I would disagree. Nintendo systems just have a middle death period. They start with a bang and end on a high note. I do not believe trust is being squandered as you are still getting many games upfront, most of which are the reason people bought the console. The first year or two typically has Mario Kart, Smash, a 3D Mario game, a Zelda, probably a Mario sport, and some lesser franchises like Fire Emblem or Xenoblade that play to more niche demographics. They also typically end strong. While the Wii kinda sat in 2009, 2010 was a great year with Zelda, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong, Mario Galaxy 2, and Metroid. Even the 3DS has a decent end with 2017 having Metroid 2: Samus Returns and Fire Emblem Echoes.
I am not sure what else Nintendo can really do. The system is not perfect, but you still get a lot of great titles.
That's fair, and it certainly makes sense on paper.
I think the problem I have stems from me being done with the usual Nintendo sequels, and the new IPs don't interest me. Smash, Mario Kart, and the Zelda games do nothing for me. Nintendo has consistently shit the bed with Starfox and Metroid. Fire Emblem had those translation issues. Arms and Splatoon aren't interesting to me. Meanwhile, third party are generally sub par ports, or just shit.
That middle death might seem worse for me because I gave up. With the Wii I'd given up by the time Skyward Sword came out, and I done care for Zelda anyway. For the 3DS I had given up when they released the upgraded model and I read new games ran poorly on the old model. I never confirmed that because those games didn't interest me even if they ran perfectly well. (Again, more Zelda games)
The only late era 3DS game I wanted but never got was Metroid 2, though I was salty that Nintendo shut down a fan remake to make it happen. I still have the fan game downloaded somewhere.
I really don't understand why Nintendo insists on it's hardware being a gen behind. I'm not saying they have to pull a PS3 or Series X and make the most powerful system ever but it should alteast be on par with the standard of that generation.
The Wii U is kind of forgivable to me in that regard though given it launched a year prior to the PS4 and Xbone. * it's kinda like the Dreamcast in that regard *
The Wii and especially the Switch though have no excuse. At the least they should be as strong as the 360 and XbOne
Nintendo, unlike other companies, likes to make profit on hardware. They don't do the whole "loss leader" "let's make the money back on games" thing that other companies do. This has worked well for them since the GameBoy at least.
The 360 and PS3 were way more advanced than you'd expect at the time. The PS3 was notorious for being hard to work on, though I don't know how true that is. This also explains why PS4 and Xb1 were a minor upgrade.
Personally, I like Astral Chain so I wouldn’t mind it.
Now if we’re talking Ryza from Atelier Ryza, then you’d be onto something.
I tried finding a physical copy of her game on the NS, and almost all of them were supremely expensive

Even the UK version, while not bad, is very rare to get.
I won't derail the thread, but scalpers and "the collectors market" could be the topic of their own thread, or at least a rant. Conflating a games rarity with the games quality. Driving up prices artificially. Putting "ultra RARE!!!" in every ebay listing.
This could easily be fixed if publishers did second print runs of niche games that sell well, and if they would re-release their old back catalogues like those old "Namco museum" or "Sega Mega Drive collection" packs they did back in the day.
I don't understand what the benefit is for publishers to enable scalpers. If Limited Run Games could sell 15,000 copies of a game, why only print 5,000 and have "collectors" and scalpers fight over them?