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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Do you think Nintendo killed off the Wii too early

 

Was the Wii killed off too early?

Yes 41 53.95%
 
No, Nintendo needed to move on 35 46.05%
 
Total:76
curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

The GBA, GCN, Wii U had far worse late life cycle support than the Wii did. 

And all the successor systems to those machines sold great. 

So really probably what that tells you is late cycle support doesn't mean much really and cutting off support for an older system to ensure better early generation support for the next system has if anything worked well for Nintendo. 

To be honest maybe Microsoft would've been better off doing this too. I think they maybe should have considered ditching the XBox One in 2019 and getting a year headstart over the PS5. 

Sega really, is actually the outlier here and they did extreme things. 

I mean Sony too could've supported the PS2 into 2007 really if they wanted to and pushed PS3 into 2007 ... I don't think it would have helped the PS3 any bit though. 360 would've simply cemented itself a larger lead.

Better support in Wii's late life would've meant more revenue off both hardware and software in 2011-2012 though. Plus it's better for us as consumers to get more support for the hardware we spend good money on.

Yeah but marginally so unless you're saying Nintendo should have released like a new Mario Kart game for the Wii in 2011/2012.

You did get that game, it's called Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ... it just was on Wii U instead of Wii. And it's better for the gamer that it was on Wii U instead of Wii regardless of whether you liked the design choices of the Wii U hardware. The better Wii U hardware meant that game you got was better.

People need to stop looking at things like they're "robbed" of games ... no you do get the games, maybe they spill over onto the next console instead, but that's not a "loss" for you as a player, odds are that means you end up with the better game in the end. 

Like Nintendo easily could have delayed the Super Nintendo into 1992 say and put Super Mario Bros. 4 (Mario World) and Zelda III on the NES instead too. And yes they would have sold a lot of copies. But those games sold a lot of copies on the SNES too. But if they had done that it would've led to a host of market problems, like the Genesis would've been a lot harder to hold off, in fact I would say probably the Genesis flat out beats the Super NES with that generous of an open window. And as a gamer, those games wouldn't have been as good flat out, because of the lesser hardware, the experience would have been worse. 

So really that's lose/lose in that scenario, Nintendo ultimately loses and so does the gamer, the only winner there would've been Sega because would've given them a key large window to grab market share and also a weaker SNES because likely the SNES versions of Mario and Zelda likely would've be ready until 1993 maybe at best? Is that really a great situation?

For Nintendo especially, I think devoting heavy resources to a platform late in the product cycle is dangerous because it can mean the next system does not have adequate software help. Even the Switch, where would they have been without being able to lean heavy on Wii U projects like BOTW and Splatoon and Mario Kart 8. Wii U bombing helped the Switch tremendously because it got access to basically 3 "free" killer apps that not many people had played in the first 6 months. That can completely change a platform's fortunes. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Better support in Wii's late life would've meant more revenue off both hardware and software in 2011-2012 though. Plus it's better for us as consumers to get more support for the hardware we spend good money on.

Yeah but marginally so unless you're saying Nintendo should have released like a new Mario Kart game for the Wii in 2011/2012.

You did get that game, it's called Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ... it just was on Wii U instead of Wii. And it's better for the gamer that it was on Wii U instead of Wii regardless of whether you liked the design choices of the Wii U hardware. The better Wii U hardware meant that game you got was better.

People need to stop looking at things like they're "robbed" of games ... no you do get the games, maybe they spill over onto the next console instead, but that's not a "loss" for you as a player, odds are that means you end up with the better game in the end. 

Like Nintendo easily could have delayed the Super Nintendo into 1992 say and put Super Mario Bros. 4 (Mario World) and Zelda III on the NES instead too. And yes they would have sold a lot of copies. But those games sold a lot of copies on the SNES too. But if they had done that it would've led to a host of market problems, like the Genesis would've been a lot harder to hold off, in fact I would say probably the Genesis flat out beats the Super NES with that generous of an open window. And as a gamer, those games wouldn't have been as good flat out, because of the lesser hardware, the experience would have been worse. 

For Nintendo especially, I think devoting heavy resources to a platform late in the product cycle is dangerous because it can mean the next system does not have adequate software help. Even the Switch, where would they have been without being able to lean heavy on Wii U projects like BOTW and Splatoon and Mario Kart 8. Wii U bombing helped the Switch tremendously because it got access to basically 3 "free" killer apps that not many people had played in the first 6 months. That can completely change a platform's fortunes. 

You're framing in too binary a fashion. Late gen support and strong early support for the next system are not mutually exclusive; a well managed company can do both.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

Yeah but marginally so unless you're saying Nintendo should have released like a new Mario Kart game for the Wii in 2011/2012.

You did get that game, it's called Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ... it just was on Wii U instead of Wii. And it's better for the gamer that it was on Wii U instead of Wii regardless of whether you liked the design choices of the Wii U hardware. The better Wii U hardware meant that game you got was better.

People need to stop looking at things like they're "robbed" of games ... no you do get the games, maybe they spill over onto the next console instead, but that's not a "loss" for you as a player, odds are that means you end up with the better game in the end. 

Like Nintendo easily could have delayed the Super Nintendo into 1992 say and put Super Mario Bros. 4 (Mario World) and Zelda III on the NES instead too. And yes they would have sold a lot of copies. But those games sold a lot of copies on the SNES too. But if they had done that it would've led to a host of market problems, like the Genesis would've been a lot harder to hold off, in fact I would say probably the Genesis flat out beats the Super NES with that generous of an open window. And as a gamer, those games wouldn't have been as good flat out, because of the lesser hardware, the experience would have been worse. 

For Nintendo especially, I think devoting heavy resources to a platform late in the product cycle is dangerous because it can mean the next system does not have adequate software help. Even the Switch, where would they have been without being able to lean heavy on Wii U projects like BOTW and Splatoon and Mario Kart 8. Wii U bombing helped the Switch tremendously because it got access to basically 3 "free" killer apps that not many people had played in the first 6 months. That can completely change a platform's fortunes. 

You're framing in too binary a fashion. Late gen support and strong early support for the next system are not mutually exclusive; a well managed company can do both.

Most companies can't actually. Especially Nintendo, people forget that they're not actually a very large company, for a video game company actually they're fairly small in staff and that is on purpose because it fosters the type of culture/control that Nintendo likes. 

But balancing late gen support with having great early gen support is always going to be hard for Nintendo. 

Even with Switch ... take away BOTW, Mario Kart 8, and Splatoon 2 in the first 8 months which is the result of cannibalizing basically a failed console (a situation you can't really rely on repeating nor would you really want to) ... the system probably would not even be able to launch until November 2017 in that case and the launch likely wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. 

People think this stuff is easy but it's really not. In Nintendo's case they should always err on the side of caution FOR the console to come (not the aging console that is) after having been burned multiple times by early product cycle nightmares.

I could understand if consumers had some kind of brand loyalty in the sense of sticking with a company like a friend during rough times, but really consumers don't give a shit. They're more like kids in junior high that will freeze out/alienate a kid that's no longer cool enough at the drop of a hat. 

I mean Nintendo gave fans everything they had with the DS, years of support, and what they had a few soft months with the 3DS and all of the sudden inside of a year their entire handheld gaming division is in big trouble and needing a giant ass bailout. You cannot count of loyalty for what you've done in the past, even if the "past" is as recent as 12 months ago. Even Sony's ass was not immune, during late 2006/early 2007 they were suddenly the black sheep of the industry after completely dominating it for like 11 straight years and had to basically prove themselves again from scratch, lol. No one cares what you did last generation the second the next product cycle starts, that's all you're judged on. You get no bounce, no favors, no coddling for past work.

And you can't stay in the comfort zone of the previous generation forever either, there's no loyalty there either, people lose interest and go to the competition. Harsh business but that's how it goes. 



Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

You're framing in too binary a fashion. Late gen support and strong early support for the next system are not mutually exclusive; a well managed company can do both.

Most companies can't actually. Especially Nintendo, people forget that they're not actually a very large company, for a video game company actually they're fairly small in staff and that is on purpose because it fosters the type of culture/control that Nintendo likes. 

But balancing late gen support with having great early gen support is always going to be hard for Nintendo. 

Even with Switch ... take away BOTW, Mario Kart 8, and Splatoon 2 in the first 8 months which is the result of cannibalizing basically a failed console (a situation you can't really rely on repeating nor would you really want to) ... the system probably would not even be able to launch until November 2017 in that case and the launch likely wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. 

People think this stuff is easy but it's really not. In Nintendo's case they should always err on the side of caution FOR the console to come (not the aging console that is) after having been burned multiple times by early product cycle nightmares.

I could understand if consumers had some kind of brand loyalty in the sense of sticking with a company like a friend during rough times, but really consumers don't give a shit. They're more like kids in junior high that will freeze out/alienate a kid that's no longer cool enough at the drop of a hat. 

I mean Nintendo gave fans everything they had with the DS, years of support, and what they had a few soft months with the 3DS and all of the sudden inside of a year their entire handheld gaming division is in big trouble and needing a giant ass bailout. You cannot count of loyalty for what you've done in the past, even if the "past" is as recent as 12 months ago. Even Sony's ass was not immune, during late 2006/early 2007 they were suddenly the black sheep of the industry after completely dominating it for like 11 straight years and had to basically prove themselves again from scratch, lol. No one cares what you did last generation the second the next product cycle starts, that's all you're judged on. You get no bounce, no favors, no coddling for past work.

And you can't stay in the comfort zone of the previous generation forever either, there's no loyalty there either, people lose interest and go to the competition. Harsh business but that's how it goes. 

Nobody said it was easy, but it is possible. This idea that a console must end with two years of weak support for its predecessor to succeed is silly, especially in the case of the Wii where games cheap to make.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 10 August 2020

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

No, in Nintendo situation Wii sales already going down meanwhile Sony make a great comeback with their PS3. They had to announce a new system for Wii successor.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

Most companies can't actually. Especially Nintendo, people forget that they're not actually a very large company, for a video game company actually they're fairly small in staff and that is on purpose because it fosters the type of culture/control that Nintendo likes. 

But balancing late gen support with having great early gen support is always going to be hard for Nintendo. 

Even with Switch ... take away BOTW, Mario Kart 8, and Splatoon 2 in the first 8 months which is the result of cannibalizing basically a failed console (a situation you can't really rely on repeating nor would you really want to) ... the system probably would not even be able to launch until November 2017 in that case and the launch likely wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. 

People think this stuff is easy but it's really not. In Nintendo's case they should always err on the side of caution FOR the console to come (not the aging console that is) after having been burned multiple times by early product cycle nightmares.

I could understand if consumers had some kind of brand loyalty in the sense of sticking with a company like a friend during rough times, but really consumers don't give a shit. They're more like kids in junior high that will freeze out/alienate a kid that's no longer cool enough at the drop of a hat. 

I mean Nintendo gave fans everything they had with the DS, years of support, and what they had a few soft months with the 3DS and all of the sudden inside of a year their entire handheld gaming division is in big trouble and needing a giant ass bailout. You cannot count of loyalty for what you've done in the past, even if the "past" is as recent as 12 months ago. Even Sony's ass was not immune, during late 2006/early 2007 they were suddenly the black sheep of the industry after completely dominating it for like 11 straight years and had to basically prove themselves again from scratch, lol. No one cares what you did last generation the second the next product cycle starts, that's all you're judged on. You get no bounce, no favors, no coddling for past work.

And you can't stay in the comfort zone of the previous generation forever either, there's no loyalty there either, people lose interest and go to the competition. Harsh business but that's how it goes. 

Nobody said it was easy, but it is possible. This idea that a console must end with two years of weak support for its predecessor to succeed is silly, especially in the case of the Wii where games cheap to make.

It's difficult I think. Even like I said with the Switch, I mean the launch year was great, but again, you take away several repurposed Wii U titles and it's not really anywhere near as impressive of a launch window and probably couldn't even launch at all until Mario Odyssey was ready. The last time Nintendo really, truly had a great all around launch without benefit of taking games from a previous system was really maybe the SNES, almost 30 years ago. 

For Nintendo I think it is simply a better rule of thumb to err on the side of caution and ensure the console to come (whatever it is) always takes priority. 

Gamers are not loyal to you or your friends even your so-called "loyalists" will fuck you hard the second you ask for some patience with a new system. No one ever wants to hear "can you please just give us a few months to get Mario Kart 7 and Mario 3D Land ready and not bail out on us, please?".

There is very little residual bounce or goodwill for past performance when you have a lukewarm or bad launch. 

I mean shit even the Super NES ... Nintendo had a virtual monopoly on the game market and were at peak top of the world in summer/fall 1990 thanks to the unprecedented launch of Super Mario Bros. 3. People even just as blanket term referred to all video games as just "Nintendo" ("little Johnny is playing Nintendo", even if he's playing an arcade game).

Even with Super Mario World and Nintendo promising a new Zelda just a few months later and several other pretty good launch games, Sega from out of fucking nowhere suddenly by holiday 1991 is giving Nintendo a major problem. 12 months earlier Sega couldn't even get stocked by several major US retailers and one damn blue hedgehog and a year+ more mature library and all of the sudden Nintendo's complete dominance of the industry is thrown upside down. 

Hiroshi Yamauchi (president of Nintendo) was so angry that the SNES actually had (relative to expectations) a somewhat lukewarm early period of sales in the US that he went to a Japanese newspaper to publically shame and berate his own son-in-law, NOA president Minoru Arakawa, lol. This lit a fire under Arakawa's ass and Nintendo became much more aggressive towards Sega in the 2nd half of the 16-bit gen. 



Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Nobody said it was easy, but it is possible. This idea that a console must end with two years of weak support for its predecessor to succeed is silly, especially in the case of the Wii where games cheap to make.

It's difficult I think. Even like I said with the Switch, I mean the launch year was great, but again, you take away several repurposed Wii U titles and it's not really anywhere near as impressive of a launch window and probably couldn't even launch at all until Mario Odyssey was ready. The last time Nintendo really, truly had a great all around launch without benefit of taking games from a previous system was really maybe the SNES, almost 30 years ago. 

For Nintendo I think it is simply a better rule of thumb to err on the side of caution and ensure the console to come (whatever it is) always takes priority. 

Gamers are not loyal to you or your friends even your so-called "loyalists" will fuck you hard the second you ask for some patience with a new system. No one ever wants to hear "can you please just give us a few months to get Mario Kart 7 and Mario 3D Land ready and not bail out on us, please?".

There is very little residual bounce or goodwill for past performance when you have a lukewarm or bad launch. 

I mean shit even the Super NES ... Nintendo had a virtual monopoly on the game market and were at peak top of the world in summer/fall 1990 thanks to the unprecedented launch of Super Mario Bros. 3. People even just as blanket term referred to all video games as just "Nintendo" ("little Johnny is playing Nintendo", even if he's playing an arcade game).

Even with Super Mario World and Nintendo promising a new Zelda just a few months later and several other pretty good launch games, Sega from out of fucking nowhere suddenly by holiday 1991 is giving Nintendo a major problem. 12 months earlier Sega couldn't even get stocked by several major US retailers and one damn blue hedgehog and a year+ more mature library and all of the sudden Nintendo's complete dominance of the industry is thrown upside down. 

Hiroshi Yamauchi (president of Nintendo) was so angry that the SNES actually had (relative to expectations) a somewhat lukewarm early period of sales in the US that he went to a Japanese newspaper to publically shame and berate his own son-in-law, NOA president Minoru Arakawa, lol. This lit a fire under Arakawa's ass and Nintendo became much more aggressive towards Sega in the 2nd half of the 16-bit gen. 

It is difficult yes. I think Switch and 3DS is a good example of how to do it; I myself criticized Nintendo in 2017 for not pulling the plug on 3DS completely, but if you were a 3DS owner you got a pretty damn smooth transition into the Switch without your current system being abandoned 2 years early.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

It's difficult I think. Even like I said with the Switch, I mean the launch year was great, but again, you take away several repurposed Wii U titles and it's not really anywhere near as impressive of a launch window and probably couldn't even launch at all until Mario Odyssey was ready. The last time Nintendo really, truly had a great all around launch without benefit of taking games from a previous system was really maybe the SNES, almost 30 years ago. 

For Nintendo I think it is simply a better rule of thumb to err on the side of caution and ensure the console to come (whatever it is) always takes priority. 

Gamers are not loyal to you or your friends even your so-called "loyalists" will fuck you hard the second you ask for some patience with a new system. No one ever wants to hear "can you please just give us a few months to get Mario Kart 7 and Mario 3D Land ready and not bail out on us, please?".

There is very little residual bounce or goodwill for past performance when you have a lukewarm or bad launch. 

I mean shit even the Super NES ... Nintendo had a virtual monopoly on the game market and were at peak top of the world in summer/fall 1990 thanks to the unprecedented launch of Super Mario Bros. 3. People even just as blanket term referred to all video games as just "Nintendo" ("little Johnny is playing Nintendo", even if he's playing an arcade game).

Even with Super Mario World and Nintendo promising a new Zelda just a few months later and several other pretty good launch games, Sega from out of fucking nowhere suddenly by holiday 1991 is giving Nintendo a major problem. 12 months earlier Sega couldn't even get stocked by several major US retailers and one damn blue hedgehog and a year+ more mature library and all of the sudden Nintendo's complete dominance of the industry is thrown upside down. 

Hiroshi Yamauchi (president of Nintendo) was so angry that the SNES actually had (relative to expectations) a somewhat lukewarm early period of sales in the US that he went to a Japanese newspaper to publically shame and berate his own son-in-law, NOA president Minoru Arakawa, lol. This lit a fire under Arakawa's ass and Nintendo became much more aggressive towards Sega in the 2nd half of the 16-bit gen. 

It is difficult yes. I think Switch and 3DS is a good example of how to do it; I myself criticized Nintendo in 2017 for not pulling the plug on 3DS completely, but if you were a 3DS owner you got a pretty damn smooth transition into the Switch without your current system being abandoned 2 years early.

Switch launch is mainly predicated on the ashes of the Wii U, remove BOTW, Splatoon 2 (quickly retooled Wii U sequel), and Mario Kart 8 and the launch year window for the Switch is fairly poor. 

It's easy to shit on the Wii U, but I'm also sure the Wii U probably would've had a much easier go of it if you gifted the system Zelda: Skyward Sword as a launch game, a Mario Kart game in its 2nd month on market, and moved the hit game Splatoon from its 3rd year into its first 6 month window that it would've developed significantly more momentum. 

The last launch that Nintendo did that was legit all around good was probably the Super Nintendo, but even there that was in the days when North American/European launches traditionally happened 9-16 months after the Japanese launch. So they were able to have Super Mario World, F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Ghouls N' Ghosts, Final Fight, and other games ready and just as important "2nd wave titles" like Zelda III and Street Fighter 2 arrived the following spring and summer. 

And people complained that wasn't good enough back then, lol. 

The fact is despite people saying it over and over again, late gen support for a system really does not do anything for a game company in the long term. No one complains or bitches today that the GBA, GameCube, and Wii U were cut short ... why? Because they liked the successors so they have convenient amnesia about those cases.

It's basically: "Fuck you Nintendo, you fucked me on Wii U, where are all the damn games? I'll never buy another sys ... is that Breath of the Wild? On a 6 inch screen? But now on the bus? You had me at Zelda, you brilliant bastards take my $400 because I need neon Joycons to complete my life". 

Always err on the side of the new console's launch being the priority. No one cares about your late gen support for your previous system the second they get a gaming-boner from your new system reveal. But if your new system reveal isn't great or you need a little patience from the consumer .... good fucking luck selling that. All of the sudden you're as popular the guy coughing loudly in a grocery store. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 10 August 2020

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

It is difficult yes. I think Switch and 3DS is a good example of how to do it; I myself criticized Nintendo in 2017 for not pulling the plug on 3DS completely, but if you were a 3DS owner you got a pretty damn smooth transition into the Switch without your current system being abandoned 2 years early.

Switch launch is mainly predicated on the ashes of the Wii U, remove BOTW, Splatoon 2 (quickly retooled Wii U sequel), and Mario Kart 8 and the launch year window for the Switch is fairly poor. 

It's easy to shit on the Wii U, but I'm also sure the Wii U probably would've had a much easier go of it if you gifted the system Zelda: Skyward Sword as a launch game, a Mario Kart game in its 2nd month on market, and moved the hit game Splatoon from its 3rd year into its first 6 month window that it would've developed significantly more momentum. 

The last launch that Nintendo did that was legit all around good was probably the Super Nintendo, but even there that was in the days when North American/European launches traditionally happened 9-16 months after the Japanese launch. So they were able to have Super Mario World, F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Ghouls N' Ghosts, Final Fight, and other games ready and just as important "2nd wave titles" like Zelda III and Street Fighter 2 arrived the following spring and summer. 

And people complained that wasn't good enough back then, lol. 

The fact is despite people saying it over and over again, late gen support for a system really does not do anything for a game company in the long term. No one complains or bitches today that the GBA, GameCube, and Wii U were cut short ... why? Because they liked the successors so they have convenient amnesia about those cases.

It's basically: "Fuck you Nintendo, you fucked me on Wii U, where are all the damn games? I'll never buy another sys ... is that Breath of the Wild? On a 6 inch screen? But now on the bus? You had me at Zelda, you brilliant bastards take my $400 because I need neon Joycons to complete my life". 

Always err on the side of the new console's launch being the priority. No one cares about your late gen support for your previous system the second they get a gaming-boner from your new system reveal. But if your new system reveal isn't great or you need a little patience from the consumer .... good fucking luck selling that. All of the sudden you're as popular the guy coughing loudly in a grocery store. 

If you're going to argue they legitimately couldn't have done a better job of the last two years of the Wii, then sorry, I just don't believe that. It was handled horrendously.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 10 August 2020

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

It is difficult yes. I think Switch and 3DS is a good example of how to do it; I myself criticized Nintendo in 2017 for not pulling the plug on 3DS completely, but if you were a 3DS owner you got a pretty damn smooth transition into the Switch without your current system being abandoned 2 years early.

Switch launch is mainly predicated on the ashes of the Wii U, remove BOTW, Splatoon 2 (quickly retooled Wii U sequel), and Mario Kart 8 and the launch year window for the Switch is fairly poor. 

It's easy to shit on the Wii U, but I'm also sure the Wii U probably would've had a much easier go of it if you gifted the system Zelda: Skyward Sword as a launch game, a Mario Kart game in its 2nd month on market, and moved the hit game Splatoon from its 3rd year into its first 6 month window that it would've developed significantly more momentum. 

The last launch that Nintendo did that was legit all around good was probably the Super Nintendo, but even there that was in the days when North American/European launches traditionally happened 9-16 months after the Japanese launch. So they were able to have Super Mario World, F-Zero, Pilotwings, Super Ghouls N' Ghosts, Final Fight, and other games ready and just as important "2nd wave titles" like Zelda III and Street Fighter 2 arrived the following spring and summer. 

And people complained that wasn't good enough back then, lol. 

The fact is despite people saying it over and over again, late gen support for a system really does not do anything for a game company in the long term. No one complains or bitches today that the GBA, GameCube, and Wii U were cut short ... why? Because they liked the successors so they have convenient amnesia about those cases.

It's basically: "Fuck you Nintendo, you fucked me on Wii U, where are all the damn games? I'll never buy another sys ... is that Breath of the Wild? On a 6 inch screen? But now on the bus? You had me at Zelda, you brilliant bastards take my $400 because I need neon Joycons to complete my life". 

Always err on the side of the new console's launch being the priority. No one cares about your late gen support for your previous system the second they get a gaming-boner from your new system reveal. But if your new system reveal isn't great or you need a little patience from the consumer .... good fucking luck selling that. All of the sudden you're as popular the guy coughing loudly in a grocery store. 

You act as if the Wii U didn't absorb Wii games, but it actually got blessed with a sequel to New Super Mario Bros. Wii as a launch title which sold much more than Skyward Sword would have. Pikmin 3 was moved to the Wii U. Quite a few of the earlier Wii U games might as well have been released on the Wii.

Nobody complains about the GBA because, as already pointed out by Jumpin earlier in this thread, the GBA continued to see a robust lineup of games even after the DS had launched, so ultimately the GBA got good games for five years and wasn't left to die. On the flipside, people don't mind the GC and Wii U getting cut short because people wanted them to be over, so prolonging the misery wasn't something that anyone wanted.

Late gen support does matter for successful consoles because there's still a big active userbase buying games. You get disgruntled customers if you cut short and force an upgrade by putting all your new releases on the new console too quickly. Unsuccessful consoles don't have that problem because hardly anyone still cares about buying software for them.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments