I agree with your principles, but I don't agree in your executions. Hey, it's okay because in the end the decisions made are based on objectives that can be balanced subjectively:
To do the above two properly, you would need to:
That's why, in hindsight, the best would've been a pre-emptive unified framework in order to minimize the costs related to the two activities above by harmonizing them as much as possible.
If maintaining user confidence is based upon your late gen software support though it does not match up with the reality of the sales trends we see.
We clearly see the GBA, GCN, XBox (original), Wii U not get 5 years of consistent software support, yet there is no impact whatsoever on the successor system, if anything it looks like the successor system to a modern console actually does better, lol.
To me this is one of those things that gets drilled into game enthusiasts heads because of the "legend of Sega". It's like adults who make up all kinds of falsehoods to scare kids (like you'll lose your eyes if you sit too close to a TV).
In all honesty the truth is the Sega situation was unique and singular and is not really relevant to Nintendo or Microsoft or Sony.
A MS/Sony/Nintendo system having an extra year of support or a year less, does not really make a large impact on the company in the big picture.
Continued success in the market is predicated on high level of execution during console transitions. A company that can do that will have continued success by and large.
Pertaining specifically to Nintendo, none of their company ups/downs are really related to how long any platform was supported for. Their problems pretty much all stem from bad decision making during console transitions which then manifest into problems the company has to deal with for the next 4-5 years.
Not using CDs for N64, making a Wily Wonka purple lunchbox design for 5-year-olds for a console, betting the farm on a 3D gimmick and Nintendogs to be worth $250 to people, betting on a tablet controller that didn't do anything really for game play, not seeing the writing on the wall for the casual market when smartphones started to take over the industry, etc. etc. are Nintendo's chief mistakes. Not "well they supported this particular system 1 year less than otherwise".
You can say that for every successful system ever. Could Nintendo have sold 10 million copies of Super Mario World on the NES? Yes. Could Sony have sold 10 million copies of Uncharted on the PS2? Yes. Would those games have been better off in that situation? No.Last edited by Soundwave - on 10 August 2020