Because selling games yearly via subscription makes more money than a one time sale.

Seriously, I've explained this to you at least a dozen times, it is basic math.

Give it time, all games including new AAA will eventually be subscription based.  It is the future regardless if you like it.

Sure. Will you pay for me? 

I once offered to buy a random kid a Gamecube on a message board back in early 2002, simply because he wanted one but was too poor to afford it. In the end, he never said yes, but the offer was valid so yeah... I have no issues helping other people out when I can.

What are you wanting, but can'f afford? Or was that all sarcasm? lol

$10 per month ($120 annually) is the absolute top I'd be willing to pay for the "Nintendo pass" aka full package as this is how much I normally spend annually in eshop.

I hope they do that.

They should continue using the same service while improving on it, instead of starting from scratch again.

You have zero evidence it won't be transferable to the Switch 2.  You are upset over something that hasn't been announced.

Or the fact they weren't willing to allow people purchases on WiiU to be brought forwards to the Switch.
Wouldn't have been overtly difficult for them to do... Likely company bureaucracy got in the way.

Wii VC migrated to Wii U.  

Do you mean having all the platforms/systems announced for Switch and their games (NES/SNES/N64/Genesis) also available on Switch 2? If so, I think that is what they are building towards. For one reason or another, they are taking their time to include more games/platforms, but I don't think they would even be bothering with putting more platforms on Switch 1 at this point (4+ years into its life) if they also weren't intending on it being available on Switch 2. I think Switch 2 will launch out of the gate with at least whatever is on NSO on Switch 1, and it will have far more internal memory to be able to handle more memory taxing platforms like GameCube/Wii/3ds. It may not be until Switch 3 when they have a device with enough internal memory that Wii U/Switch 1 games could be on the subscription, if the goal remains to just have the games automatically download to every subscriber's device.

The Wii U was built with the ability to function as a Wii, so it was probably very easy for them to move it to that. Switch is very different to Wii/Wii U (not that I'm excusing it). I think the main reason they haven't is because they have done the research, looked at the data, and realized they make more money this way.

Option 1: Have all old games available as well as new games. Many won't buy the new one when it comes out, but will instead opt to buy one of the original, cheaper games, to try it/them out and see if they like how those games feel. They may like it/them, or they may not. If they don't, they probably won't buy the more expensive, modern game, so Nintendo makes $7.99 on the old game sale and loses $59.99 on a new game sale. I certainly have done this, as I enjoy playing games chronologically, or trying out cheaper options to make sure I like the series' formula. Final Fantasy 8 almost ruined my desire to ever play any other Final Fantasy games (tried it a few months ago). I'm sure many other people do the same thing with older, cheaper games before committing to full priced modern games.

Option 2: Only offer a select amount of games from specific platforms, ones that either are so random that there is no loss of modern game sales due to it being bad, or ones that you know are adored by the fans and won't hurt people's views of those respective series enough that they refuse to purchase the modern games. This way they make $20 a year (roughly equating to 3 virtual console purchases a year) and also aren't sabatoging modern games' potential sales.

Option 2 is probably more profitable, for starters, as I doubt the average gamer buys more than 3 old games a year. It's also safer for protecting the integrity of modern games. Think of any series that start off quite horrible but plays great with modern games. You wouldn't want people to have access to those older games if newer ones were coming out and risk that game's sales tanking.

I know all of this seems rather specific and elaborate, perhaps even crazy seeming, but multi-billion dollar companies have all sorts of think-tanks and research going on all the time into things like this that they don't reveal to the public. Again, if Nintendo is doing it this way, then that means they believe this is the way to make the most money long-term.