with the NES and SNES doing okay post-replacement but the N64 and afterward doing awful, and the PS1 & PS2 having good legs post-replacement (the PS3's were relatively weak, but by the end of 2013 nearly everyone that was going to buy a PS3 had done so, thanks to the late peak). But Nintendo has effectively dropped support for every console from the N64 to the present once they've released a replacement, so we ought not expect Nintendo to do something they haven't done since the SNES, and therefore we ought not expect the Switch to have outstanding post-replacement legs. The Switch will likely sell at least 95% of its lifetime sales by time its replacement is released. That means it'll have to get close to if not surpass 40M by time its successor comes out in order to pass the Wii.

Re: #2. The base model hasn't had a price cut, but there is a less expensive model. Unlike quite a few other hardware revisions in the past (for both Nintendo and non-Nintendo system), it hasn't exactly done wonders as far as stimulating sales (probably since it's inferior to the regular model in nearly every way), but it did have an impact. Sept. 2019 was +43.4% from the previous month (after adjusting for September being a 5-week period), and +66.2% from Sept. 2019, the best month by far for year-over-year growth in 2019. And even with a new hardware revision and a main-series (and hugely successful) Pokemon game, that growth has been slowing. Overall growth in Switch sales in 2019 was nearly identical to what it was in 2018, but if you break it down by quarterly results, we see some interesting data. Essentially all YoY growth in 2018 was in Q4, which was up 32.85% from Q4 2017. In 2019, Q1 was up 20.65%, Q2 was up 16.62%, Q3 was up 27.24% (though the overwhelming majority of that was in September, thanks to the Lite; July+Aug. period sales were up only 5.57%), and Q4 sales were up only 11.6% (November was up only 5.3%, despite Pokemon S&S).

While it's entirely possible that the Switch could keep growing, these results aren't exactly encouraging for continued strong growth. Barring unusual circumstances, once a system experiences a period of strong year-over-year growth like this and that growth starts to slow, it never starts to speed back up later in the system's life. Even the DS saw its YoY improvements diminish steadily over time; granted, it was slow enough to have each year from 2006 to 2009 be bigger than the previous, but the growth continually slowed (and the Switch's growth appears to be slowing much faster than the DS's). But the fact that the general trend (aside from the Sept. 2019 boost from the Lite) has been declines in the size of the YoY gains indicates that those gains will start to evaporate sooner rather than later, and will start to become losses. We'll have to see how things pan out this year to see if that pattern continues or if, as you insist, the Switch does something unprecedented, but I don't count on seeing any statistically significant growth in 2020. It's not impossible, but I really don't see it doing something like 7.5M barring a price cut.


Re #3: Plans don't always go according to plan. I'm sure Nintendo planned on the Wii U being a big hit instead of a flop, but that's not what happened (and I honestly loved the Wii U; I hated seeing it do so poorly). Nintendo may plan on a longer life cycle for the Switch, but come hell or high water the Switch will pass its peak regardless of how well it's supported. You couldn't get a console that was better supported than the PS2, but it peaked in Year 2 and it was downhill from there. It had good legs because of that good support, but once it passed its peak it would never experience any sort of long-term rebound. Once it declined enough, it needed to be replaced. So it goes for all consoles. If the Switch is already significantly (say, >15%) below 2019 in 2021, then I really don't see the it having primary lifespan significantly longer than past Nintendo consoles, regardless of what Nintendo wants. A system can't simply sell at healthy, sustainable levels indefinitely just on will power and good games. It's a matter of maximum addressable audience, and I don't see a Nintendo system in the U.S. selling over 40M units without some sort of periphery demographic like the Wii and DS had. There's only so many people that are willing and able to buy any given system, and eventually you get to a point where enough of those people do buy one that sales start to slow.

40M is an incredibly difficult milestone for any system to pass in the U.S. Even if you give the Switch until, say, March 2024 (a 7-year cycle), that means that to reach 40M then it would realistically have to average about 5.25M per year in that time. Whether or not that's possible is going to hinge on its performance over the next two years. If it fails to produce any substantial YoY growth this year, and if there's any significant decline next year (say, any more than 10%), then 40M is likely out of the question. If it has non-trivial growth this year, then 40M becomes a more distinct possibility. Even then, passing any of the three home consoles that sold more than 40M poses an even bigger obstacle than just the 40M milestone. Realistically, even affording a 7-year cycle for the Switch, to have a chance of passing the Wii, 360, and PS2, that would require an annual average of no less than about 5.7M, 6M, and 6.8M, respectively. Unless it's either up big time this year, or stays flat this year and drops only very modestly in 2021, I don't see it passing the Wii, much less the other two.

I am not acting obtuse regarding the Dreamcast. It launched three years before the GC and Xbox, and the typical Sega console had a short lifespan; the Genesis is the only exception that had a lifecycle of more than four years before it got replaced. Even if the Dreamcast had not been prematuraly discontinued, it would have not been able to compete with the PS2, GC and Xbox for the majority of its lifecycle, because the sales data that is available for the Dreamcast has it at a pace that is pointing towards a short lifecycle.

It's ironic that you use the total length of sales tracking to defend your Dreamcast argument whereas for Switch you argue that a hard cutoff has to be made right at the point where its successor launches. If you were logically consistent, then you would apply the same thing to Switch which will continue to be tracked for a while after it has been replaced. And once you do that, you will be 100% unable to reasonably claim that Switch spent more of its lifetime competing against the PS4 and XB1 than it did against the PS5 and XSX.

1. Your anti-handheld bias is showing again in your analysis. Nintendo did not drop support for the 3DS when Switch launched, so your claims hold no value because they are contradicted by facts that are easy to recognize when one does not subconsciously ignore half of the console space. The reason why the 3DS is highly relevant here is because Nintendo will not give up the low price bracket for consoles, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Nintendo will recreate a constellation very similar to 3DS and Switch when Switch and its successor are on the market. It also stands to reason that Switch will beat the raw sales volume of the 3DS in the post-successor phase because Switch is performing notably better than the 3DS during its time as a main platform for Nintendo.

2. What your "interesting data" is showing me is that you don't realize how important software is for hardware sales. The reason why 2018 only really showed year over year growth in Q4 is because that was the only quarter in which Nintendo released new high profile software; this includes the launch of the fastest-selling exclusive game in US history. This in turn also makes Q4 2018 a challenging year over year comparison for Q4 2019, so where you see a problem in terms of growth, I don't see it because I recognize that yoy comparisons are always difficult when important software releases aren't on a 1:1 schedule each year. In Japan Switch was down year over year for most of December 2019, but people remembered that December 2018 was so massive because it had Super Smash Bros. Ultimate whereas December 2019 had none of that.

Your other big paragraph for point 2 is an extrapolation based on the flawed reasoning of the first paragraph. The way you talk also leads me to believe that you tend to assume that Switch's sales curve will mimic the Wii's eventually, because it doesn't look like you believe that Switch could have a prolonged peak. Switch doesn't need to do more than 7m in 2020 to hit 40m lifetime. For all the talk about how imporant price cuts are for stimulation of sales, you don't have much faith in Switch despite it having yet to see a price cut. You recognize that the Lite's price doesn't mean much, so unlike someone else in this thread, you don't mistakingly believe that Switch got $100 cheaper in 2019.

3. Yes, Nintendo obviously expected the Wii U to become a success, otherwise they wouldn't have launched the console to begin with. But within 15 months after launch they knew what was up. On the other hand, Switch is 35 months old now, so those plans hold more weight, especially because so far Nintendo has everything done in accordance to reach that goal. Again, you talk about how important price cuts are for sales. Nintendo has managed to keep Switch's price at $299 for three years now and that makes it the first console in history to pull this off.

The PS2 argument doesn't help your case. You say you couldn't get a console that is better supported than the PS2, but it peaked in year 2 nonetheless. We already know that Switch did not peak in year 2, so where does your strong pessimism come from? Mind you, this is not about Switch beating the PS2 lifetime, it's about Switch beating the PS4 lifetime. Switch is tracking ahead of the PS4 and I know you fully expect Switch to grow the gap against the PS4 in the fourth year too, but then comes suddenly the point where you must have the expectation that Switch sales will fall off a cliff because otherwise the numbers can't add up for a Switch finish below the PS4's lifetime sales.

The Wii and DS argument shows that you aren't paying attention. You are sleeping on Ring Fit Adventure. Don't let its modest debut deceive you; it's a long term seller that will continue to perform strongly, and it was held back in its first four months because of supply.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:
zorg1000 said:

Current gen=/=gen 8, it means the current devices on the market. I cannot recall NPD, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft ever referring to generations by numbers.

It should be obvious from the language used in the press releases that they are comparing the Switch's LTD sales to the PS4 & XBO, and that the NPD therefore considers the Switch to belong to the same generation as the PS4 & XBO.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

This post is a mess.  But now I see that your misunderstanding about the Switch comes from a misunderstanding of console history.  The short version is that Atari 2600, 5200, and 7800 were 3 different generations.

If that's the case, then we might as well get rid of numbered generations entirely, because there's no way you could split those three into three separate generations and have them make sense, unless you believe that Gen 2 is actually two separate gens, in which case you think either A) everybody's been getting it wrong on the numbers for the post-Crash generations, or B) you think the Pong machines era was either not a generation or was a "Gen Zero."

Nu-13 said:

That's all nice but has nothing to do with generations. A systems's gen is set in stone the moment it releases. Switch came too long after the start of the 8th gen, therefore it's 9th gen. Ps5 and xsx are coming too long after the start of the 9th gen, therefore they will be 10th gen. Eventually everyone will agree on that due to different reasons.

*heavy sigh*

No. Just... no. I mean, Switch the sole Gen 9 console, and Sony & MS skip Gen 9 and go straight to Gen 10? You started this whole off-topic argument, and this ends up being what you expect us to accept? Really? Really?

This is exactly why I consider NPD far more authoritative than the opinions of random forum-dwellers.

RolStoppable said:

You missed the portion in Nintendo's press releases where it's explicitly stated that the statement is according to NPD. If I personally relay information and therefore say that Switch was the best-selling current generation hardware according to NPD, then that isn't at odds with my stance that Switch does not belong to the same generation as the 3DS and the Wii U, because I am merely stating which classification someone else uses.

As for the rest of your long post, logical consistence demands that you call the Dreamcast a generation 5 console, putting it into the same generation as the Saturn. As long as you do not explicitly do that, I won't bother to write a more elaborate response.

Why all that struggle? Generations aren't console wars. It doesn't affect anyone's ego. It merely classifies stuff according to their release period.



Nu-13 said:
Shadow1980 said:

It should be obvious from the language used in the press releases that they are comparing the Switch's LTD sales to the PS4 & XBO, and that the NPD therefore considers the Switch to belong to the same generation as the PS4 & XBO.

If that's the case, then we might as well get rid of numbered generations entirely, because there's no way you could split those three into three separate generations and have them make sense, unless you believe that Gen 2 is actually two separate gens, in which case you think either A) everybody's been getting it wrong on the numbers for the post-Crash generations, or B) you think the Pong machines era was either not a generation or was a "Gen Zero."

*heavy sigh*

No. Just... no. I mean, Switch the sole Gen 9 console, and Sony & MS skip Gen 9 and go straight to Gen 10? You started this whole off-topic argument, and this ends up being what you expect us to accept? Really? Really?

This is exactly why I consider NPD far more authoritative than the opinions of random forum-dwellers.

Why all that struggle? Generations aren't console wars. It doesn't affect anyone's ego. It merely classifies stuff according to their release period.

You don't know Shadow that well, do you?

He's not the console wars kinda guy. He's into sales analysis. That's why I think it's silly to imply that he has an agenda labelling the Switch 8th/9th gen.



Shadow1980 said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

This post is a mess.  But now I see that your misunderstanding about the Switch comes from a misunderstanding of console history.  The short version is that Atari 2600, 5200, and 7800 were 3 different generations.

If that's the case, then we might as well get rid of numbered generations entirely, because there's no way you could split those three into three separate generations and have them make sense, unless you believe that Gen 2 is actually two separate gens, in which case you think either A) everybody's been getting it wrong on the numbers for the post-Crash generations, or B) you think the Pong machines era was either not a generation or was a "Gen Zero."

"Generation 2" actually is two separate generations.  I just call them "Generation 2" and "Crash Generation".  The Atari 5200, Colecovision and Vectrex were part of the "Crash Generation".

I also wouldn't say "everybody" is getting it wrong.  I would say Wikipedia is getting it wrong when it comes to Generation 2.  If you go to retro gaming forums where they still celebrate the Atari 2600, then they consider the 5200 to be next gen.  Among people who were old enough and actually care the 2600 and 5200 are considered separate generations.  Younger people get it wrong because they don't know and/or don't care.



I think Rol does exaggerate when he's talking about an inherent console bias from Shadow. He has clearly never shown such a bias from what I've seen from my presence on this forum. Although, Switch does act differently than any previous behavioral pattern we got from previous generations so far, so it doesn't make much sense to think the switch will suddenly steer it's way into normal-lacy just because everyone else did so.
Switch isn't everyone else, it is a new case that is actually worth it's own study.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Year 3000, the first contact with an alien species.

VGChartz December NPD thread: Switch is gen ******!