Forums - Gaming Discussion - Poll - Is Switch a 9th gen console?

With Sony and MS releasing new hardware, will Switch be considered as 9th gen?

Yes 79 51.97%
 
No 73 48.03%
 
Total:152
d21lewis said:
NyanNyanNekoChan said:

If people define what generation a console belongs to based on the generation of it's predecessor, all the while Nintendo keep releasing their systems more frequently than Sony or Microsoft do, we'll eventually end up in a scenario where the next Sony and Microsoft console will release after a Nintendo console, but the Sony/Microsoft console will be a generation behind despite releasing afterwards.

Something that approximately looks like this:

Spoiler!

(2017) Switch released, succeeds 8th Gen WiiU, so is defined as 9th gen

(2023-2024) Switch 2 released, succeeds 9th gen Switch, so is defined as 10th gen

(2028 - 2030) Switch 3 released, succeeds 10th gen Switch 2, so is defined as 11th gen

(2034 - 2036) Switch 4 released, succeeds 11th gen Switch 3, so is defined as 12th gen

(2039 - 2042) Switch 5 released, succeeds 12th gen Switch 4, so is defined as 13th gen

(2020) PS5 released, succeeds 8th gen PS4, so is defined as 9th gen

(2027 - 2028) PS6 is released, succeeds 9th gen PS5, so is defined as 10th gen

(2034 - 2036) PS7 is released, succeeds 10th gen PS6, so is defined as 11th gen

(2040 - 2043) PS8 is released, succeeds 11th gen PS7, so is defined as 12th gen

tldr - Switch 5 released before PS8, Switch 5 is 13th gen, PS8 is 12th gen

To get around this issue, either the next Playstation and Xbox jump two gen instead of one, and Nintendo end up being in a generation by themselves for one gen despite having competition, or two of Nintendo's systems need to be a part of the same gen.

Alternatively you could be all like "to hell with it, screw this generation system

I see what you mean but it's entirely possible to skip a gen. If Sega released a console for the first time since 1999, it wouldn't be a gen 7 machine. It would be gen 9 along with everyone else.

I still say the Switch is gen 8 but if Nintendo released 3 systems (gen 9,10, and 11) and Xbox/PS only released one, one could argue that they just sat the generation out. Just playing devil's advocate, here.

Precisely. There seem to be a few people saying the Switch is a 9th Gen system because it succeeds an 8th gen system, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to define what generation a console belongs to, solely based on the generation of it's predecessor, when you start encountering the issue that I highlighted, and some companies could straight out take a 20+ year break as you just highlighted.



Around the Network
GamingRabbit said:
badskywalker said:

So Nintendo reports its quarterly shipments to the public on both hardware and software (its why this sites hardware numbers shift a month after the previous quarter ended) I'm 90% positive it counts 3rd party as in the actual quarterly report it specifies what % is first party and other.

The link is https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/hard_soft/

That link is just hardware and software figures for every Nintendo console while this one is the breakdown of the quarter

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/events/index.html

I believe this is the right link to where you can look at past quarters

Thank you for your work.

But apparently, either I am too stupid to find the right numbers, or Nintendo doesnt really share 3rd party game numbers in detail.

All I've seen so far are numbers for 1st party or nintendo owned games.

I'd say adding +25% should do the error justice, and also not affect my statement.

Especially with other reports saying that games, which are sold at retail for premium price, having a significantly higher share.

So the thing I did forget to mention is that while Nintendo does track 3rd Party sales, it will only release the information on it to the public only under two conditions, the first is if it crosses a million, and I'm pretty certain that it has to be within the fiscal year it was first released. The top ten (all 1st party) are regularly updated each quarter. Also if any game sells 1 million in the fiscal year it will be listed (that's why mario kart 8 dx had its sales updated despite it being a game in its 3rd fiscal year). Just type into google list of best selling switch games and go to the wikipedia list for the official list of million sellers. I understand wikipedia isn't meant to be a trustworthy source, but I've always checked its numbers against that of the reports and they've always been right. The other nice thing is that it tells you the release date, and the last update date.



badskywalker said:

So the thing I did forget to mention is that while Nintendo does track 3rd Party sales, it will only release the information on it to the public only under two conditions, the first is if it crosses a million, and I'm pretty certain that it has to be within the fiscal year it was first released. The top ten (all 1st party) are regularly updated each quarter. Also if any game sells 1 million in the fiscal year it will be listed (that's why mario kart 8 dx had its sales updated despite it being a game in its 3rd fiscal year). Just type into google list of best selling switch games and go to the wikipedia list for the official list of million sellers. I understand wikipedia isn't meant to be a trustworthy source, but I've always checked its numbers against that of the reports and they've always been right. The other nice thing is that it tells you the release date, and the last update date.

Yeah.. it's hard to get 3rd party sales on switch

I was able to update a few 'tho.

Attach Rate has gone up +10% compared to my last chart, but it's still the same range, so nothing chages there.

But thank you for all the help in getting the (approx.) right numbers.

// updated my first post with the newer chart



Pigs can fly as far as you want them to.

Just get one to the starting point, move it to its destination

and claim it flew.

Rab said:
aikohualda said:

why would it be a waste of time... since competition within the market is one of the biggest thing why gaming is moving forward.  Studying the competition within the timeline is very important imo

That doesn't require a generation classification

i.e. Console X was competing with Console Y from 2013 - 2016, Console X was then competing with Console Z from 2017 - 2020

those time lines.... almost look like generations but without the title...LOL

yeah i still prefer a defined generations :) and I like how wikipedia separate them for "easy" reading for my taste.

Agree to disagree :)



 

Switch is Nintendo's current generation hybrid console (regardless of a numbered lable) that for the first half of its life competed against PS4 and X1. For the second half of its life, it is in competition with the XSX and PS5.

/thread



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:
JWeinCom said:

Occam's Razor is that the simpler explanation is preferred. Not that the simpler explanation is correct. Basically, it's that you don't add anything unnecessary to your explanation. But you still have to include everything that IS necessary. 

There are two problems. First of all, generation doesn't explain things as well as looking at multiple factors. Take gen 7 for example which you just like... chucked out cause you didn't like the data. By your framework the Wii, PS3, and XBox 360 are simply both gen 7 consoles... yet, obviously the PS3 and 360 competed with eachother in a way that they didn't really compete with the Wii. Appealing to generations offers no explanation. On the other hand, looking at all the factors, we would expect incredibly similar PS3 and 360 to compete directly and split up the lion's share of the existing market , which they did. We would expect the Wii to take some part of that market (as it launched at the same time, was Nintendo's marketing focus, had some library overlap, and was somewhat comparable in price at various points) but not a great deal, because of the differences in specs and advertising. We would also expect that because it has new features, it would have the potential to reach new customers. 

More importantly generations doesn't actually explain anything. You're trying to explain why certain systems compete with eachother. Your conclusion is that systems compete with eachother because they are part of the same generation... Which is just another way to say that they compete with eachother.  It's entirely circular.

The one that's actually violating Occam's Razor is you. Technological specs, timing of release, price point, game libraries, marketing etc, are factors that are undeniably real, and I don't think any rational person would deny that these impact how systems will sell overall, and how they will interact with each other. These aren't unnecessary things I'm adding, these are necessary things.

What is being added is the concept of generations. This is something that doesn't exist inherently the same way price points, marketing campaigns, and games libraries do. It's a framework that we're creating to categorize things, perhaps in a useful way or perhaps not. Since we're adding it, it has to have some value, and if not, that's violating Occam's Razor.

So again, I ask, can we make the same predictions based on factors that you and I both know are real and agree are relevant (timing, marketing, library, price point, etc.)?  If so, why would we add the concept of generations, which based on this topic is something that people don't agree is relevant, and something people can't agree on the meaning of?

"Occam's Razor is that the simpler explanation is preferred. Not that the simpler explanation is correct. Basically, it's that you don't add anything unnecessary to your explanation. But you still have to include everything that IS necessary." 

Einsten put it this way, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."  You think my explanation is too simple.  I think your explanation is too complex.  If you are right, then there should be a situation where we predict different outcomes, because I have neglected relevant information.  If we always end up predicting the same thing, then our explanations are equivalent, but mine is better because it is simpler.  So, can you think of a situation where we would predict something different?

I think I can, but I may be misunderstanding something with your explanation.  I think your explanation would have the NES and Genesis competing in the US during 89-90.  Mine would not.  Would this be accurate or no?


"There are two problems. First of all, generation doesn't explain things as well as looking at multiple factors. Take gen 7 for example which you just like... chucked out cause you didn't like the data. By your framework the Wii, PS3, and XBox 360 are simply both gen 7 consoles... yet, obviously the PS3 and 360 competed with eachother in a way that they didn't really compete with the Wii. Appealing to generations offers no explanation. On the other hand, looking at all the factors, we would expect incredibly similar PS3 and 360 to compete directly and split up the lion's share of the existing market , which they did. We would expect the Wii to take some part of that market (as it launched at the same time, was Nintendo's marketing focus, had some library overlap, and was somewhat comparable in price at various points) but not a great deal, because of the differences in specs and advertising. We would also expect that because it has new features, it would have the potential to reach new customers."

I didn't use Generation 7, because I think the market temporarily changed in size.  There were a lot of temporary customers.  There was too much variability.  Normally, to perform an experiment you want to control as many extraneous variables as possible.  Galileo wanted to show that 2 objects of different mass fall at the same speed in a vacuum, so he dropped 2 objects of different mass from a tall building.  His experiment is not negated by the fact that he didn't choose a feather as one of his objects.  Often, experiments are performed in a controlled laboratory environment.  Since I can't do that in this case, I chose to compare generations that seemed to have similar initial conditions.

Also, I do actually think that the Wii, XB360 and PS3 were all competing.  They all had motion controls of some sort, so they seemed to all be competing.  Perhaps this is where our explanations would differ.  However, I am not clear how your explanation makes them not compete.  Is it because of technology or something else?

More importantly generations doesn't actually explain anything. You're trying to explain why certain systems compete with eachother. Your conclusion is that systems compete with eachother because they are part of the same generation... Which is just another way to say that they compete with eachother.  It's entirely circular.

Incorrect.  There is no circular reasoning, because I am saying a generation starts when the first successor system is released.  Generations explain why some systems compete and others do not even when they are for sale on the market at the same time.  For example, take the Genesis during 89-90 in the US.  The only home system available from Nintendo at this time was the NES.  They did not seem to compete.   The SNES released in 91.  It did seem to compete with the Genesis.  I am saying that the first successor starts the next generation, which is the Genesis in this case.  I claim that a new generation starts when the first successor is released.  That is why it is not circular reasoning.


"So again, I ask, can we make the same predictions based on factors that you and I both know are real and agree are relevant (timing, marketing, library, price point, etc.)?  If so, why would we add the concept of generations, which based on this topic is something that people don't agree is relevant, and something people can't agree on the meaning of?"

If we really are predicting the same thing, then my explanation is superior.  That is the meaning of Occam's Razor, regardless of how it is stated.  If two explanations predict the exact same thing, then the simpler one is the better one.  If you can take a bunch of charts and data and sum it up in a single sentence, then the sentence is better than the charts and data.  Simplicity is better than complexity if the two explanations actually are equivalent.  

The real question then, is "Are our two explanations equivalent?"  Can you think of an instance where we would predict different outcomes?  If the answer is "no", then "generation" is one word that means everything you are saying.

If we really are predicting the same thing, then my explanation is superior.  That is the meaning of Occam's Razor, regardless of how it is stated.  If two explanations predict the exact same thing, then the simpler one is the better one.  If you can take a bunch of charts and data and sum it up in a single sentence, then the sentence is better than the charts and data.  Simplicity is better than complexity if the two explanations actually are equivalent.  

You have not predicted anything yet, just explained (sort of) things that already happened. Suppose we are looking at a TV and notice that it turns on when I press the power button and is plugged in. I give a detailed explanation of how the electrical engineering works, and you say "It's magic." Based on this, we would both predict the TV will turn on when the power button is pushed. Your explanation is a single sentence and is much simpler. But, it doesn't actually explain anything. 

Likewise, generations doesn't actually explain anything. All it does is show that systems released around the same time will likely be more competitive which is a big DUH. I'm sure anyone could predict that without knowing anything about the gaming industry. If two companies are both actively trying to convince me to buy products that serve a similar function, they will be in competition. The actual relevant question is how the two products are going to impact each other. Saying they're in the same generation doesn't help answer that.

The Wii U was released more than 4 years after the Wii, and it didn't compete with the PS4 or XBox One in any real sense. Looking at generations, there is no reason for this. Looking at the tech specs, marketing, and library we can easily see why. 

The Vita and 3DS were both released more than 4 years after their predecessors. If we only looked at generations, we'd expect them to compete in relatively the same way their predecessors did. Obviously, that didn't happen. Looking at other factors, such as price point, how heavily they were marketed, and how many games were available, it's easy to explain why the 3DS sold better.

Things like tech specs, pricing, marketing, and libraries clearly seem to matter, and you can't just cut them away with Occam's Razor, because that's not how it works. Those factors actually help us predict how the two products will interact with each other, which can actually help make predictions. Saying they're in the same generation just tells us they will compete in some capacity. And, again, the fact that they'll compete to some degree should be obvious just based on the fact that all three companies are actively trying to convince you to buy their product over the other.

To the point, if you're simply labeling the Switch as a gen 9 console, it should compete with the PS5 in the same way the XBox Series X will. Assuming Nintendo does not release a radical hardware revision, this will almost surely not be the case.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 03 August 2020

JWeinCom said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

"Occam's Razor is that the simpler explanation is preferred. Not that the simpler explanation is correct. Basically, it's that you don't add anything unnecessary to your explanation. But you still have to include everything that IS necessary." 

Einsten put it this way, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."  You think my explanation is too simple.  I think your explanation is too complex.  If you are right, then there should be a situation where we predict different outcomes, because I have neglected relevant information.  If we always end up predicting the same thing, then our explanations are equivalent, but mine is better because it is simpler.  So, can you think of a situation where we would predict something different?

I think I can, but I may be misunderstanding something with your explanation.  I think your explanation would have the NES and Genesis competing in the US during 89-90.  Mine would not.  Would this be accurate or no?


"There are two problems. First of all, generation doesn't explain things as well as looking at multiple factors. Take gen 7 for example which you just like... chucked out cause you didn't like the data. By your framework the Wii, PS3, and XBox 360 are simply both gen 7 consoles... yet, obviously the PS3 and 360 competed with eachother in a way that they didn't really compete with the Wii. Appealing to generations offers no explanation. On the other hand, looking at all the factors, we would expect incredibly similar PS3 and 360 to compete directly and split up the lion's share of the existing market , which they did. We would expect the Wii to take some part of that market (as it launched at the same time, was Nintendo's marketing focus, had some library overlap, and was somewhat comparable in price at various points) but not a great deal, because of the differences in specs and advertising. We would also expect that because it has new features, it would have the potential to reach new customers."

I didn't use Generation 7, because I think the market temporarily changed in size.  There were a lot of temporary customers.  There was too much variability.  Normally, to perform an experiment you want to control as many extraneous variables as possible.  Galileo wanted to show that 2 objects of different mass fall at the same speed in a vacuum, so he dropped 2 objects of different mass from a tall building.  His experiment is not negated by the fact that he didn't choose a feather as one of his objects.  Often, experiments are performed in a controlled laboratory environment.  Since I can't do that in this case, I chose to compare generations that seemed to have similar initial conditions.

Also, I do actually think that the Wii, XB360 and PS3 were all competing.  They all had motion controls of some sort, so they seemed to all be competing.  Perhaps this is where our explanations would differ.  However, I am not clear how your explanation makes them not compete.  Is it because of technology or something else?

More importantly generations doesn't actually explain anything. You're trying to explain why certain systems compete with eachother. Your conclusion is that systems compete with eachother because they are part of the same generation... Which is just another way to say that they compete with eachother.  It's entirely circular.

Incorrect.  There is no circular reasoning, because I am saying a generation starts when the first successor system is released.  Generations explain why some systems compete and others do not even when they are for sale on the market at the same time.  For example, take the Genesis during 89-90 in the US.  The only home system available from Nintendo at this time was the NES.  They did not seem to compete.   The SNES released in 91.  It did seem to compete with the Genesis.  I am saying that the first successor starts the next generation, which is the Genesis in this case.  I claim that a new generation starts when the first successor is released.  That is why it is not circular reasoning.


"So again, I ask, can we make the same predictions based on factors that you and I both know are real and agree are relevant (timing, marketing, library, price point, etc.)?  If so, why would we add the concept of generations, which based on this topic is something that people don't agree is relevant, and something people can't agree on the meaning of?"

If we really are predicting the same thing, then my explanation is superior.  That is the meaning of Occam's Razor, regardless of how it is stated.  If two explanations predict the exact same thing, then the simpler one is the better one.  If you can take a bunch of charts and data and sum it up in a single sentence, then the sentence is better than the charts and data.  Simplicity is better than complexity if the two explanations actually are equivalent.  

The real question then, is "Are our two explanations equivalent?"  Can you think of an instance where we would predict different outcomes?  If the answer is "no", then "generation" is one word that means everything you are saying.

If we really are predicting the same thing, then my explanation is superior.  That is the meaning of Occam's Razor, regardless of how it is stated.  If two explanations predict the exact same thing, then the simpler one is the better one.  If you can take a bunch of charts and data and sum it up in a single sentence, then the sentence is better than the charts and data.  Simplicity is better than complexity if the two explanations actually are equivalent.  

You have not predicted anything yet, just explained (sort of) things that already happened. Suppose we are looking at a TV and notice that it turns on when I press the power button and is plugged in. I give a detailed explanation of how the electrical engineering works, and you say "It's magic." Based on this, we would both predict the TV will turn on when the power button is pushed. Your explanation is a single sentence and is much simpler. But, it's useless because it doesn't actually explain anything.

Likewise, generations doesn't actually explain anything. All it does is show that systems released around the same time will likely be more competitive which is a big DUH. I'm sure anyone could predict that without knowing anything about the gaming industry. If two companies are both trying to promote a video game machine at the same time, they are likely going to compete to some extent. 

But, that doesn't actually help predict or explain anything. Gen 7 is a complete outlier (and throwing it out is not controlling for variables, because you haven't identified any variables...)

The Wii U was released more than 4 years after the Wii, and it didn't compete with the PS4 or XBox One. Looking at generations, there is no reason for this. Looking at the tech specs, marketing, and library we can easily see why. 

The Vita and 3DS were both released more than 4 years after their predecessors. If we only looked at generations, we'd expect them to compete in relatively the same way their predecessors did. Obviously, that didn't happen. Looking at other factors, such as price point, how heavily they were marketed, and how many games were available, it's easy to explain why the 3DS sold better.

Things like tech specs, pricing, marketing, and libraries clearly seem to matter, and you can't just cut them away with Occam's Razor, because that's not how it works.

To the point, if you're simply labeling the Switch as a gen 9 console, it should compete with the PS5 in the same way the XBox Series X will. Assuming Nintendo does not release a radical hardware revision, this will almost surely not be the case.

When you say "didn't compete" and "expect them to compete", what are you referring to?  All of the runners in a track race are "in competition" with one another regardless of which place they finish in.  It doesn't matter how far distantly the last runner finished from the first.  The Wii U was in competition with the PS4 and the XBox One for the majority of its lifespan no matter how the sales ended up between them.  When I bought Assassin's Creed IV, Call of Duty Ghosts, or Watchdogs on Wii U, I was taking purchases away from its competitors.  It doesn't matter that the Wii U versions accounted to very few sales of these titles.  They were still in competition nonetheless.



Of course the Nintendo Switch is 9th gen; as the Wii U and 3DS are 8th gen, as the Wii and DS are 7th gen, as the GameCube and GBA are 6th Gen, etc.

It simply has combined the production and features that were previously separate in its predecessors.

It will be interesting to see how long they go before they release their next console, I think they will wait until 2025.



Why does it matter? How do people care enough for this to have 17 pages of replies.

Generations are just things people made up lol



PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'


When you say "didn't compete" and "expect them to compete", what are you referring to?  All of the runners in a track race are "in competition" with one another regardless of which place they finish in.  It doesn't matter how far distantly the last runner finished from the first.  The Wii U was in competition with the PS4 and the XBox One for the majority of its lifespan no matter how the sales ended up between them.  When I bought Assassin's Creed IV, Call of Duty Ghosts, or Watchdogs on Wii U, I was taking purchases away from its competitors.  It doesn't matter that the Wii U versions accounted to very few sales of these titles.  They were still in competition nonetheless.

By compete, I mean one system having a significant impact on the sales of another, which I'm pretty sure is also what laser meant as well.