Not really. Instead of seeing them as two distinct consoles, they'd pretty much be the same console with different SKUs. Normally, a handheld console and a home console hurt each other because a consumer may have to choose only one and be locked out of the other's library of games. When I was a broke ass college kid, I had to miss the entire DS generation because I chose the Wii. The Wii cannabalized the DS for me, because I couldn't afford both, so I missed out on DS software.

If they share the same library of games (and physical copies of games work on either console), then they don't hurt each other because the same copy is sold to the base of both groups of consumers. The console themselves matter less in this scenario because Nintendo now doesn't have to try to justify development for the less popular console. No more internal debates on "Do we try to salvage the weaker console, or do we cut our losses and go all out on the better seller?". Nintendo can just focus on making games. If one SKU proves to be more popular than the other, so what? Just adjust production accordingly. Software sales and peripherals are where the real money is made anyway.

It's like saying iPad cannabalizes the iPhone. Sure, it does in a way, because there are a demographic of customers that only buy one or the other. But Apple doesn't mind too much. You're buying the same software on whichever one you have, and it's cashing in either way.

Not really. Instead of seeing them as two distinct consoles, they'd pretty much be the same console with different SKUs. Normally, a handheld console and a home console hurt each other because a consumer may have to choose only one and be locked out of the other's library of games. When I was a broke ass college kid, I had to miss the entire DS generation because I chose the Wii. The Wii cannabalized the DS for me, because I couldn't afford both, so I missed out on DS software.

If they share the same library of games (and physical copies of games work on either console), then they don't hurt each other because the same copy is sold to the base of both groups of consumers. The console themselves matter less in this scenario because Nintendo now doesn't have to try to justify development for the less popular console. No more internal debates on "Do we try to salvage the weaker console, or do we cut our losses and go all out on the better seller?". Nintendo can just focus on making games. If one SKU proves to be more popular than the other, so what? Just adjust production accordingly. Software sales and peripherals are where the real money is made anyway.

It's like saying iPad cannabalizes the iPhone. Sure, it does in a way, because there are a demographic of customers that only buy one or the other. But Apple doesn't mind too much. You're buying the same software on whichever one you have, and it's cashing in either way.

Yup you totally get it. 

Even today with lower iPad sales, Apple doesn't really care because they know a lot of that is because people are buying the larger iPhone Plus model which is a phablet. So either way they're getting paid and people are locked in to that iOS ecosystem. 

Well sure I can agree with you guys there, but you're talking about software sales of single titles and I'm talking about hardware. There would be no reason to get the other if you had one, especially since now they have the same exact games. This also cuts out the people who DO own both systems. Before Nintendo could get money from 3D Land AND 3D World. Now they only get money from one. And while building only one game for two systems will mean home console titles release quicker, having to wait for a handheld game to get developed for a home console before releasing it may mean fewer titles on the handheld than what hh console owners are used to. Just think, there have been 2 new hh LoZ (ALBW and Triforce Heroes) and two pretty well upgraded LoZs (MM and OOT). Home console we had Windwaker HD (great updated version) Twilight Princess HD (meh upgrade not even done by Nintendo), and soon Zelda U. I doubt because the developers combine we're going to get 7 LoZ's. It's only when we look directly at individual title's sales that we would see any real benefit.

This ultimately results in fewer consoles sold and less titles developed when looking at Nintendo as a whole entity (home consoles and handheld)in its current state, all they will get from that is a boost in software which they honestly really don't need anyways.

I don't really buy this train of logic because really EAD Tokyo could have made say Mario 3D World and then Super Mario Galaxy 3 in the same time that instead were working on Mario 3D Land and then Mario 3D World. 

There's no rule saying you can only make one Mario game just because you have a unified platform. 

You may not get quite as many Zeldas, but who needs that many freaking Zelda games (7 in one generation?) to play? Let those Zelda teams work on (gasp!) new ideas, you may just stumble upon the next Splatoon or GoldenEye or Pokemon if you let one of these teams do something original once every decade. 

I'm not buying your train of logic that 3d Land and a Galaxy 3 would take anywhere near the same time to develop. Especially if you had to make sure the performance Nintendo is known for holds up on two seperate devices.

Also, the fact that there were 7 LoZs is not the point. I'm saying instead of 4 games now you get two because everything would have the development time of a home console game.

EAD Tokyo's pretty consistent in being able to release a Mario game in about 2- 2 1/2 years if that's what they want to do. 

The bottom line is a unified library will always be strong than a segregated one. And a unified platform gives Nintendo freedom to be more creative in trying more new ideas of broadening the range of franchises they offer. 

You're not under the gun so much to have to deliver one of the same 4-5 franchises over and over and over again every Christmas to sell systems. You can have 1 or 2 teams satisfy that need, but then 2-3 other teams are free to make new games or revisit lesser known IP. 

Well sure I can agree with you guys there, but you're talking about software sales of single titles and I'm talking about hardware. There would be no reason to get the other if you had one, especially since now they have the same exact games. This also cuts out the people who DO own both systems. Before Nintendo could get money from 3D Land AND 3D World. Now they only get money from one. And while building only one game for two systems will mean home console titles release quicker, having to wait for a handheld game to get developed for a home console before releasing it may mean fewer titles on the handheld than what hh console owners are used to. Just think, there have been 2 new hh LoZ (ALBW and Triforce Heroes) and two pretty well upgraded LoZs (MM and OOT). Home console we had Windwaker HD (great updated version) Twilight Princess HD (meh upgrade not even done by Nintendo), and soon Zelda U. I doubt because the developers combine we're going to get 7 LoZ's. It's only when we look directly at individual title's sales that we would see any real benefit.

This ultimately results in fewer consoles sold and less titles developed when looking at Nintendo as a whole entity (home consoles and handheld)in its current state, all they will get from that is a boost in software which they honestly really don't need anyways.

Yes, but that being better is only an illusion when in reality it is because the audience is offered fewer choices.

And yes, I'd love to see more new IP and lesser known IP, but the root of that issue isn't because they aren't capable currently. There are ways. Platinum Games is making Star Fox, so why aren't Nintendo outsourcing more? Why can't these games that take far less time to make than a LOZ not have come this year? They don't have to wait to combine software to cut back on some of the more prevalent titles and release new IP or revisit old, they just don't do it... Very much at least. Kid Icarus, Star Fox, Fire Emblem and Splatoon are great examples of these. I just don't think they want to flood the market with games that aren't really going to sell.

Well, most of the time Nintendo games surpass the million copies sold, and even if they don't, almost all of them are profitable enough to justify their existance. Flops like Codename STEAM are really rare, but that is a risk that comes with developing new things. Splatoon could have easily become a mediocre seller (almost half of this forum thought that was going to be the case), but it turned out to be a smashing success. Risk  is part of the industry. Also, sometimes a console manufacturer has to justify their hardware by artificially adding variety, even if it doesn't sell that well, like Bayonetta 2 or Devil's Third.

Outsorcing more would not solve the core problem. If Capcom makes a new Zelda game, the audience don't see it as a new Capcom game, they see it as a new Zelda game, and still ask for new Capcom games. Audiences want 3rd parties too, I'm sure that most would accept a Nintendo console with 1/4 of the support PS devices get.