Honestly, why is it that we have to "put things into perspective," when said perspective ignores massive chunks of context?
Yes, the PS3 and PS4 generations were really long. That's true, and if you look at it from that perspective alone then the Switch's long lifespan seems 'completely normal.' But... the Switch and the PS3/4 are wholly different products. They're simply not the same in context or in the hardware itself.
Contextually, the PS3/4 represented the 'baseline' for high-end videogame development during their times (and with cross-gen being so prominent, they kinda still do). Outside of a few PC exclusives and a tiny number of PC-enhanced titles like Cyberpunk 2077, the vast, vast majority of the gaming industry was focused on making titles for those devices. As such, a generational leap from them was a generational leap for the entire industry. Hence them taking so long to see that leap; they were waiting on practically everyone to be ready for it first. Meanwhile, the Nintendo Switch is in pretty much the opposite situation. One where the industry at large is fully ready to move to new hardware that Nintendo isn't offering. The Switch's generational leap will only be a leap for those working in studios exclusively making Switch titles, whereas the PS4/5 leaps were a leap for everyone.
Hardware-wise, the Switch - whilst impressive in its time - is objectively dated nowadays. The Steam Deck - despite being relatively niche - is a generational leap over what the Switch can offer, and it's doing so without costing significantly more like a PC does compared to a console. Since we're directly comparing the Switch to full-fledged consoles, it's worth mentioning that - in terms of technology - the Switch has yet to even reach the type of graphical fidelity and performance consoles were capable of 10 years ago, with many of its titles are running at resolutions commonplace in consoles developed for 2005. When people want a "Switch Pro" they don't just want "the highest-end graphics and fidelity," they mostly just... fidelity that the majority of the industry has enjoyed since 2013. I mean, those supposed "Digital Foundry fanatics," and such that we all love to crap on... love the Steam Deck. That's despite the Steam Deck's big selling point being "yo this can run God of War and Elden Ring at 720p/30fps." Nobody's complaining that it can't run Cyberpunk 2077 at maximum settings at 120fps because, surprisingly, people often aren't the hyperbole we apply to them.
I'd also add that the Tegra X2 - the successor to the Switch's main chip - literally existed at the time of its release. Nintendo chose not to use it for cost-saving purposes. (EDIT: Sentence redacted due to being mistaken as to what the X2 was). Then on top of that, basic overclocking to fix many framerate issues and such has been doable on the Switch since it first got hacked. Unlike the PS3 and 4, where better hardware was really just in the realm of PC gaming, the Switch has had better hardware available for it specifically since day one, with cost and supply being the only two reasons why they weren't implemented.
Then of course - even if you denigrate the Pro consoles by declaring that "most people had the OG ones" - the fact that said consoles existed meant that many games were not locked to those more dated resolutions (and in come cases framerates) of their OG counterparts. If Microsoft had never released the Xbox One X, there would be no other option for Xbox players than to play Red Dead Redemption 2 at 720p. Same goes for Sony and games like The Last of Us: Part 2 and Horizon Zero Dawn. The Switch, on the other hand, is unlikely to ever get that, and since Nintendo is not one to upgrade their older games - without charging full-price for drip-feed remasters, that is - it's unlikely that the Switch 2 will ever change that. If Nintendo showed any promise when it came to being better at actually upgrading their older titles in anything but the most stingy ways possible then this long wait wouldn't be so bad, but since they have yet to do so, it makes every new Switch game another title that's almost definitely going to be locked to low framerates and low resolutions forever.
And, I mean, it is also unfair to talk about console transition periods without simultaneously mentioning handheld generations. After the 8 year long lifespan of the original Gameplay - one that also saw many Steam Deck-like competitors during that time - no generation has lasted as long as the Switch's generation is likely to last:
GBC to GBA - 3 years
GBA to NDS - 3 years
NDS to 3DS - 7 years
3DS to Switch - 6 years
PSP to Vita - 7 years
And of course these were all in the midst of their home console counterparts seeing the really big technological leaps; something the Switch doesn't share.
So, yeah, you are right in that a few, singular data points correlate to the Switch. But in terms of the actual "perspective" there is so, so much more to the story, and why discourse is seemingly 'different'. ...Though, really, it's not that different. The PS4 and PS5 were still very much welcomed for their respective improvements, and that's despite late-generation masterpieces like GTAV, The Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, GoW: Ragnarok, and so on being released and selling massive numbers. If Sony had done what Nintendo is likely gonna be doing, and waited until literally all major Switch games were exhausted before they released a new console... then we'd only have gotten the PS5 last month (meaning a gap of 9 years...).
Basically, the Switch is not unique in feeling a bit long-in-the-tooth, though it is unique in just how long-in-the-tooth it actually is. I know this is a Nintendo forum and it's not pleasant to hear people wanting more out of the console this entire place is based on... but the arguments for why those people should just "not want more," are - honestly - very, very flimsy to me. Almost all of them seem to be based on either 1) making silly hyperbole out of those who simply want more than 720p/30fps for games they sincerely love or 2) severely diminishing the considerable contextual factors that differentiate the Switch and its counterparts.
Any which way, even if you read literally all of that and think "aw he's just an anti-Nintendo fanboy who's talking complete nonsense," then, at the very least, you've just got to accept that people are gonna want the Switch's successor. Both here and, especially, elsewhere. And, really, it's only going to get worse when TotK comes out, or if a new 3D Mario releases, or if Pikmin 4 runs like crap, or for any multitude of reasons. The amount of people desiring a Switch 2 or whatever it's called is not going to decrease no matter how many comparisons to the PS3/4 generations are made.
Sorry for the long post here but, honestly, the reason for why the discourse surrounding the Switch's successor has been "not fun" - to me at least - is that, because of the burgeoning reality of it likely not coming out for a while, that discourse has gone from "what do we want," to "should we want this?" When I, and many others, do want it... that's not fun at all.
