That would be a terrible move if the console keeps selling 3-4m a year. They could've done that with Wii, but instead they cut off the support far too early.

Yes and no.

Yes, you can have a lot of fun with the Wii U and I don't need another "upgraded" console the next years but 10 years are too much. At a certain point Nintendo will have no more idea what they should do. Everyone says that they are always doing the same Mario game or so again and again but most of the time they try to do something special with their system but in a few years they need a new innovation to make their games around this new system. Of course we could have fun with the Wii U for 10 years but we can still have fun with last gen and the generation before it but sometimes you have to make new hardware so you can make new games.

Well, I partly agree with you. But I think that the main reason for the upgrade now should be some new way to play, and not just improving hardware specs. Like gamecube to wii they had motion controls. Wii to WiiU they added second screen features and HD, keeping motion controls and stuff. So if they find some new gameplay mechanics which cannot be done with classic/motion/ass/pointer/touch controls - then I'll be interested to see what they got. If not... Improving resolutions and some on-screen effects doesn't make same game any better.

Hmmmm.......

I don't know about 10 years. But as someone who doesn't necessarily enjoy spending hundreds of dollars on a new console when I don't have to, I most certainly want this system to last as long as it can. And I want to get as many awesome Nintendo franchise games out of it that I can. So personally, I'd like to see it last AT LEAST through 2017, with consistent support.

Yes, but Wii was an SD console, as many like to point out "barely more powerful than the first Xbox". It was, by all measures, the most powerful SD console. But it was still an SD console, in an HD era. It was a great system, with a lot of really good (some even great) games. But why keep a system that "far behind" in tech around that long? PS4 will certainly be on the market for many years to come. Who knows about Xbox....MS is schitzo anyway. But while Wii U is still the "weakest" of this new gen, it IS more on par with it's competition than Wii ever could have been. It's HD, the GPU is decent, and with SM3DW and MK8 as examples, it can provide some very pretty games with it's "meager" hardware.

I still don't advocate it lasting a whole 10 years. But I'm just saying, for the sake of argument, that Wii U is more justified lasting that long, given it's hardware, than Wii was. I can see your point as far as Wii's early sales success, and it's massive install base. But I think Wii U is at least more than powerful enough to justify lasting a good 6 years or so. And I think Nintendo'd be smart to do that, and take their time with their next system. Rushing it out early would the single dumbest move in their history.

And besides, with so many great franchises in their own library, and so many great development studios under their umbrella (Retro, Monolith, Next Level, Inteligent Systems, HAL, Monster Games, Good-Feel, AlphaDream, skip LTD, Platinum Games, etc., that's an AWFUL lot to work with. In a perfect world, we would be getting all manner of great stuff over the next few years, like Animal Crossing, F-Zero, Metroid, Kirby, Star Fox, Paper Mario, Wave Race, not to mention hopefully more new IPs like W101, X, etc.

Fall 2016 at the latest before Nintendo releases their next console.

In 2003 Mario Kart had 60fps split screen, Mario Kart 8 has only 30fps because Nintendo didn't care, not because WiiU isn't powerfull enough to do it.

Hahaha, no. The next home console will be out by 2016. The Wii U will have a 4 year lifespan, perhaps being supported while the next gen console is out.

Lifespan means how long it's on the market. So if Wii-U would be produced for another four years after it's successor is released, it would have a 8 year life span.

Yo crazy brah?