No it wasn't. Why do people act like supporting an old platform somehow is going to make the next product cycle any easier it doesn't.

You have to start from 0 again and no one gives on shit about your last system the moment the new cycle starts. That's how it works for everyone, Nintendo included. It's like sports, no one cares if you won the championship the previous season when play starts for the new season, you have to prove yourself all over again. 

Like they could have supported the DS for an extra year too ... and then what? It wouldn't have changed any of the challenges the 3DS faced. If you are unprepared and lazy at the beginning of a generation, that's on your poor company leadership.

The Wii was floundering as is because it wasn't unique anymore to begin with by 2010. You could get the same virtual bowling/fitness games/dance like an idiot in front of the TV with both Kinect and PS Move copying the Wiimote, and on top of that the 360/PS3 also offered the full gamut of traditional third party HD gaming like Call of Duty and all that. It made the XBox 360 a much better value because why buy two different consoles when one basically does it all.

Also I mean if you look at the least supported late gen systems ... the XBox (prematurely killed off in 2004), the GBA, the GameCube (you want to cry about 6 years support for Wii? Try the GameCube where Nintendo basically gave up after 2004) and Wii U ... all these systems had mediocre late gen support or were flat out killed before 5 years.

Yet all of their successive systems were wildly successful. One generation does not have as much bearing on the next generation as people think. 

Nintendo grew lazy with the success of the Wii and DS thinking they could just shit out a casual minigame-a-thon + throw in a Mario platformer with a hardware gimmick and it would = big sales. That's the real truth. They thought Nintendogs + 3D gimmick was more than good enough to sell 3DS' at $250 for months on end. They though the Wii U was all good because 2D Mario + Nintendo Land (casual minigames) + tablet gimmick was good enough.

They didn't take into account the casual audience becoming more enamored with iPhones + iPads or that eventually even the New Super Mario Bros. brand would become oversaturated. They were lazy and overestimated the loyalty of casual players (you love Nintendogs in 2006 so that means you must love it in 2011 and you'll buy a 3DS for that .... it doesn't always work that way, casuals get tired/bored of things and want the next fad, not the old one). The problems of the 3DS and Wii U are rooted largely in Nintendo becoming arrogant and thinking they could put things on "cruise control" really from about 2008 onwards. They were able to coast by for a few years just riding that momentum, but eventually it bit them in the ass. 

It takes years to develop games, if they'd stopped making Wii games only once sales started to dive, then support would've continued through 2011 and 2012 as those games would've been far along already. 

The fact they only had a single major global release for 2011 was because they only ever planned four years of full support. Sales naturally declined once the flow of games slowed to a trickle.

NOA did have Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, Rhythm Heaven, Wii Play Motion, Mario & Sonic Olympics, Pandora's Tower, Mario Sports Mix, Fortune Street w/Super Mario, Kirby: Return to Dreamland and Zelda: Skyward Sword all finished for 2011 ... that's a perfectly OK lineup for a 5 year old console. NOA didn't want to publish games like Xenoblade or Last Story because they were overly enamoured with casual ware, that's their own fault, but they had actually plenty of games. 

They also sat on a perfectly good Fatal Frame game for no reason whatsoever. They did have enough content. 

Nintendo got arrogant thinking casual games and the occasional Mario was all they needed and they got knocked on their ass for that attitude soon there after.

This business is a bit like boxing ... if you believe too much of your own hype and get too arrogant and start to slack off from training as hard, someone, one day is gonna come, someone who's hungry, and knock you out.  

Yeah. Agreed

Wii U killed the radio star.

And baby seals and internet kitteh too!!!

That's not even remotely true.

In fact, the only home console the Switch doesn't effectively replicate is the Wii U. While all core features of the Wii and previous consoles make a return (Gamecube weird button shapes and springy L&R don't really count, as they're more bells and whistles with not much functional implication), not one of the three core features introduced with the Wii U makes a return. The first, a screenbased Gamepad to control a game on another screen - that's gone. Also gone is asymmetrical gameplay. And while offscreen play may superficially resemble what the Switch does with handheld mode, it's something different - the Switch DOESN'T actually use a tethered experience; instead, it transforms into a handheld which can be taken on the go... handheld play is something Nintendo has done for 30 years.

On the home console side, the primary inspiration from the Switch comes from what was introduced with the Wii. Its core controller, the joycon, is multifaceted remote complete with advanced motion interface and HD rumble, a clear successor to the Wiimotion controllers. Even from a stylistic standpoint, the Switch brings back the simple and intuitive OS as well as the sleek appearance of the Wii rather than the Wii U rounded bulk. The joycons can also be integrated with other hardaware like the Ring Fit ring and the Labo cardboard. It does drop the speaker/mic on the controller, but again, like the Gamecube button stuff, this is more of a bell/whistle rather than a core feature.

On the handheld side, it takes everything from the GB line, and while it drops the second screen from the DS line, that has more to do with it becoming functionally obsolete than dropping its capabilities; the DS screen was functionally a divided single screen with designated functionality on each side, not required today due to the Switch's larger screen size (having a separate screen would be more of a cosmetic difference. The Wii U's second screen differs by having it disassociated from the TV.

On a side note, Streetpass, spotpass, and 3D do not make a return from the 3DS, and these are the new features 3DS introduced, so there's nothing significant that the 3DS adds that wasn't already there with the DS. The funny thing is that the Eshop on Switch more resembles an upgraded WiiShop channel than the Wii U or 3DS EShops.

The Switch combines both handheld and home console experiences into one. While Nintendo had experimented with hybridization since the Super Game Boy in 1994, the Switch is the first console to execute it smoothly.

What doesn't make their way into the Switch design is the aforementioned Wii U and 3DS core features. This is why I call the Switch more of a successor to the Wii and DS than the 3DS and Wii U.

The Switch is best described as a completely new platform that functions as an updated Wii in one mode, an updated handheld in the other mode, and NOT a successor to the Wii U in either mode.

Not only did the Switch not need the the Wii U to exist, Nintendo themselves says the Switch isn't a successor to the Wii U.

The Last story rocked!

For marketing reasons of course they don't want the Switch to be referred to as the Wii U successor because the Wii/Wii U brand became toxic. 

But in other interviews, I believe Nintendo designers have just said straight up without the Wii U from a design perspective there would not be a Switch. 

Even during the design of the Wii U, I believe Iwata said they wanted to put the hardware directly into the Game Pad (which would've made it essentially a Switch), but at that time (circa 2012) it was impossible to accomplish. The Wii U and Switch having the exact same screen size down to the millimeter also suggests probably NX/Switch prototypes started off originally in Wii U Game Pad casing. 

Beyond there's no fucking way the Switch has anywhere near as strong of a year 1 without having Breath of the Wild, Mario Kart 8, and Splatoon 2 (a "new" game but many assets and even many stages full on taken from the Wii U game) in the first several months of release. Cannibalizing the Wii U software really helped the Switch get off to a strong start and it continues to help the Switch even to this day as they continue to plug droughts by porting more and more Wii U software (Pikmin 3 and probably Mario 3D World coming). If you remove BOTW + MK8 + Splatoon 2 + many other Wii U titles from the Switch, the sales are likely no where near as impressive. 

If you remove the Wii U ports (BOTW, Mario Kart 8, NSMBU) or games moderately retooled from the Wii U (ie: Splatoon 2, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, etc.), honestly the Switch probably would be in a bit of trouble.

People need to stop equating market success with a system being "good" or "bad".

As a PAL user 2011-2012 weren't too bad for me; I grabbed Skyward Sword, Xenoblade, de Blob 2, Modern Warfare 3, and Rayman Origins in 2011, then The Last Story, Fatal Frame 2, and Pandora's Tower in 2012. 

Could've been better, but a stellar lineup compared to what North America was forced to endure.

Still though, it was clear that Nintendo had moved on and were no longer seriously invested in the Wii after 2010, which was quite dumb to only give one of the most successful consoles ever just 4 years of commitment. They definitely should have planned that better.