Currently Online 
Soundwave said:
Yeah but marginally so unless you're saying Nintendo should have released like a new Mario Kart game for the Wii in 2011/2012. You did get that game, it's called Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ... it just was on Wii U instead of Wii. And it's better for the gamer that it was on Wii U instead of Wii regardless of whether you liked the design choices of the Wii U hardware. The better Wii U hardware meant that game you got was better. People need to stop looking at things like they're "robbed" of games ... no you do get the games, maybe they spill over onto the next console instead, but that's not a "loss" for you as a player, odds are that means you end up with the better game in the end. Like Nintendo easily could have delayed the Super Nintendo into 1992 say and put Super Mario Bros. 4 (Mario World) and Zelda III on the NES instead too. And yes they would have sold a lot of copies. But those games sold a lot of copies on the SNES too. But if they had done that it would've led to a host of market problems, like the Genesis would've been a lot harder to hold off, in fact I would say probably the Genesis flat out beats the Super NES with that generous of an open window. And as a gamer, those games wouldn't have been as good flat out, because of the lesser hardware, the experience would have been worse. For Nintendo especially, I think devoting heavy resources to a platform late in the product cycle is dangerous because it can mean the next system does not have adequate software help. Even the Switch, where would they have been without being able to lean heavy on Wii U projects like BOTW and Splatoon and Mario Kart 8. Wii U bombing helped the Switch tremendously because it got access to basically 3 "free" killer apps that not many people had played in the first 6 months. That can completely change a platform's fortunes. |
You're framing in too binary a fashion. Late gen support and strong early support for the next system are not mutually exclusive; a well managed company can do both.
