> Either all major video game consoles are toys, or none of them are.

It seems that you're approaching this from a mathematical logic standpoint - if we have a definition of A, then either each X is A or is not A, and since (1) definition of "toy" is based on certain characteristics and the set of "video game consoles" all have the same values for these characteristics, then they either are toys or not.

However, the things we're discussing here are based on subjective feelings and nuance, and are also recursive - in this domain, we assign the statement "X is A" a higher probability just because people in general agree with the statement "X is A" (think Wittgenstein's "meaning is use").

Using mathematical logic in such domains is not very constructive.

Whenever I buy a new piece of electronics (say, a new iPhone or a new laptop), I call it my new toy.

Toys aren't just for kids, just like fun isn't just for kids.

Yes, and I call my cat baby. That‘s fine but in discussions, we should stick to the words’ actual meanings. When you say, video game consoles are toys, you‘re (inadvertently) making a statement that video games are for children. That‘s what you sound like, whether you like it or not. It‘s because most people associate toys with children. So let‘s acknowledge that, and use terms that highlight that video games are for all ages, instead of the opposite.

I am quite nonplussed by your linguistic prescriptivism. It is, however a moot point in a discussion about Nintendo's products. I appreciate your efforts to remain cordial, however.

(In case you didn't get it: All of those words once meant or possibly still currently mean the opposite of the way in which they're being used in this comment. Language is what you make of it.)