Ps1,ps2,ps3,ps4

You are actually right, because you are old enough to remember this stuff.  Wikipedia gets Generations 2 and 3 horribly wrong, and so they put the C64 in Gen3 and Atari 5200 in Gen 2 even though the C64 launched first.  What really happened was the video game crash in North America was really its own generation, a "Lost Generation".  It should be more like this:

Gen 2, 1977-82: Atari 2600, Intellivision
Crash Generation, 1982-87: Atari 5200, Colecovision, C64, Vectrex
Gen 3, 1987-89: NES, SMS, Atari 7800

The Atari 5200 was meant to replace the Atari 2600.  It was "next gen".  But in 1983 customers decided they didn't want any Atari system, so sales plummeted.  Retailers panicked and got rid of all consoles.  This basically took Colecovision and Vetrex down with Atari even though those systems probably would have been more successful if given the chance.  In the absense of consoles, the C64 became the dominant platform during the crash.

The NES actually competed with the Amiga.  The Amiga launched in 1985 and was the successor to the C64.  The belief at the time was that consoles were a fad and computers would replace them permanently as the sole home gaming platform.  Then the NES came along and kicked its ass.  That is why the Amiga was not nearly as successful as the C64. 

I remember in the late 80's every kid on my block had an NES, but there was this one kid a block away who had an Amiga.  He showed me how pretty Marble Madness looked on his Amiga, and was trying to make it seem like Amiga was the coolest thing around.  I remember thinking, "This game looks good, but it's old.  Poor kid, his parents bought him a computer instead of a real gaming machine.  He'll never get to play all of the great NES games the rest of us are playing."  But the Amiga definitely had better graphics, so maybe that is what he really cared about.

4. SNES
5. N64
6. PS2
7. PS3
8. PS4

The Crash Gen is an interesting idea, and it works really well actually. I really wanted an Amiga, and it did have some decent software, but never did get one. Price was definitely a factor there. No doubt about the NES comparison though. Once I got one, I didn't really care much about the Amiga anymore. 

5th generation was PS1, 6th Generation was PS2, 7th was PS3 and 8th PS4 without a doubt.

1.N/A
2N/A
3.NES
4.SNES
5.N64
6.Gamecube
7.Xbox 360
8.Wii U

3: NES
4: Genesis
5: PlayStation
6: Xbox
7: Xbox 360
8: PS4

Kinda surprising how many of us jumped from brand to brand. Pleasantly surprising, actually.

Maybe I phrased it wrong. I like the fact that people weren't just loyal to a single company rather they just played what they wanted to play regardless of manufacturer. I buy every console myself (though I understand that's not always an option). I'm just praising the fact that many of us have open minds.

What you are saying isn't really accurate.  Multi-console is not the same as multi-brand.  A person's two consoles could easily have been PS3+PSP, which is the same brand.  It's even more likely to be two Nintendo systems like DS + Wii, and in this case the brand is really Nintendo.  Two systems, same brand.  And another extremely common case is that a person has two home systems, but one of those systems is a PC.  People can afford two or more systems, but that doesn't necessarily mean two different home consoles.

And yet, we see people are still switching brands.  They might have a Sega system, then a Playstation, and then a Nintendo system.  In gaming, brand loyalty is the exception rather than the rule.  People are loyal to consoles, but not to brands.  People might love the PS2 and then ignore the PS3.  Different consoles, same brand.  Well brand doesn't really matter.  Games matter.  Have a system with a lot of great games and people will switch.  Games define a console, and that is why people love certain consoles.  But brands don't really matter.