Releasing multiple versions of a handheld isn't exactly a Nintendo thing. How many different PSPs were there?
They learned from the best. Nintendo dominated the handheld market since the 90s. If you want to compete, you'd best take notes.
It makes sense to update a handheld more often than a console.
No, it really doesn't. Take away the portability factor and you still have a console. Why do people buy consoles? To play the current generation of games. Otherwise you would buy a PC--it makes sense to update a PC more often than a console.
As technology gets better, parts become cheaper. So they can lower the price for the current model and then release a better model (smaller, larger, faster, etc) for the original price.
This statement actually makes sense, because it gets to the crux of why Nintendo would resell ostensibly the same system to the same public: they can keep prices artificially high. There is no other reason four year old technology would retain or increase in price if we were talking about any other branch of electronics.
This is more important for handhelds than for consoles because handhelds are handheld. They're portable. So size, battery life, etc are major issues that don't exist in consoles.
Semantical distinction. My Gamecube is purple, my Atari is black, my Xbox is ugly. That doesn't have anything to do with your 'technology gets better, parts become cheaper' point. Smaller, battery life doesn't translate to 'can or cannot play current games'. I could give a shit if they want to sell rainbow units with a five pound external battery.
It's not like you were screwed if you got a 3DS when the 3DSXL was announced or when the 2DS was announced.
Except for when the next game comes out that uses two joysticks and the faster CPU. Which you cannot play because you were a sucker who gave Nintendo money in 2013 instead of 2015, back when they told you 'this thing is sooo awesome and we're totally never going to make it obsolete like we did with all the other systems'.
And if you're anything like me who got a 3DS at launch, you could probably use a replacement simply because of wear and tear on the system, so with the New 3DS coming out, it's a win win.
No, it would be a win-win if you could give Nintendo $200 without actually losing $200 from your wallet or bank account. By definition, when one side loses something of value that the other side gains it is called win-lose.
I could upgrade to the New 3DS which is superior, or I could replace my current 3DS with another original 3DS which will be cheaper because the New 3DS is out.
...But only by making the personal sacrifice in knowing that you are no longer invested in the current generation of games. Because nobody--ever in the history of gaming systems--bought a NES and said it's an awesome $300 Mario and Duck Hunt machine. The very invention of interchangeable ROM carts meant that your base investment was a ticket to the current generation of games. When they come out the following year with the NES+ with a better CPU and Super Mario Bros 3 and oh yeah fuck you guys who bought the original NES guess you'll just need to repurchase the console--people might take offense.