By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Should video game consoles be short term or long term?

DanneSandin on 11 May 2012
NightDragon83 said:
DanneSandin said:
I'd like a generation to last 5-7 years, but that doesn't mean you should drop the "old" system as soon as something newer comes around. I like how Sony handled the PS2. That's a good example of how it can be done, and NOT like Nintendo misstreated the Wii, droping it like two YEARS before the next system...

Well that's been Nintendo's thing over the last few generations... dropping support for existing systems as soon as new hardware comes out.

This is most apparent in the handheld department.  The dropped support for the N64 and GC were understandable because they were basically dead in the water at the end of their respective generations, but on the handheld side it's an entirely different story.  The original GB and its many variations lasted an astounding 10 years, but as soon as the GBA was released, software for the original GB/GBC was non existent.  Same thing when the DS came out... the GBA SP was a HUGE seller from 2003-early '05, but Nintendo deliberately starved it of software in favor of the DS, despite claiming at E3 '04 that the DS was going to be the "third pillar" of their hardware lineup going forward.  But we all knew that was bull.

And now we have the 3DS, which has been out for barely a year, and what does Nintendo have in store for the existing DS?  Nada.  Despite the DS's huge install base worldwide, there's nothing significant on the release calendar for it.  It's all about the 3DS now.

Yeah, I think it's shameful they do this all the time...



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.