By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Lets be honest here. The term "generation" is useful because for 30 years, the three or four dominant gaming companies competed head to head in relatively tight little buckets of release window and hardware specs. This generally began with the third generation.

First gen (retrospective): Pong clones
Second gen (retrospective): First cartridge systems.  Ultimately, a long period of random things
Third gen: 8-bit systems: NES, Master System, Atari 7200
Fourth gen: 16-bit systems: SNES, Genesis
Fifth gen: Early polygon era: N64, PS1, Saturn
Sixth gen: 3D modelling begins to mature: PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast
Seventh gen: another leap forward: PS3, Xbox360, Wii
Eighth gen: Frankly, marginal improvements: PS4, XB1, WiiU , Switch*
More relevantly to how people define things right now. "Current gen": PS4, XB1, Switch

The problem with placing the Switch right now is how far out of order it is, coupled with the lack of new systems for other manufacturers. Also, people don't like how this breaks the nice, orderly delineation we've enjoyed since the early 1980s. However, if you go back to those early generations, there are precedents. The Atari 2600 and Atari 5200 are both second gen consoles. And they were not backwards compatible. Likewise, the Sega SG-1000 and the Master System are both third gen consoles - though this gets a little muddy since one could debate how distinct Sega's iterative releases were.

What I think happens to the Switch is that it remains a de facto eighth gen system until the PS5 and XB2 come out. At that point, the trend of using "current gen" nomenclature will result in a reassessment that shifts the Switch into the ninth gen bucket. Again, because it's neat. However, at this point in time, I think pedantic arguments about how the Switch shouldn't count since it might be classed as ninth gen in the future are unhelpful given the context these discussions are held.