I see your point but still disagree greatly, they are not pushing the NEW format of games, ok, but still there is a new format of games (only one for now) that is for a CONSOLE that is not a 3DS (how do you call that?) They plan on selling for backwards compatibility, ok. the analogy you make with 3DS playing DS games is completely different in numbers from mine, ONLY THE very FIRST model of PS3 played PS2 games, that is a single model (of a total of maybe 20?) that can be counted as a PS2 because there is phisically both PS2 CPU and GPU inside (exactly the same chips).
If a new console doesn't exist then no one needs to buy a new one to play Xenoblade remake right? (joking) The box of the game doesn't lie, it is for a NEW console. (I count 2DS as a 3DS if you are wondering if I am biased, I let the boxes decide if one is a new console or not) Sony for example when talking about ps1 titles in recent years always tells that they are "PS1-FORMAT" titles.
People don't count it as a new console because it doesn't have enough new games to be counted as one. Not even remotely close. And if 99,99% of its library is made up of 3DS games, I wouldn't call it backwards compatibility. Because that would be the main library of games that it was primarily designed for. An actual new console is primarily designed for it's new games. This console is not. PS3 had vastly different architecture than PS2, and so they had to go out of their way to ensure that it would be backwards compatible by implementing a secondary chip. That's not the case with new 3DS. It has exactly the same hardware architecture, only a bit more powerful in some areas. It's a 3DS that has the capability of playing some new games. Not a new 3DS that has backwards compatibility. What kind of new console's library is made up of 99% backwards compatible games?
For new 3DS to be counted as a new separate console, it would have needed to be significantly different or more powerful than its predecessor, and have a focus on new games.