Generations is only meaningless if you live in a Nintendo World. 

PS3 > PS4/Pro > PS5

X360 > X1/X1X > XSX

The generations are very clear and the upcoming generation is going to be a very nice upgrade in terms of power and graphics. Very much looking forward to it. 

Nintendo was never able to keep up in the hardware department, this is why the generations seems deluge to people who only follows Nintendo. 

You must be very young if you think Nintendo never kept up in hardware department.

NES, SNES, and N64 were all the most powerful popular systems of their gen (I say popular cuz I wouldn't count failures like Neo Geo). Gamecube was second most powerful system of its gen.

In fact it's only when Sony started trying to compete on power with the PS3, that Nintendo decided to not do the exact same thing as the other two companies in the industry (not saying the two are related as obviously Nintendo starting work on the Wii well before Sony announced the power of the PS3, but just saying the two companies switched at the same time - Sony going from making the least powerful systems to competing for the most powerful systems, and Nintendo going from competing for the most powerful systems to making the least powerful systems but doing that for a reason - making unique systems).

Only starting with the Wii did they decide to go with the creative route over the make really expensive high graphics route, and that is because if they stuck to what they always did they woulda just been in a lame 3-way competition all trying to do the same thing and the video game industry would just have 3 incredibly similar systems, also the probably realized continuing to do this would result in the $400-$600 systems we've seen from Micro/Sony and Nintendo I think prefers making affordable systems that are more consumer friendly. They certainly could have kept competing on power alone, and done well, but instead they built a separate market for Nintendo that makes them unique and very successful as long as they don't screw up on the creative factor like they did with the Wii U. Since changing their strategy in order to stand out from the console twins, two out of three systems have been their most successful consoles, with the Switch looking extremely likely to be their second most successful system ever behind DS.

And in what way are generations meaningless in Nintendo World?! It's the exact opposite! Sony and Microsoft you get more power but essentially the same, just upgraded, experience each new gen. Nintendo the past few gens you've got motion controls, a tablet second screen, and then a hybrid system. If anything the past 3 generations of Nintendo systems have been much more meaningful than those made by Sony and Microsoft.

Actually the Master System was more capable than the NES. It may not have been a success, but it was not as big of a failure as the Atari 7800 and the very obscure 3rd Gen consoles. But power tends to not be the deciding factor for console sales.

The SNES is the only time I can think of where the most powerful console of a gen (again when looking at the heavier hitters in sales at the time) won the gen. 

Atari 2600 wasn't the most powerful, NES wasn't the most powerful, SNES was the most powerful (minus obscure outliers like the Neo Geo), PS1 wasn't the most powerful, PS2 wasn't the most powerful, Wii wasn't the most powerful.

Eighth gen is more complicated. Base PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. But the Xbox One X is more powerful than the PS4 Pro.

All this to say the fourth gen and kind of eighth gen are the only times the powerful console won.

Actually the Master System was more capable than the NES. It may not have been a success, but it was not as big of a failure as the Atari 7800 and the very obscure 3rd Gen consoles. But power tends to not be the deciding factor for console sales.

The SNES is the only time I can think of where the most powerful console of a gen (again when looking at the heavier hitters in sales at the time) won the gen. 

Atari 2600 wasn't the most powerful, NES wasn't the most powerful, SNES was the most powerful (minus obscure outliers like the Neo Geo), PS1 wasn't the most powerful, PS2 wasn't the most powerful, Wii wasn't the most powerful.

Eighth gen is more complicated. Base PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. But the Xbox One X is more powerful than the PS4 Pro.

All this to say the fourth gen and kind of eighth gen are the only times the powerful console won.

Actually the Master System was more capable than the NES. It may not have been a success, but it was not as big of a failure as the Atari 7800 and the very obscure 3rd Gen consoles. But power tends to not be the deciding factor for console sales.

The SNES is the only time I can think of where the most powerful console of a gen (again when looking at the heavier hitters in sales at the time) won the gen. 

Atari 2600 wasn't the most powerful, NES wasn't the most powerful, SNES was the most powerful (minus obscure outliers like the Neo Geo), PS1 wasn't the most powerful, PS2 wasn't the most powerful, Wii wasn't the most powerful.

Eighth gen is more complicated. Base PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. But the Xbox One X is more powerful than the PS4 Pro.

All this to say the fourth gen and kind of eighth gen are the only times the powerful console won.

Thanks.

It should be noted that power was never a key feature with the NES as it competed with the Master System that was roughly 3X more powerful. Not to mention 25 of the 42 million NESs sold outside of Japan occurred AFTER the launch of the Mega Drive.

Another thing to note is that due to the late release of the SNES, it was actually not as powerful as contemporary devices coming out around that time, and possessed specifications only slightly better than the Mega Drive released years earlier (the Mega Drive's CPU was actually double the power of the SNES's, but it was bottlenecked by the number of cycles; that is, without the Sega CD's processor which was 4X the clockspeed of the SNES). The SNES lifespan was cut short because 32-bit consoles were announced about 2 years after it launched, and released a year later.

It's also false to say the Wii was the first time Nintendo didn't play the clockspeed game. The lateral design philosophy of Gunpei Yokoi was introduced in the 1970s - or rather, a philosophy which states that it's in creative design in other (less pricey for devs and consumers) directions can be compelling too. The Gameboy ran on this philosophy and sold the most hardware of any dedicated gaming console in Nintendo's history before the DS released, another console which also followed this philosophy.

The Wii was simply the result of one of Yokoi's disciples, Genyo Takeda, who applied the lateral hardware design philosophy to their home console market after two colossal failures with the N64 and Gamecube. The same philosophy worked again with the Switch - a cheaper console which uses other mans (other than expensive chipsets) to make it compelling.

Anyway, to explain Yokoi's philosophy a little further, he believed in using cheap, often older, components to make a more desirable device. The "lateral" part of the equation is designing it with a new sort of approach in mind in order to make it compelling (such as dpad interface, motion control interface, portability, hybridization, and touchscreens). It generally worked out well - his major failure was VR.

Thanks.

It should be noted that power was never a key feature with the NES as it competed with the Master System that was roughly 3X more powerful. Not to mention 25 of the 42 million NESs sold outside of Japan occurred AFTER the launch of the Mega Drive.

Another thing to note is that due to the late release of the SNES, it was actually not as powerful as contemporary devices coming out around that time, and possessed specifications only slightly better than the Mega Drive released years earlier (the Mega Drive's CPU was actually double the power of the SNES's, but it was bottlenecked by the number of cycles; that is, without the Sega CD's processor which was 4X the clockspeed of the SNES). The SNES lifespan was cut short because 32-bit consoles were announced about 2 years after it launched, and released a year later.

It's also false to say the Wii was the first time Nintendo didn't play the clockspeed game. The lateral design philosophy of Gunpei Yokoi was introduced in the 1970s - or rather, a philosophy which states that it's in creative design in other (less pricey for devs and consumers) directions can be compelling too. The Gameboy ran on this philosophy and sold the most hardware of any dedicated gaming console in Nintendo's history before the DS released, another console which also followed this philosophy.

The Wii was simply the result of one of Yokoi's disciples, Genyo Takeda, who applied the lateral hardware design philosophy to their home console market after two colossal failures with the N64 and Gamecube. The same philosophy worked again with the Switch - a cheaper console which uses other mans (other than expensive chipsets) to make it compelling.

Anyway, to explain Yokoi's philosophy a little further, he believed in using cheap, often older, components to make a more desirable device. The "lateral" part of the equation is designing it with a new sort of approach in mind in order to make it compelling (such as dpad interface, motion control interface, portability, hybridization, and touchscreens). It generally worked out well - his major failure was VR.

I highly doubt it. I imagine Switch's successor will be out in 2022 or so, it can't pass the PS4 by then even if we assume the PS4 will have a huge drop-off in sales like the PS3.