33M vs 5M sold, I'd say no shit they are different lol....

Not really. Just because something isn't cross platform (or just because it is) doesn't say anything about whether or not it's particularly geared towards longer or shorter play sessions. PSABR or Smash, for instance, are aimed at home consoles first and foremost but also make suitable handheld games. Similarly, there's nothing really about Fire Emblem or Soul Sacrifice that would make them poor home console games, and the same can be said for the most of the rest of the libraries. Kid Icarus, Gravity Rush, Mario Kart, and so on.

Sony has always pushed the idea of "console quality gaming on the go" in their ads because, well, what else do you say when you have the more powerful handheld but not the more powerful IPs? But Sony's actual software efforts, such as they are, are really no less suited to handhelds than Nintendo's. They're not trying to hamfistedly squeeze the cinematic style of gaming that is their trademark into a handheld device. Quite the opposite. They've made new IPs like LocoRoco and Patapon and Gravity Rush that fit perfectly, and their handheld adaptations of established IPs like LittleBigPlanet and Killzone and Resistance have typically been exceptionally well tailored to gaming on the go. At least, this was previously the case. The recent spate of PS3/Vita titles isn't the result of any belief that this is what people really want out of a system but rather a desperate attempt at stopgaps to fill the Vita's barren retail release schedule.

That's where Moffitt is wrong. The real fundamental difference between Nintendo's strategy and Sony's is that Nintendo's handhelds are always its first concern because it's where they make most of their money, so they are typically better executed than Nintendo's home consoles, while Sony really has no strategy beyond the vague notion that they should be in the handheld business for some reason.

Ocarina of Time Remake/Wind Waker Remake: Two remakes of console games, can't really say jack about them.

Super Mario 3D Land / Super Mario 3D World: One is an original game built for the portable hardware to take advantage of the 3D visuals, the other is a original game positioned as a sequel because it offers Nintendo the ability to have another multiplayer Mario game without it being another New Super Mario Bros game thanks to the perspective that was built to take advantage 3D visuals but works just as well as a hybrid of side scrolling and full polygonal 3D platforming.

Fire Emblem: Awakening / Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn: Both are sequels in a long running SRPG franchise with the portable version playing very differently from the console one including having aspects that were not in the console game you mention which is several years old. I mean anyone that has played Radiant Dawn can tell you the map size and difficulty are greater then most of the ones in Awakening's main campaign. And Awakening despite the dip in difficulty has had various well received features added to the formula along with content exclusive to this game so far. Bad job by you.

Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon / Luigi's Mansion: Just like with the previous example bad job by you. One is the console original that was a fun but thinly veiled tech demo. The other is a portable sequel to that game that expands on the original, leading to a deeper solo game and a multiplayer aspect no found in the console predecessor.

New Super Mario Bros. 2 / New Super Mario Bros. U / Luigi U,
Mario Kart 7 / Mario Kart 8: Yeah, considering these are sequels in existing franchises that usually have differences such as emphasis on multiplayer or different track, vehicle selection I really can't say these are good examples of living room on the go experiences when the games play, look and are different.

Super Street Fighter IV: 3D Edition / Super Street Fighter IV;
Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D / Donkey Kong Country Returns / Tropical Freeze
Resident Evil: Revelations / Resident Evil: Revelations
Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate + 4 / Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate: There is this practice of moving a game from one system to another, sometimes nearly identical, some time with different changes made to suit the system. This practice is called making ports, with some of these the purpose was to show how the portable system can handle the likes of its console brethren, with the reverse, it is usually a money grab on the developer's part to try to see if the audience is on consoles for the portable game which runs counter to you argument because it is moving portable gaming to a console for a quick buck. Either way comparing 3DS software to the Wii or Wii U won't really work since the main strategy referred to in the original post and what it quotes deals with the Vita acting as a controller for the home consoles or a way to play games that are on the home consoles via remote play as being a selling point rather then the amount of franchises  or ports shared between home and handheld consoles.

His differences in business strategy are exactly what I've been saying they are for quite some time now and exactly why 3DS is booming now where as Vita is stalling.

Mass consumer won't want to simply take their PS4 on the go. They want fresh different experiences that make sense for gaming on the go.

This is why 3DS will compete well even as Apple and Google continue to expand and mature their gaming portfolios while Vita will have a short life-cycle.

Cherry picking at its finest. Great job!

It's also not mutually exclusive to think that there are some people who will want home console experiences on the go, and to think that there are some who won't. If Sony is making games that are specifically tailored for handhelds in addition to their lazier ports of cross-platform games to fill the gaps then one can only surmise that they don't, in fact, see the "handheld gaming occasion" and the "home gaming occasion" as one in the same.

Does Sony mean it when they say "play console quality experiences on the go"? Sure, I suppose they mean it as much as any company means anything they say in their marketing. I suppose they also "mean it" when they take out an ad pimping the Vita as the best place to play various indie games, and they "meant it" when they compared the Vita's back touch panel to a woman with four titties, and they "meant it" when they made a lilac PSP and bundled it with Hannah Montana. But while their messaging may be all over the place as they try to get something to stick to the wall, their overall handheld strategy is consistently non-existent. I think it's the result of SCE being a bunch of little fiefdoms rather than a top-down organization like Nintendo.

You can assume that Sony does, to some extent, realize that some people are not looking for a console experience on the go.  Sony making Patapon doesn't mean they're not focusing on console experiences like Nintendo funding Bayonetta 2 does not mean they're focusing on violent sexual hack and slash games.  Diversit is nice, but doesn't change the clear strategy.  Same goes for the Hanah Montanah Vita.

I haven't seen the Vita indie ad.  As for the four tittied woman, the point of the ad was "hey, we have a touch pad.  It's cool."  They sure chose a weird way to say it, but they clearly were not saying the Vita felt like a tit.  Their big ads, the ones on TV that cost more money, have been nothing if not consisten.  You can play Madden/MLB The Show/Call of Duty on the go.  Their marketing message and their big releases make their strategy pretty clear.

But he's not talking about marketing strategy or messaging. He's saying that the nature of the games themselves should be different. Just because something is called Call of Duty or LittleBigPlanet (and yes, of course a portable COD is going to be marketed as OMG!!!! U CAN PLAYZ COLLARDUTY ON TEH BUS!!!!) doesn't mean the games aren't made with the handheld experience in mind. It's like assuming that MGS: Peace Walker isn't fit to be a handheld game just because MGS 4 wasn't fit to be called a video game.

The other thing is, Moffitt is a PR mouthpiece for Nintendo of America - which makes no games and no decisions. Everything they do is dictated on high from Japan. When you say, "Nintendo's strategy is this", you mean Nintendo of Japan's strategy is this. And that's a valid statement.

But when you say "Sony's strategy is this"... which Sony do you mean? I get the distinct impression that the PSP only existed because Sony thought, "Hey! This PS2 thing is pretty huge! We should make a Gameboy!" And then the success of the PSP in Japan (and nowhere else, really) meant that the Sony Japan was always going to commission a successor. That means that SCEA gets stuck with a system they're not really enthused about. So SCEJ's strategy is to push Vita as the successor of the PSP: a place for hunting action games (sans the hunting action game). SCEE's is to push footy, sign indies like crazy, and make the occasional Tearaway or Invizimals (both pretty handheld oriented things). And SCEA's is to pretty much forget that the thing exists. Lazy ports and PS4 remote play are pretty minimal efforts, a way to do something with something they want nothing to do with.

I don't know why the marketing of SCEA - the branch that is the least involved with the Vita - somehow takes precedence over that of SCEJ, which presides over the region where the Vita is doing most of its business.

Marketing is a part of overall strategy.  Marketing is or should be informed by the product.  We would assume that if Sony is competent, they would base their ad campaign around what is the best feature of their system.  One would also assume that Sony is competent enough to realize that they have to market the console in multiple regions (btw, the PSP's biggest region was Europe and America and Japan were neck and neck .  According to VGChartz numbers more software was sold in US than Japan by about 15 million so far) and would design a product with multiple regions in mind as they are a global software company.

When someone who's job it is to market in the US talks about Sony's strategy, that they are talking about Sony's US strategy.  That's what I'm talking about at least.  Sony is publishing console games and marketing with the slogan "play like you do at home".  It's not working as a strategy, but that's whwat they're doing right now.  I'm going to assume that people are going to be held accountable if the Vita fails, so someone has to care if it succeeds.  It may be a crappy strategy, but that's what they're going with right now.