By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 11 August 2020
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

The fact is none of the GBA, GCN, or Wii U got satisfying 5 year support cycles yet all of their successors had tremendous success. 

You can't argue that point because it's a fact. 

You can't argue the point that the most successful XBox system also succeeded the original XBox that was replaced on market after only 3 years. 

That's not an opinion that's fact. 

Even same thing for the Sega Genesis really. The Master System released in 1986 and was replaced just three years later by the Genesis which is by a country mile Sega's most successful platform.

I'm not seeing any corrleation here between short product cycles and a large impact on the successor, if that's a fact this shouldn't be the case. 

The GBA "had great support" for 2005 and 2006 is also a very dubious statement ... if Nintendo released a Switch 2 in fall 2020 (3 1/2 years just like GBA got) but said "don't worry guys we'll still make an enhanced version of Pokemon Sword/Shield (not even a full new game) and one Fire Emblem for the OG Switch and then a small handful of farmed out titles for 2021 and then dick all for 2022" I'm sure Rol would shit a literal brick, but apparently for GBA that constitutes "great support", lol. 

You aren't any good in discussions, Soundwave. That's why you come up with strawman arguments all the time. Here's the actual argument:

1. A successful console is supposed to be supported by its manufacturer even beyond the launch of its successor, because the high installed base of the hardware means that there's a strong interest in purchases of new software for a long time. The GBA received first party support beyond the launch of the DS, but the Wii did not receive first party support beyond the launch of the Wii U. Therefore Nintendo had abandoned the Wii too early. Remember, Just Dance 2020 still released on the Wii because it made sense financially.

2. For a failed console it's the opposite. There's no big active installed base that buys software late in the lifecycle because owners have in large part already moved on to other platforms. In such cases it's rational for the console manufacturer not to support the console beyond the launch of its successor. The GC, Wii U and Xbox all fall into this category, because all of them were indisputable failures. They were killed off at the right time.

But apparently such short points are too much for you to comprehend and you keep going on about impact on the successor. You keep missing the point consistently and it's very probable that it's deliberate on your part, unless you want to argue that you really are that dense.

The GBA got token support for a year because even by Nintendo standards cutting it after 3 1/2 years was pushing it.

Nintendo doesn't have some magic button they can push where they can magically make games out of nowhere. The Wii had 5 full years of software support, they had to move on and support 3DS and Wii U, that's just the way it goes. You cannot live in the past. 

The NES did not get all that much support after the SNES launched, tough shit. That's how it goes. The PS2 did not get much support from Sony after the PS3 launched. The SNES got very little support after the N64 launched.  

There's nothing special about the Wii that warranted it being treated any differently. The system was declining hard well before 2012 anyway.  

Companies only have finite resources they can't fixate on declining end of product cycle systems with major games, it's a stupid waste of resources. Yes you can squeeze some extra juice out of the orange, that's not anything magically exclusive to the Wii. You can make Super Mario World on the NES and release it in 1991, it would also be a very stupid thing to do in the big picture.