@Khuutra
What value would you give to a naming convention that had a lifespan of weeks, and then changed again? The more volatile a convention is, the less I think is appropriate to jump on the OP for ignoring or challenging it because the less value it has in first place for those adopting it.

I agree that jumping on him is inappropriate, but don't strawman the argument, here, this particular usage of console "generations" has been around for years, not months, and certainly not weeks.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but:

"But a question springs to the mind. If competing on the market (and for developers' resources) is the base of the conventional definition of generations, how come the PS2 is pigeonholed in a different generation than the last one?"

Because Sony said as much themselves, and they have been allowed to define the dialogue.

Sorry, it was meant to be an hyperbole, not a strawman.
And I am fine with the Sony definition, because we know that the term is pure PR blurb. If the Wii had come out before the 360 and the PS3 then Nintendo would have tagged it as their next generation of consoles. But i'm not sure if the general consensus would have been to define a "new generation" because of it. Maybe the PR spin of Sony and MS about HD gaming would have won and it would have been considered part of the same generation of the GC.

But again my comment was against trying to see much market sense in these definitions. They are creatures of PR to which way too many gamers attach all the wrong significance.

When we get into "market sense", you will have to forgive me for excusing myself; I am as ignorant on that front as any, and will allow those better-versed to fill the silence.

Same ignorance here, that's why I would like someone with hard numbers to show me to what amount the Wii is effectively competing with the other consoles before same generation and sales are brought out.
And no, being on the shelves at the same time is not enough, in the same way that the "Hanna Montana" games are only in the most general sense competing with "Mad World", but are not likely to in practice.

 Are you kidding me? Hanna Montana does compete with Mad World. Everytime I see it on the shelf it scares the life out of me and makes me think of hundreds of ways I can destory the game and it's developers.

Oh, well that would require a lot of research to do meaningfully, but wouldn't the easiest way to do it to be to compared yearly amounts of money spent on hardware from last "generation" and then compare it to annual expenditure on hardware from this generation?

I dunno.

Might be easier to go with console numbers.

Basically it's accepted that the Wii has customers who might have either bought an HD console or possibly nothing if the Wii weren't there, same as the PS2 compared to the Xbox and the Gamecube.

Dunno! Numbers! Not smart with!

I couldnt disagree with the OP more

Wow, this boy has talent... What's his name? Gilgamesh... have to keep that in mind.

He reminds me of the mighty Kwaad.
Starting a topic that we all know it has been discussed over and over again, then coming back and explaining that he is completely aware of all those arguments but he has a different opinion personally. This makes it impossible to prove him wrong, so everybody becomes even more heated.

This is not a bad thing though, it often starts interesting discussions. This once made VGC so special.

No I do not consider the Wii next generation as in the PS3 or 360, however it IS this generation and ultimately this is what matters.

I also feel that the very fact that it missed th HD boat will eventually mean It gets left behind, that said I still think Nintendo when it does release a next gen console it will stop dead the PS3 and 360 forcing them back to the drawing boards yet again allowing it to once again come in an clean up the HD casuals.