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
ArchangelMadzz said:
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

If I had to guess, I would say most people that actually care are trying to negate Switch sales in comparison to PS5 and XSX, as that puts the Switch with a head start of 60+ mil.

The people who try to claim that the Switch is not even a console likely realize that calling the Switch a gen 8 console means that the PS4 did not really dominate sales in the end, and is even open to finish 2nd by the end of the Switch's life.

Now don't get me wrong, there are some tech heads in here that genuinely have their own classification and they enjoy the analysis.  There are also a few people that focus too much on the form factor of the Switch when not docked.

However to answer your question of why people care so much to have 17 pages of debate, is because it is highly likely that the majority of people in this either belong to the first two groups I mentioned, or are Nintendo fans annoyed by that fact.

Thats how it looks anyway.



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

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

Around the Network
Shiken said:

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

This reply of yours doesn't end the thread because it doesn't answer the question in the title. 



Metallox said:
Shiken said:

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

This reply of yours doesn't end the thread because it doesn't answer the question in the title. 

Jump up a bit so you can catch the joke.

The point was that the discussion is pointless because no matter what number you put behind it, the Switch is still Nintendo's competing console against the PS5 and XSX when they release.



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

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

Shiken said:
Metallox said:

This reply of yours doesn't end the thread because it doesn't answer the question in the title. 

Jump up a bit so you can catch the joke.

The point was that the discussion is pointless because no matter what number you put behind it, the Switch is still Nintendo's competing console against the PS5 and XSX when they release.

Aye, aye. We'll never know, apparently, this is just too arbitrary. 



Shiken said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
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

If I had to guess, I would say most people that actually care are trying to negate Switch sales in comparison to PS5 and XSX, as that puts the Switch with a head start of 60+ mil.

The people who try to claim that the Switch is not even a console likely realize that calling the Switch a gen 8 console means that the PS4 did not really dominate sales in the end, and is even open to finish 2nd by the end of the Switch's life.

Now don't get me wrong, there are some tech heads in here that genuinely have their own classification and they enjoy the analysis.  There are also a few people that focus too much on the form factor of the Switch when not docked.

However to answer your question of why people care so much to have 17 pages of debate, is because it is highly likely that the majority of people in this either belong to the first two groups I mentioned, or are Nintendo fans annoyed by that fact.

Thats how it looks anyway.

Can't people just compare launch aligned like we always do with new consoles. Anyway how can we compare sales when the XSX and PS5 will likely cause twice as much as a Switch? 

This isn't the Wii U, the Switch is selling super well can't people just be happy and not worry about what gen some guys on the internet think it is and argue about other things?



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'

Around the Network
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 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.

I'm thinking that what our disagreement comes down to is which systems actually compete.  I very much think the Wii U competed with PS4 and XB1.  That is a big reason why it sold so poorly.  Also, the 3DS and Vita definitely competed.  That is why the Vita did so poorly. 

What generations don't do is determine who will win, which is something you've been pointing out in your post. Maybe that is why you don't think they are meaningful.  They don't tell which system will win, but they do tell which systems are competing. 

Of course, we don't seem to be able to agree on which systems are competing.  We are probably talking past each other, because we don't even agree on which systems are competing.



The Switch will have a successor in 2022. That's just the Nintendo way. And the XSX/PS5 will be around until maybe 2027 if not longer.

I'd even imagine the Switch successor being weaker than both consoles and coming and going (or leaving the market at the same time). It's just crazy to think about. With that said, 3/5 years of the Switch's life will be in direct competition with the other 8th gen consoles. But it's a ninth gen system?



mZuzek loves Smeags. 😢

The_Liquid_Laser said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

I'm thinking that what our disagreement comes down to is which systems actually compete.  I very much think the Wii U competed with PS4 and XB1.  That is a big reason why it sold so poorly.  Also, the 3DS and Vita definitely competed.  That is why the Vita did so poorly. 

What generations don't do is determine who will win, which is something you've been pointing out in your post. Maybe that is why you don't think they are meaningful.  They don't tell which system will win, but they do tell which systems are competing. 

Of course, we don't seem to be able to agree on which systems are competing.  We are probably talking past each other, because we don't even agree on which systems are competing.

Yes... the Vita and the 3DS competed... and by looking at the factors we could have predicted how the competition would look.  Same with the Wii U and PS4/One. Looking at price points/features/ and specs we can actually predict how one system will impact the other. 

I figured that was the point... to actually make meaningful predictions about the market. If your point is just to predict which consoles will be "competing" in some sense, that strikes me as profoundly useless. As someone who worked in gaming retail, I can tell you that people with next to zero knowledge about the gaming industry and no concept of generations figured out which systems were competing easily and without conducting anything resembling a scientific study.

Products compete when they're similar. That's about as simple as it gets. We could talk about exactly which factors are similar, but if you want a one word explanation, there it is; similarity. Saying that they're competing because "they're in the same generation" is not actually any simpler, because it requires creating an unnecessary term, and worse, nobody really seems to agree on what that term means.

And similarity actually explains why consoles would compete. If we assume people buy a product because they want it for some particular use, then it's basic common sense that a potential customer will choose between products that have that functionality. On the other hand, there's no logical reason to expect that two products would compete just because they were launched a certain amount of time after a predecessor. 

To give one clear example of why this concept is pretty much useless, let's say, hypothetically that next march, exactly four years after the Switch's release date, Nintendo releases a new system that is more powerful than either the PS5 or XBox SX, is still a hybrid with roughly the same size as the Switch, has identical third party support to the PS5/XBox X, and costs 100 dollars.

If, generation, as you define it, is the relevant factor, then this would be a gen 10 system by your logic, and would not compete with PS5 and XBox SX or hurt their sales. Is that what you think would happen?

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 04 August 2020

Is the Switch Lite a handheld from the same generation as the 3DS?



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

d21lewis said:

The Switch will have a successor in 2022. That's just the Nintendo way. And the XSX/PS5 will be around until maybe 2027 if not longer.

I'd even imagine the Switch successor being weaker than both consoles and coming and going (or leaving the market at the same time). It's just crazy to think about. With that said, 3/5 years of the Switch's life will be in direct competition with the other 8th gen consoles. But it's a ninth gen system?

It'll be more like 3/7.

If Nintendo releases a home console Switch this holiday with the exact same specs as the hybrid, will it be 9th gen?



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!