It would probably just be easier if the common practice was to just call each generation by its number.
Sure, people, particularly journalists, like to stamp the label "next gen" on a new piece of hardware because that somehow still has some sort of perception among the casual consumer of being sexy, desirable, high techy, whatever. It's just a marketing phrase.
But I'm willing to concede it's not misleading to stamp a "next gen" label on a new piece of hardware within its initial release timeframe (certainly less than a year), or to any as of yet to be released but impending hardware.
I don't really see the point in breaking things down further, but I suppose "future gen" could refer to hardware that is currently still only on paper or in the early concept phases. So calling the 9th gen "next gen" is premature although technically not incorrect seeing as how the successor to any existing hardware or any impending new hardware will presumably have a follow up generation which by definition would be the next generation.
"Current gen" still encompasses the 7th gen of currently produced hardware (even those with successors that have already been released) although that's just semantics. Anything with a replacement has the common perception of being "last gen."







