Even just supporting first-party titles would go a long way. In the particular case of Nintendo, many, if not most, of the most universally acclaimed classics are first-party games.
Why would any sane consumer purchase those games when Nintendo has no track record of honoring purchases? Nintendo aggressively cuts off access to consumers past purchases in the hopes that they buy the same retro games again on the new system. Not just by not sharing retro game purchases between systems, but also not even letting consumers still download their purchases on older systems.
It's like buying a book that's set to self-destruct a decade from now - no sane consumer would buy such a product.
There are good arguments to be made against subscriptions in comparison to purchases, but lots of "sane consumers" do buy in to such subscriptions with volatile content libraries that might have pieces of content self-destruct at any time (Netflix and Hulu).
Plus, an NSO subscription is needed for online play, so many consumers have subscribed to NSO to play online with their friends, and access to the NES and SNES libraries is a freebie bonus.
I bought a couple of Virtual Console games on the Wii. Those same games were transferred to my Wii U system with an SD card. The same games are now included on the Nintendo Switch Online service and many others too.
Well, it's not that anyone is necessarily perfect. But the other major console players certainly seem better - if I bought a PS4 game a few years ago then I can reasonably expect to still play it on PS6 and probably onwards. X360 games have been brought back to life by MSoft.
Steam is generally pretty good yeah but it doesn't have the issue of consecutive consoles to deal with.
