Lol, yes that is very true.  The 7800 was developed between 83'-84' and then shelved by Atari until it's 86'-87' release.  So yeah, it's development cycle was very close to the 5200's.  In fact, I read somewhere that early 80's Atari always had many projects going on in R&D simultaneously.

I've always seen hardware generations as whoever shares shelf space with it's competitors at a given time and competes for the same consumers dollars.  (Which makes sense as to the question of why the 5200 and ColecoVision got retroactively bumped back to 2nd Gen systems since they never really got to compete with the NES or Master System.)  Right now, I have a Nintendo Switch and an XBox One.  If there is a multiplat game releasing on both systems, I have to make a conscious decision which system to buy the game for.  So, anytime I buy the Switch version, the Switch is not just competing with, but taking money away from its competitors.

I remember years ago, people on this very site arguing that the Wii could not be considered the winner of the 7th Gen, because it's specs were not on par with the 360 or the PS3.  But throughout its lifespan, it shared the same section of brick and mortar video game aisles. The same started off true for the Wii U, PS4 and Xbox One.  But, the Wii U flopped, and Nintendo was quick to react with the release of the Switch.  The Switch is now going to be in the unusual position of having shared shelf space with PS4 & XBox One for half of its lifespan, and then sharing space with the PS5 and XBox Series X for the remainder.

I don't really have a problem with the Switch being designated as an 8th gen system.  But, I can imagine a scenario where if the Switch finished with lifetime sales higher than the PS4, some people would suddenly not be so eager to say they were in the same gen (just like the Wii).

I thought EA determined which generation we are in.  According to them we are only a few generations in and anything before never happened.

Sales tracking wise, I think from here on out Nintendo devices will track in the last half of one generation and the first half of another. Switch has been 8th gen, but will be considered 9th gen going forward and the Series X and PS5 will have to see if they can beat it's sales, in the end. But halfway through their life the Switch 2 will take the mantle. It's an odd thing to wrap your head around, but what else are we supposed to do with it? Have to compare and contrast sales somehow. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it's a hybrid and rather has to do with them launching devices halfway through the HD twins lifecycles.

The only thing that could normalize this is if Switch had a 9 year supported cycle and Switch 2 doesn't come out until Ps6 and Series X2. But I think they've learned if they lunch multiple years before/after the other two that they can have a lot of success and won't launch so close going forward.

The classification that makes the most sense to me and most other old schoolers who remember this time period is this:

Generation 2:  Atari 2600, Intellivision
"Crash Generation": Atari 5200, Colecovision, Vectrex
Generation 3: NES, SMS, Atari 7800

The Crash Generation was basically a lost generation in North America.  Console makers released new systems, but when the sales numbers crashed, then retailers panicked and just put everything on sale.  I remember Atari 5200 games being sold in bargain bins even though they were fairly new.  And copies of Pac-Man and E.T. for the 2600 were in bargain bins for years.  The retailers did their best to clear out all inventory and didn't order anything new.

The real winner of the Crash Generation was the Commodore 64.  It was the cheapest computer, so that is what people bought for gaming.  And retailers would actually sell it, because it wasn't technically a console.  The C64's successor, the Amiga, was released around the same time as the NES, but it didn't sell nearly as well.  People had gone back to consoles by that time.

Switch was the primary replacement for the WiiU.  It is a console with portability as a feature, deal with it.

Generations are longer. Back in my day, we walked to school uphill in the snow, popcorn cost a nickel, and generations lasted 4 or 5 years before successors.

The Wii U did so bad, so fast that Nintendo needed an 8th gen "do over".

Now get off my lawn ya damn kids.

Switch is a handheld with optional tv-play and belongs to the handheld generations.

Nintendo left the home console market with the switch.

Ever heard of the saying "what you say is one thing, what you do is another" ?

Nintendo announced/promised a (pure) home console, advertised a hybrid, delivered a handheld.

It's the inabillity of people to properly differenciate between handheld/HC which lead to this pointless thread.

So...is it an eighth gen or ninth gen handheld? It's definitely a quantum leap above the 3DS and Vita.

I'd say neither. As a Handheld it's Nintendo's 5th Generation.

If you keep handhelds seperate from home consoles you would get 5th gen.

If you want to consolidate both types of systems into 1 generation we would seriously have to consider PS5/XSX to be 10th gen.

Right now, the switch is a little bit less than 3.5 years old. And by the time PS5/XSX release it will be even older.

But you know what? The GBA released 21st of march 2001 and the NDS 21st of november 2004 -> 3.66 years apart.

Also the switch launched more than 3.66 years after PS4/XB1

So if 3.66 years are enough for a new generation (GBA -> DS), then Switch would be the first and only 9th gen system and

PS5/XSX would be Gen 10.

However, we COULD also presume that the PS4Pro is a Gen 9 system, because it is the only system to support VR,

thus giving it PS4pro "exclusives" in a way. It would become real' messy though.

So it's either Gen 5 (handheld time line) for switch, or gen 9 for switch with PS5/XSX being gen 10

Leave it to gamers to make generations complicated.