i couldnt really call gamecube a failed console. it didnt sell great and it was weird, but its not on the level of the wii u or virtual boy. 

i mean, switch released halfway through gen 8. 

if you want to get real specific, the switch launched 40 months after ps4/xbox one came out, and 44 months before ps5/xsx came out. so by that metric, it was a little before half way, but for the sake of argument, we will say half way. 

now, timing of release is basically the gold standard by which we judge its generation, but since in this case its ambiguous, we have to look at other factors (by the way, this isnt the only time in which console release timing is ambiguous when determining the generation of a console). 

i think the most obvious thing to look at is power. its the most sensible tiebreaker there is. switch is closer powerwise to a ps4 than a ps5. there is no real question about that. many of the multiplat games it has, it shares with ps4 and not ps5. 

i have a real hard time seeing this system being classified as 9th gen. it just simply does not fit. it was a late addition to 8th gen and was squeezed dry for an extra year or two longer than it should have existed because of how much it sold. otherwise the successor would have naturally came out in 2023 or so. its an 8th gen console.

im sorry but any attempt to classify it as 9th gen just really comes off as sony fans trying to preserve an 8th gen championship, it just does. now that i see it, i cannot unsee it. 

Don't worry, little bro, Nintendo took gen 9 with the Switch and is gonna take gen 10 too.

ive yet to see any justification that its a 9th gen console other than it came out after the wii u.

ive yet to see any justification that its a 9th gen console other than it came out after the wii u.

first of all, the argument you made was that since something is a successor, it belongs in the next generation. that is the single point that i aimed to dispel. so if you want to make the point that switch is 9th gen, you will need something better than that because i objectively disproved that line of reasoning.

second, the comparison is the two consoles that are released in the same generation, so we arent pairing switch and switch 2, we are pairing switch and wii u. the comparison is that there are two 2nd gen consoles (2600 and 5200) and two 8th gen consoles (wii u and switch). and i will reiterate the point i made earlier is that the reason that is even possible in the first place is because for you to be able to release two consoles in a single generation, at least one of them had to have been a failure. and that is the case in both situations. 

so if you want to make further responses about this, make sure to keep track of the argument and make sure to address the actual points being made. 

Ok, what is your best justification for the Wii being a different generation than the GameCube?

Fair enough, I really didn't develop my reasoning, so here is that:

Atari 5200 is more comparable to virtual boy than it is to Wii U.

Virtual Boy and Atari 5200 were flukes that were released to die, their developers gave no effort to maintain them in relevance. Their lifetime were insignificant 

Meanwhile Wii U and GameCube despite being comercial failures, they were treated as main systems by Nintendo, they received support with many huge exclusives and their lifespan were significant enough to mark their presence on their respective generations, so you cant just scratch that with its successor just bc it didn't match your arbitary parameters.

the basic thing being discussed is this: is it possible to have two consoles from the same company in the same generation. i think clearly the answer is yes. i can imagine scenarios which this would be the case, but we dont even have to go there because we have actual real examples. 2600 and 5200 is clear. 5200, although it failed, was meant to be a successor. the fact that it was hardly supported doesnt negate the fact that atari released two consoles in one generation. 

similar thing happened in the 8th generation, but in reverse. nintendo started out with a failed console and replaced it halfway through. let me ask you this, if switch sold the way many predicted when it was about to release, 30, 40, 50 million units tops, how long would it have lasted before it had to be replaced? would that have changed what generation it was a part of? 

Yes, just like it happened with Atari 5200. Its failure was so huge that its presence were more like an insignificant sidekick with Atari 2600 than an actual successor. Meanwhile Switch was the exact opposite, despite releasing earlier, it secured its place alongside their respective gen counterparts. That was my point:

Time placement, lifespan and succession are the things that defines the generation it belongs