I still don't get why people are glorifying backwards compatibility. It really doesn't matter. "But Nintendo" - But Nintendo has effectively kept 0% of the consumer base they gained with the Wii. Not even offering access to the full Wii library did anything major for the Wii U. Granted, I know plenty of people bought the Wii U specifically because it was backwards compatible and convenient, but that clearly made up a very, very, very small number of people that wouldn't have already bought the system, backwards compatibility or not.
Look at the PS3 and 360: the PS3 flailed due to price when it had full backwards compatibility, and became a rising star the moment they ditched PS2 compatibility for a lower pricetag. The 360 only had some very minor, barebones backwards compatibility, and few people ever really cared. The system still sold just fine.
Look at the PS4: it has sold amazingly well, and literally nobody raised almost any fuss about backwards compatibility until suddenly Microsoft decided they could pull it off on the One. Now all of a sudden backwards compatibility is this major system seller, as everybody forgets the Wii U could do it from day one and has seen no obvious sales benefit from it.
Like somebody mentioned, ultimately, backwards compatibility is only really important at the beginning of a system's life. It helps early sales by getting people to trade up on the idea that they aren't losing access to their old library while waiting for the new one to become a little fuller. Once your system is closing in on two years old, it generally should have a respectable enough library that backwards compatibility isn't necessary to try to make the system an appealing prospect. After nearly two years, a system should have a good enough library both out and incoming to stand on its own without having to be held up by the predecessor.
