A console is current gen if it's relevant. If a console receives a competitive amount of games and/or is selling competitively, then it's current gen. Relevancy is all that matters.

I'd say something is next-gen based off of release date and competition honestly.

1) Was it released within the generational pattern? (every 4-7 years, give or take)

2) What is it meant to compete with?

As for Wii U, it was released 6 years after the Wii and is meant to compete with Orbis & Durango. Nintendo chose not to compete power-wise but they are fighting for sales in the same business.

But I'm not talking about the span of a few months, I used a 50 year gap an analog for a full console generation. I was just illustrating how generations work and how they can get confused when they don't fall into nicely divided categories.

Wii U is next gen because it is Nintendo's follow up to the Wii which was the follow up to GCN and so one. The Xbox was 6th gen because it was a considerable upgrade from the 32/64 Bit era. The Xbox 360 was both a significant upgrade and a follow up.

The only way the Wii U could have not been considered next gen is if it was underpowered and was not preceded by a 7th gen Nintendo home console.

But that doesn't mean that all consoles in a  generation stand on equal footing. It just means that they exist in the same circle.

So then a successor is determined just by the name? If you ignore the hardware then how are you determining what is a successor? How is the 360 elite not the 360's successor if you are ignoring hardware? 

Still my point stands - why then would a new entry to the generation have to be a significant improvement over the 360, yet MS could release something as powerful as a Furbie?

I think the problem is mainly how people look at the "gen" term, and how they classify it. The Wii U is the next generation for a Nintendo console, but is it truly next gen for the console market overall? I probably would say no. I think we need to look at each of the individual hardware makers in a different light rather then combing them into a single category.

This is also a very good point. 

So then you'd say that what makes something next gen is irrelevant of then the actual console but is purely to do with what market the company is gunning for with said console?

Interesting take on it. 

I think that you also have to consider the price, which I see no one mentions.

I think someone can release a console today with let's say NES specs, but they launch it at let's say $5 the console and $1 the games. What keeps it away from being a success? It could even sell more than the big 3 consoles if this ones turn out to be too expensive for what they offer, and what if it does? will it still be considered 3rd gen because it has NES specs but ends up selling more?

Jay520 said:

A console is current gen if it's relevant. If a console receives a competitive amount of games and/or is selling competitively, then it's current gen. Relevancy is all that matters.

this also supports my point

This is crazy its whatever current system a company has out that competes with other companies machines in a relatively similar period of time. Wii U is the console that nintendo put out that will compete with the ps4 and nextbox during the majority of all three systems life time. It is a part of that generation and thats the three consoles that will be compared for most of the next decade. You cant say something is apart of a certain gen just because of specs. If you do u might as well start ranking them by price too. Nintendo is not forced to to compete on sony and MS's terms ,it worked great for them last generation. 

The PS3 is a 7th gen system but it is Sony's third console. If you agree with this, then you can't believe a system is next gen as long as it succeeds a current gen system. That's why I agree with Gamerace that both the Wii and Wii U are 7th gen systems.

I'll quantify generations into a mathematical formula and end this discussion once and for all.

G=H*U/(N!*CI*V^BN)