10th gen for sure.

Generations are now broken down into two halves.
I consider the Switch 2 to be gen 9.5 (or Gen 9-B) like PS5-pro, PSVR2 and MetaQuest 3.
in the same way as Gen 8 was divided into two halves.

---------------------------8th Gen----------------------------

Gen 8-A:
3DS, Wii U, PS4, & Xbox One

Gen 8-B:
Switch 1, PS4 Pro, PSVR, Oculus Rift, Meta Quest 1

---------------------------9th Gen----------------------------

Gen 9-A:
PS5, Xbox Series X/S, Meta Quest 2

Gen 9-B:
PS5-Pro, PSVR2, PlayStation Portal, Meta Quest 3, Switch 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You could also say the Switch 1 is both Gen 8-B/9-A.
and the Switch 2 is both Gen 9-B/10-A.

I don't know if the Steam Deck would be considered Gen 9-A or 9-B (or just simply 9th gen) as it got released in 2022.

Gen 7: Xbox 360, Wii, PS3, DS, PSP

Gen 8: Xbox One, WiiU, PS4, 3DS, PSV

Gen 9: Xbox Series X/S, Switch, PS5

Gen 10: Switch 2, (most likley PS6) and Xboxwhatever if MS does another round.

What have Meta quest, Portal, PSVR to do with generations? Meta Quest, Oculus, PSVR... are vr headsets- maybe we could devide them in VR generations (PSVR would be Nr.1 i guess because i remember Sony anouncing 5 million+ for that one and that it was the most sold VR headset at that time- a number that is serious and realistic, that i believe is really true compared to some other product from the past😉)

Portal is a streaming controller, i also cannot add Kinect in Gen 7 as it was no seperate console. Steam Deck? Hmm ok maybe it could somehow fit in Gen 9, but there would be a lot of Switch haters and some Steam Deck fanboys critisising the comparision between those for obvious reasons. So for me Steam Deck is more part of Gen 9 than Portal or PSVR because both are add ons.

I understood that you define generations through there hardware capabilities. If you mean power, than PS2 and DC should be a generation lower than the GC and the Xbox, because that power gap was not so small. But i think we should keep it like it is: Gen 6= DC, PS2, GCN, XBOX, GBA

For the 3rd time. I did not mean power.

Neither, because it's too ambiguous with no clear answers.

The only reason we have numbered generations in the first place is because of A) the fact that most home consoles typically released with similar capabilities and within a relatively narrow time window that all competed directly with each other, and B) a consensus on organizing systems by cohort arose on Wikipedia years ago and it just kinda stuck in gaming discourse.

This system worked fine for home consoles of note released after the Crash of '83. We had the 8-bit NES & Master System in 1983-85, then the 16-bit Genesis & SNES in 1989-91, then the 32-/64-bit PS1, N64, & Saturn in 1995-96, and so on. It still works fine with Xbox & PlayStation. But it never really worked well with older consoles. It's still debated on whether pre-Crash cartridge-based consoles are one or two generations, and there's no clear answer. Handhelds don't always fit neatly into these categories, either. For example, was the Game Boy both a fourth- and fifth-gen system since it lasted the entirety of the 90s, or was there just no Gen 5 handheld? Was the Color its own system (Nintendo doesn't think so, but some others do), and if so was it fifth-gen because it followed the original or sixth-gen because it launched just a few weeks before the Dreamcast did in Japan?

Now we have the Switch, which launched almost right smack in the middle of an ongoing generation. It was released about 39 months after the PS4 & XBO and 45 months before the PS5 & XBO, so closer to the start of the former than the latter. But because of its unusually long life cycle (by Nintendo standards), as of this past summer it's now spent more time competing directly against the PS5 & XBS. So, which metric do we use? Which systems it launched closest to? Which it spent more time competing with? How does one determine which is the better standard besides arbitrary personal preference? The NPD Group considered it "current generation" when it was going up against the PS4 & XBO, and they still consider it current-gen after over four years of competing with the PS5 & XBS. Looks like they consider a "current generation" console to be one within its primary life cycle, so the Switch will simply become "last-gen" once the Switch 2 comes out.

If it's this confusing then why bother assigning either Switch to a numbered generation? The only reason to bother is to be part of another pointless online pissing contest over electronic toys. "Mine was the first next-gen console!" "Nuh-uh! It was the last current-gen console so :p!" Yeah, I was part of those arguments myself, but quite frankly I don't care anymore. Call it whatever you want. Just don't be a dick about it.

Also, I imagine if Xbox starts to deviate as well and no longer sync up hardware releases to PlayStation or even just stops having ordinary "generations" altogether, that's going to open up a new can of worms in nerd debates online. At that point, we might as well just stop arguing about "generations" altogether. It was useful shorthand for like 30+ years, but that could be coming to an end. There has been and will likely continue to be many examples where the answer is so unclear that if you asked twenty gamers you'd probably get thirty different answers. No, that wasn't a typo.

More seriously - it's the successor of the Switch, alright, that's all I need to know.

Of course. We know you don't mean white power, you are a fighter fighter saving lives. We know you aren't into that sort of thing. You don't need to explain yourself. 

Edit: BTW I'm being facitous. 

I know. But then you could say that PS3 and XBox 360 only had motion control the way they did later on because Wii was so successful and that generation didn’t start as being “all about” motion control. It was what Wii was “all about”. So what did PS360 start out as 6th Gen consoles but then evolved themselves into 7th Gen? That doesn’t make any sense. Are we going to count the Sixaxis controller in the same vein as the Wiimote? But then, motion control already existed in some fashion before anyway! That’s why I said it’s nonsense to define generations by arbitrary hardware features. It’s just not the definition of the word.

Okay so you why couldn’t you say “Well, SNES and Mega Drive were still part of the ‘cartridge generation’, but PS1 and Saturn is when it was all about CD’s. Then, PS2 was part of the DVD generation. That means N64 was actually 4th gen”. It’s just picking a random thing.

Sure. You -could- also group console generations by the form of media they used if that is what you wanted... I.E. Cart Generation (Atari 2600 - Nintendo 64), CD Rom Generation (PS1), DVD Generation (PS2 and OG Xbox 360). etc'. - But that isn't what I am postulating.

I am talking strict technological defining features, mostly on the GPU/CPU side that also conveniently align themselves to the PC.