Actually, I think it is highly debatable and that you saying it isn't does indeed show that you have a limited knowledge on the topic.  The problem is that just knowing what's currently going on is no way to predict how things will turn out in the future.  Also, it is already known that a large portion of the market on dedicated handheld devices vs mobile are also different.  A mobile device without the physical interface dedicated handheld devices have would never be able to compete.  Even if they were to make one, it would rely on the person actually going out and buying one and the developer of said game to hope that enough people will already have one.  
Not only that, but it is quite obvious the huge difference in budget regarding mobile devices vs dedicated handheld devices, if mobile ever gets to where dedicated handheld devices are in terms of budget, I doubt that just as many people would buy them.  Even if they were, it STILL doesn't imply that the dedicated handheld market would disappear.  People thought that the television would make the radio obsolete and no one would use it anymore.  That didn't happen.  People are thinking that the Internet is going to replace the television and it's been a while since people have said that.  Television is still around and still strong.  What makes you think that there's no argument here?  
This is all legitimate argument. 

Wasn't there a thread yesterday about mobile games generating more revenue than handheld/console games in Japan? Am I wrong, did people not read that thread or are we choosing to believe and disregard whatever we want?

I'm sure the 3ds will be fine for now and I'm happy New Leaf is making so much more money than mobile games, but let's not kid ourselves. Handhelds have been affected by smartphones and it shows. It's just not cool having a handheld any more. Almost all my males friends had a psp and only one of them got a psv. Several also had a nds and kept showing it off and I've only seen three strangers holding a 3ds since it came out. It's all about iphones, Galaxy's etc. Unless handhelds make a comeback, I don't see them doing as well as internet people think or hope.

You might not see them out in public as often but there was also a study (I can't find it but I'll show you links to sites asking where you play your 3DS and you will see a majority play it at home) on where you play your hand helds at and a majority of the % was at home.  So unless you start knocking on doors and going into people's homes then you might not see an accurate representation of the consumer base.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/997614-nintendo-3ds/66210578

Thanks! This is quite interesting actually. But my point is that when a product becomes popular, sales skyrocket regardless of features (or in this case games). People don't buy iphones because they are the best phones on the market, but because they're cool and their friends have them. Of course there are quite a lot of hard core or well informed consumers who buy something because they really want it. But the majority of sales come from the general public. The general public made the wii a success and the lack of interest from the gp in wiiu has had catastrophic results so far. If you look back at old threads, you'll notice just how sure gamers were that the wiiu would be a success because of certain games, especially a 2d Mario. But at the time, the wiiu is not a cool product, so only the hardcore fans want it, but they aren't many. Same with the vita.

Why do you think gamers play 3ds games so much at home? While I'm sure there are many reasons, the 3ds not being perceived as something cool to own or play in public might have someting to do with it. And this sure as hell affects sales. Part of the reason I bought a Game Boy Colour was because everyone had one at school and I wanted one too. 

If you look at twitter, all teenagers talk about is smartphones. I think that the reason apple products which are not mobile (i.e. you can't carry them with you and show them off) such as macs (not laptops), apple tvs, etc don't sell that well is because they don't wanna pay a premium price for something they can't show to their friends.

I remember 2 years ago playing with my psp while waiting for the bus, and most of my teammates were staring at me like crazy. It's just not cool any more to game in public, while checking fb 24/7 or candy crush is. 

It's had new entries every year. You might as well argue that Animal Crossing came out in 2001.

mobile gaming is a fad that will fade away soon

candy crush and Pou are going to kill Mario and Pokemon?
dont make me laugh

I honestly don't think most people would buy iOS games if they were priced anywhere near the same as console/handheld games.  In fact, I don't think games that are $10+ tend to do that well either.  This is one reason why I think mobile games are not going to take over the dedicated handheld market and that dedicated handhelds will no longer exist.  People will still want to pay higher prices for higher quality games.  The population of people who do may change, but I doubt they'll disappear and I also doubt that the mobile market will have the well-designed games at all.  

Frankly, I think mobile games are usually bought because people always have their phones on them and are very scatterbrained, so whenever there's a moment they aren't doing something they pull out their phone and play a game like angry birds.  

Yeah, and games like Final Fantasy do transition well to mobile devices because physical buttons aren't exactly necessary either.  Also since they've been ported so many times and already remade before the mobile versions, it probably costs very little to put it onto the iOS or Android.  

One of the reasons Angry Birds does as well as it does is merchandising, which both adds to the revenue and advertises the game. For example, my local game store has stuffed birds and pigs (which has led to an interesting incident or two on slow days). Nintendo does merchandising, yes, but not really for Animal Crossing. Furthermore, many "copies" of Angry Birds games are included for free with phones and whatnot. $150 million sounds like a lot, but considering how the game's supposedly been downloaded well over a billion times, I'm not impressed. ESPECIALLY when a lot of that money is coming from the upcoming movie rights with Sony AND, for that matter, a $30 retail release!

And yes, Angry Birds probably cost less to make than Animal Crossing. At first. But today, Rovio has over 600 employees, pumping out a couple of these games a year in order to keep sales up. In comparison, Nintendo EAD alone has as about many employees, and in addition to making Animal Crossing, they also make 2D Mario, 3D Mario, Nintendogs, Mario Kart, Zelda, Mii games, Pikmin, Wii Fit titles, and actual gameplay innovations like the Super Guide.

Here's my (possibly) final say on the matter. $150 million for a 600 person company is a value of a quarter million dollars per employee. Nintendo made over $6 billion in revenue in the 2012 Financial Year from 5,000 employees. That's $1.2 million an employee, or nearly five times greater than Rovio's employee value. And 2012 was a bad year for Nintendo consoles! And you expect me to believe that Rovio's way is that of success?

It's not $150M, it's €155.5M. The other thing is that Nintendo does not get 100% of that revenue from the Animal Crossing sales.