The Nintendo 64 had anti-aliasing in hardware, it's part of the reason why it's games looked so blurry.

The Xbox 360 basically had cheap 4x MSAA anti-aliasing when Sony was relying on Morphological AA.

Anti-aliasing itself is an umbrella term for a series of technology that is trying to solve a common issue, artifacting and stair-stepping in video games.

The Switch's hardware Anti-Aliasing capability is the same as the Xbox One and Playstation 4.

Actually Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 games often used anti-aliasing to overcome their sub-720P visual artifacts.

Playstation 3 developers often relied on a post-process AA method where it detects the edges of geometry and "blurs" them to try and clean up the image, it's not the best AA method, but it was predominantly used in most games as it was dirt cheap.

The Xbox 360 had super cheap MSAA at 2x and 4x which a ton of games used, but there were edge cases where developers would use a post-process method and used the eSRAM for render targets instead of AA.

Cool okay then Switch should be in 8th gen. Because I dont think it had anything else in common for the 9th gen. Thanks! :)

What Wii had in common with 7th gen? What about Wii U and 8th gen?

Answer: Marketshare and that's it.

Nintendo will never make triplets with Sony and MS. Using PS and XB architecture, library, technology, philosophy or whatever the twins share to compare with Nintendo consoles and determine wich gen they belong. That's totally pointless...

It's beyond me the mental gymnastics for a misstep in Nintendo trajectory that force them to release Switch maybe two years early that was planned.

Like for real, Dreamcast is labeled as 6th console because everybody knew that Sega's intentions was to keep that thing alongside the others till 2004 at the earliest, but it's financial situation force them to cut the plug. But now why people act so dense in regards to Switch releasing a few years early just to compensate Wii U fiasco? That's the million dollars question.

If Wii U was replaced by Switch in 2014, then it would be totally reasonable to say is a 8th gen console

Part of my point was that Wii U was more console like, as how Switch is more handheld like, though I think you could easily argue that Switch is a far far better hybrid concept than the Wii U.

The Wii U didn't just sacrifice range, it also sacrificed performance, and since it was more console like, that wasn't really found to be acceptable without a worthy gimmick, like the motion controls of the Wiimote. Where it is acceptable for the Switch concept because of how much more mobile it is.

I wonder how much of the reason Wii U was a market failure because it was such a lousy hybrid? Again, I think in terms of what a hybrid should be, Switch basically nails it, where as Wii U didn't because it was way more console like, without being enough like a console, or a hybrid. It was stuck in between two classifications from my point of view, which is part of the reason it did so poorly. Hence the reasoning for it being it's own thing, or just an unsuccessful console.

My point here is that due to the, lets say, 'semi hybrid' approach to the Wii U, and failure of it, for the sake of simplicity, I'm saying it would make more sense to consider the Switch as the true proper hybrid approach, and that Wii U should be considered a console (perhaps with a hybrid gimmick). At least that's how I would refer to it when talking about Nin hardware through the generations. If speaking about all hybrid hardware ever created, Wii U could certainly be part of that topic however.

Yes, I'd say it's more likely MS will do it for reasons like you stated, GP, and also because they're hurting more than PS is right now so they have more reason to try new avenues. MS also seems to be more lenient with losing money on idea's that may not pan out.

I can't believe that XB or PS wouldn't just copy the Switch hybrid concept. They'd probably have a few minor differences to try and differentiate themselves, but that's likely it. Just like you said earlier, why would Nin themselves make any major changes or come up with a new concept when Switch meets so many demands and sells so well? Though I can't help but see Nin wanting to do something a bit different, whether they would or not, since that's just how they tend to roll. They love to be extra creative. Sometimes too creative on occasion you could argue.

I agree, along with more consistent 60FPS. Though if the consoles are struggling, I can't see hybrids, even next gen, doing wonders with RT. Framerates may be decent depending on what DLSS or FSR can accomplish if implemented well and put to good use.

I'd also like to see Nin push for a GPU boost dock option, like an external GPU for laptop. This would basically give them the best of both worlds. They could have handheld performance that could be played on a TV with the stock dock, while also having console like performance for customers who wanted the optional boost dock.

I would be stunned if RT is worth anything on the S2. RT is nice but my dear God it kills system resources. Especially when poorly implemented like Hitman. Even on a 4090 the hit with RT is nuts. I went from 120 fps locked to 30 fps. RT is the future but I think we are still a good 5 years out before we get full benefit.

They are both hybrids, they are just on a different part of the form factor spectrum.

The Switch is definitely the superior concept as it removes many of the limitations that plagued the WiiU.

I wouldn't say performance was sacrificed per-say, that was more of a Nintendo design decision to opt for antiquated hardware rather than the form factor or technology holding it back like with the Switch.
It shares that common trait with the Wii.

The Switch, with all it's impressive gains is often seen as a WiiU Pro from a visuals perspective, Breath of the Wild on the WiiU is still a decently looking title when compared to it's Switch peers.

Honestly it's likely a culmination of issues that held back the WiiU rather than strictly it's hybrid concept.

For me it was a selling point being able to untether from the TV and keep gaming.

The name was horrible, the "WiiU" sounded like it was selling a tablet accessory for the Wii for one gamer.

The game releases were *extremely* sparse, I have every Australian physical release and it's a fraction of my OG Xbox collection.

Throw in high price, poor marketing... Barely a notable visual improvement over the old XBox 360/Playstation 3, It was always going to do poorly.

I don't consider either to be more of a hybrid than the other.

They just prioritised things a little differently.

The Switch is built 100% around purely mobile technology, housed in a mobile form factor.
It can connect to the TV like a fixed console via an accessory.
It's a portable first and foremost.

The WiiU is built 100% purely stationary technology, housed in a fixed console form factor.
It can switch it's display to the controller or the TV and game independently of an external TV.
It's a fixed console first and foremost.

Trying to change where they "sit" due to any arbitrary reasons is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

When you are valued at $3 trillion dollars... A few 10's of billions tends to be small chump change.

However, Microsoft is definitely Sony's lesser in terms of marketshare and mindshare, trying to offer an experience similar to Sony was never going to work, every successful gaming brand was built on being different.

Unfortunately, Microsoft trying to "be different" with the Xbox One was a mis-read of the entire gaming market, TV, Always-online, Kinect, Higher Price and Lower-performance was not a good way to start the console generation.

I think Steamdeck has managed to shine a fairly bright light on what more "hardcore" gamers want out of a handheld, which has resulted in an explosion of also-me mimmick devices to compete with the Steamdeck.

Valve can rely on Steam however, an already extensive game library... Much harder ask for developers to "go back" and build games for another set of console hardware to curate a specific experience in the console market.

So either there will need to be a bifurication of hardware... With separate development teams to make games for it or mobile hardware needs to catch up quickly so home console games can run natively on mobile hardware... Microsoft is on a better position to do that due to the weak Xbox Series S.

Hard ask for either really.

Sony has the Portal which technically gives the PS5 a WiiU-like capability to a degree.

Consoles have always promised 60fps.

And the hardware has always been capable of it even in the 90's.

It's all down to the developer, nothing changes if consumers don't demand it.

For me I would rather better variable refresh rate support with a larger range, then you don't notice those fps drops.

A dock that supplements the power of the Switch 2.0 would be brilliant, the Switch 1.0 couldn't do it due to bandwidth and latency limitations, but that slate gets reset this time around... Unlikely to happen though due to costs, nVidia charges a premium as-is, so the crux to rely on is variable clock rates and voltages to hit performance and power targets.

That's an awesome infograph!

Based on this I assume you want to put the Switch and it's successor in a different category?

Where would PS6 and Xbox successor go (they supposedly are rumored for release in 2028)?

If you added handhelds to this graph, it would make things easier to understand for the confused people.

Just assume for a moment that Sony had not exited the handheld space, then the Vita successor would have been due in 2016 or 2017. It would have been a no-brainer for everyone that the Vita successor does not belong into the same generation as the Vita; and if a new Sony handheld cannot be the same gen in 2016/2017, then obviously a new Nintendo console wouldn't be the same gen as the 3DS and Wii U either. Things could have been so simple if Sony didn't suck so hard.

Or just look a the Dreamcast bar. Why do you put it in the sixth gen despite the bar actually looking more appropriate for the fifth gen? It's because Sega had the Saturn in the fifth gen already.

Console generations are defined by time, and time alone.

@Shtinamin_ I would put the Switch in 9th and the sucessor in 10th but some people don agree so put it on ?.

@RolStoppable The Dreamcast is a special case. It was retired early because Sega didn't have the money to support it. That's why Sega left the hardware business.