Currently Online 
The XBox was having success in 2004, it was starting to open up a larger gap between it and the GameCube and was even starting to outsell the PS2 in certain months for NPD. Halo 2 was THE hottest game of 2004. 2004 was the best year for the system.
But still if the logic is "well if you stop supporting your current system prematurely, consumers will hurt you with your successor system" then it makes no sense that the XBox 360 was a huge hit for Microsoft. XBox is clearly a system that was abruptly ended before the supposed arbritary 5 year rule.
The fact of the matter is the 4 best selling non-Sony hardware systems in the modern era all actually had predacessors with sharply reduced product cycles.
And allllllll the great work Sony and Nintendo did with the PS2 and DS bought them dick squat when it came to the PS3 and 3DS early on. If this was logical conclusion, the PS3 and 3DS should have gotten positive bounces from having well supported predacessors whereas the systems like the Switch and XBox 360 should have struggled, but we see very clearly the opposite is true.
Consumers don't give a shit what you did for them even 12 months prior the moment the new product cycle begins. You get no loyalty whatsoever, just like a sports team that wins a championship, the other teams aren't kissing your ass anymore the moment the next season starts they are coming to beat you.
Unless you are being straight up moronic like Sega was where they killed off no less than basically 3 consecutive hardware releases in under 2 1/2 years (one not even being supported for 6 months) what you do in the previous generation, specifically late generation support, really has little/no bearing on your next system. Lucky for Nintendo actually because they would be fucked hard if it did.
Nintendo have no less than 3/5 of their hardware systems prior to Switch that didn't get a proper 5 years of software support (forget 6 years LOL). GameCube's late 2005 and 2006 are terrible. Game Boy Advance's 2006 is terrible. Wii U's 2016, lol. Yet had no bearing on the DS, Wii, or Switch. If anything, lol, it seems to be the pattern of every system that releases after they cut one short prematurely ends up selling very well. The one system they supported well for many years (DS) is also the one of the two that gave them the most problems in terms of its successor.
Either abrupt ends and poor late gen support in years 5/6 have a bearing on successive console systems or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways. This is one of those things that's borne out of "well this happened to Sega 20-30 years ago, so it must mean it also applies to every other console manufacturer" when really the more accurate truth is Sega is the outlier here.
And even in Sega's case it doesn't really work every time. The Sega Master System was also abruptly ended (1986-1989 only) so how is it possible that the Sega Genesis was able to be a large success? Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sega all of their best selling systems are following a system that was replaced at the 3-year mark ironically .... (Master System, GBA, and og XBox). That should be impossible.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 10 August 2020
