LogFAQs > #949758009

This has never been the case. Again, SMB was bundled with Duck Hunt in 1988, three years after its initial release, and 32 years ago. Heck, many NES games were enhanced ports of arcade games, even going back as far as '85. Such practices have become more common in recent years (largely due to the ever-expanding library of old content to remake), and again, the WiiU's gotten a lot of it more of it than most systems because it had so many quality exclusives that few people got to play because of how poorly the system sold, but there has never been a time when you could be completely confident that you could buy a game when it launched and never end up regretting that purchase because a better deal came along later.

For decades I have been buying lots of games only once and never missed any DLC. It's only in recent years that game devs are going full Street Fighter, because people are getting stupid and pissing money on content that they have already played.

Again, that suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand the process. Teams that are porting games often have enough downtime to make slapping together some new content pretty easy, and (more importantly) being able to advertise ports with even just a token amount of bonus content makes them much more appealing to people who didn't buy the game in the first place. It's just sensible marketing. Expecting them not to market their products sensibly just to appease you is utterly absurd.

It's absurd that I can't get DLC for any game I already own. If I buy a $60 game then I should get access to all DLC that game will ever have unless they say otherwise or it's completely obvious. I shouldn't ever buy a game that the devs give no indication will be ported later, then 10 years later I can't get DLC for that game because they are locking it behind a $60. Games are meant to be bought once, and only once, and the industry must absolutely market their games so that people who aren't insane enough to buy the same game multiple times never miss out on any content.

And the WiiU was axed 5 years after release. They were 100% honest that they wouldn't support it after that point. Prior to that point, they produced a reasonable number of exclusive games that ended up not being enough to attract people to the console (though that was more a marketing issue than anything else). After that point, they were under no obligation to continue supporting it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or what you believe happened.

Nintendo sold the Wii U with the promise of great exclusives instead of sweeping it under the rug like Virtual Boy. They knew some people would buy it because for 30 years, there was no Nintendo console that had all of its exclusives ported to the next console. So they said they would support their console, release a few AAA games that appeared to be Wii U exclusive, but then they ported everything to Switch so in the end Wii U had no exclusives. Nintendo made it seem like Wii U would have support, but in reality it had the same support as Virtual Boy, and in the process shafted millions of people who bought the Wii U to get exclusives that didn't exist.

You seem to think this is a matter of pride or honour or something similarly silly. It's not. It's a matter of money. Companies don't leave the console business because they're embarrassed by failed systems, they leave because those failures mean they can't continue to operate a sustainable business. Conversely, companies that are able to operate a sustainable business in spite of failed systems (as Nintendo has done following the Virtual Boy and WiiU) can be expected to remain in the console business because there's still money to be made.

Console makers that make a failed system shouldn't be able to remain in the console biz. Virtual Boy could be forgiven because it was always meant to be a stopgap but Wii U cannot be forgiven. The fact that Nintendo is still in the console biz after the shitshow that Wii U proves that videogames are now shit.