"Ok, so Awakening/Fates were able to increase the appeal of the franchise even without being visually better than Dawn/Path of Radiance. Isnt that proof that visuals really arent that big of a factor and future games wont be seen as gimped?"

But... you were just saying that improving the graphics within the series was a big deal...

"No, it wont be several hundred dollars cheaper, but it will be a seperate type of device with different software and hardware features, just like PS4/XBO vs PC."

When the price difference is that big, you can't say they're the same situation.  If a high end gaming PC sold for $450 or $500, I'd imagine that would severely damage the PS4's prospects. The comparison is not apt.

If i recall, data from last generation showed that a large number of PS3/360 owners had a Wii and vice versa. Wii was not competing directly with them yet they were able to appeal to many of the same people.

Not sure about that, I'd need to see the data.  But, if they're appealing to the same people, then they're in competition.  Some people will decide on both, and others will choose one.  I had a PSP and a DS, as I'm sure many others did.  Didn't mean they weren't competing.  

Im not buying those numbers, they simply dont add up. How did they go from losing about $100 per unit to gaining $100 per unit in the matter of a year?

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/11/8239/

What im getting at is Nintendo would have to pay each 3rd party a percentage of the revenue for making their games a part of the service instead of receiving a royalty fee from them because 3rd parties sure as hell are going to want to get paid. So what % of this $25 subscription service would be a profit for Nintendo, $5?

You're asking to get pretty deep into a purely hypothetical business model... But I don't think it would be a percentage, as I'm pretty sure that's not how things like Netflix work.  It would be a licensing fee.  For instance, Nintendo might pay something like 10 million or so to put Just Dance on their service (just a round hypothetical number).  After that, Ubisoft is paid.  Nintendo keeps all the money for the subscription.

So, if Nintendo has 5 million active users, that's 125 million dollars a month.  They pay whatever they need to pay out for games licenses, and then the rest is profit (or margin at least).  If 2 years from launch Nintendo has 15 million active users (a fairly modest goal), then that'd be 375 million a month.  

Of course, their could be varying deals for different companies.  For instance, some games may earn some kind of bonus for being downloaded x number of times.  Or indie games may not earn a licensing fee unless a certain threshhold is met. 

I can't really say exactly how it would work, because this is a theoretical thing that won't happen in the future.  But, there's no reason it wouldn't be possible.

Plus the fact that no subscription service starts out with massive numbers, Xbox Live, PS Plus, Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify, etc. all of these services needed years to build up and become the services they are now. If Nintendo were to go with a subscription model, it would need to be introduced and given time to grow before it became a massive money earner for them. 

I think it would grow faster than those things, since it's tied so intricately to the machine.  I'd imagine they may even do the account activation at the point of sales (which would earn retailers a fee and give them a reason to promote the console).  But, yeah, it'd take time, and it would be a big risk.  But companies don't turn things around by playing it safe.

I think it's better just to think of the NX as a portable that's so powerful that it can double as a TV console as a secondary feature.

It's primarily a portable device, but given Nintendo's history in the console biz, it allows Nintendo to at least keep one toe in the console water, without actually having to make a full blown console. 

No, my argument was that nobody will consider them gimped.

Its not a 100% comparable situation, ill give you that, but the overall point still stands.

Yes they are in competition in the general sense that all products are in competition with one another. Some people will have to choose one or the other, buts that no different than someone having to make a choice between a new TV vs a new Smartphone, what im getting at is they arent overly redundant products where if you have one than you have no need for the other.

I still dont get how they shaved $200 off production costs in a single year.

You're right, we are getting pretty in depth about this and kinda getting off track, but there is one last thing i need to say, Nintendo is constantly talking about how they cannot devalue their IP and that is exactly what such a model would do, they dont want to go from selling $40-60 premium software to allowing unlimited use of all their games for a low monthly fee. It doesnt benefit them.

"No, my argument was that nobody will consider them gimped."

Except that people complain about that all the time in regards to the Wii U.  And it's a bigger deal when we're talking about the same game.  If one system has way better looking versions of all multiplatform games, then wouldn't that be an advantage for that system?

Yes they are in competition in the general sense that all products are in competition with one another. Some people will have to choose one or the other, buts that no different than someone having to make a choice between a new TV vs a new Smartphone, what im getting at is they arent overly redundant products where if you have one than you have no need for the other.

Go to your local electronics store.  I'm basically 100% sure that the Wii U will be found in the same section as the PS4 and XBox One.  I'm pretty sure they're not selling iPhones in the TV section.

The function of the Wii U and the PS4 are essentially the same.  They both primarily play games.  Nintendo may focus more on a certain demographic, but there is a huge overlap.  You're saying that they're not overly redundant, but you can get Skylanders, Just Dance, or the Lego games on either one.  Both of them feature Kart Racing games, both have platform games where you create the levels.  Unless Nintendo gets no third party support again, a significant part of their libraries will be redundant.  

Unless Nintendo does something completely off the rails, the products are redundant to a large extent.  

I still dont get how they shaved $200 off production costs in a single year.

I'm not an expert on these things, and I don't know if you are either.  Arstechnica is generally a fairly reliable source.

You're right, we are getting pretty in depth about this and kinda getting off track, but there is one last thing i need to say, Nintendo is constantly talking about how they cannot devalue their IP and that is exactly what such a model would do, they dont want to go from selling $40-60 premium software to allowing unlimited use of all their games for a low monthly fee. It doesnt benefit them.

I don't think offering it as a service is devaluing them.  It's saying that their products are valuable enough that it's worth paying to be able to use them month after month.  It locks people into their ecosystem, keeps players engaged, will likely generate more revenue than retail only model, and encourages a wider variety of people to try their games.

There are a lot of benefits.  And either way, something like this is going to happen one way or the other.  Blockbuster was offered the oppurtunity to buy Netflix, but they wanted to maintain their business model.  And, we know how that turned on.  In the technology world, you adapt with the times, or you get left behind.

All that being said I'm absolutely certain Nintendo is doing nothing like this.  You just asked what I think they should do, and that's what I'd do if I was in charge of Nintendo.

People dont consider MK8, SSB4, etc. gimped games, the fact that Nintendo makes high quality, great looking games despite weaker hardware is literally Wii U's only redeeming quality. Ive been saying this entire time that multiplats should not be a major focus and will do very little for Nintendo, so i dont see how they fit in the "gimped" part of our convo.

Go to your local Walmart, Target, etc. and you will see that there is a general electronics department where phones, TV's, DVD/Bluray, video games, laptops, tablets, set top boxes, MP3 Players, headphones, stereos, cords, remotes, etc. can all be found within a 15 foot radius. They must all be directly competing!!!!!!!

No, stores do this to be organized, of course video games are next to video games, thats just common sense.

That is an extreme over simplification, "they are both video game devices, therefore they are redundant". The PS/XB ecosystems having hundreds of games not in the Nintendo ecosystem and vice versa is what causes them to not be overly redundant. That and various exclusive system features.

Im not saying they arent reliable, just that it seems crazy that they were able to go from $100 loss to $100 gain in a year.

Yeah i think people are still comparing it to Xone and PS4, because the NX is still very obscure to most people and price will be factor too.

I find hard to believe that Nintendo will be able to sell it at a reasonable price given the detachable controllers will need there own batteries as well as the main unit.

"People dont consider MK8, SSB4, etc. gimped games, the fact that Nintendo makes high quality, great looking games despite weaker hardware is literally Wii U's only redeeming quality. Ive been saying this entire time that multiplats should not be a major focus and will do very little for Nintendo, so i dont see how they fit in the "gimped" part of our convo."

You say that's it's only redeeming quality... which is probably right.  Because Nintendo is the only one making games for the thing.  That's largely because the hardware is weaker than its competitors.  Or, gimped.  I'm not going to argue over the word, but I'm pretty sure you'd agree that having significantly weaker hardware is a negative... right?

"Go to your local Walmart, Target, etc. and you will see that there is a general electronics department where phones, TV's, DVD/Bluray, video games, laptops, tablets, set top boxes, MP3 Players, headphones, stereos, cords, remotes, etc. can all be found within a 15 foot radius. They must all be directly competing!!!!!!!

No, stores do this to be organized, of course video games are next to video games, thats just common sense.

That is an extreme over simplification, "they are both video game devices, therefore they are redundant". The PS/XB ecosystems having hundreds of games not in the Nintendo ecosystem and vice versa is what causes them to not be overly redundant. That and various exclusive system features."

And that general electronics section will be broken up into smaller sections.  Because when a person is deciding on whether or not to buy a video game system for their kids, it's fairly likely they'll look at the Wii U and the PS4.  When someone needs  a TV their superbowl party, they are not going to choose between an iPhone 6, a washing machine, and a Samsung OLED.  The competition is absolutely FAR more direct for video game systems.

As for different libraries, I just don't buy that.  It doesn't make the products distinct enough in the eyes of consumers, particularly the less hardcore ones.  The Genesis and Super Nintendo had almost entirely different libraries, and they were certainly in direct competition.  Same situation with the N64 and PS1.  Even with the PS3 and Wii, Sony made comments and commercials specifically addressing the Wii.  Since then, libraries have gotten more and more similar, making products more and more redundant.

If you don't believe me though, here are some quotes from Reggie.

"The dirty little secret is, if you look at life-to-date numbers between Sony and Nintendo, they’d be pretty close in terms of PS4 vs. Wii U, with Xbox coming in third place. I think it’s going to be a three-horse race for the balance of this cycle.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2014/06/13/ps4-wii-u-sales-are-pretty-close-according-to-nintendo/#uWDO9FAYLUDfhPYR.99"

"When we launched Wii U, we missed the opportunity to be clear on the concept, to show off its capabilities and what the users could do. And that hurt us. Sales were also hurt, during the beginning of its lifespan, by the lack of games. And although we've sold 13 million consoles, against 20 and 40 million from the competition (Microsoft and Sony, respectively), what pleases us the most is that Wii U has the games with the best reviews and ratings from fans."

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/07/reggie_fils-aime_on_why_the_wii_u_was_misunderstood

"Arguably, if you line up all of the single platform games for Wii U and the other two platforms, we have by far the most unique games that are highly rated by consumers and highly rated by the media.

http://www.alistdaily.com/strategy/nintendo-president-reggie-fils-aime-discusses-nintendo-nx/"

If they're not in competition with Sony and Microsoft, you should let Nintendo of America know, because they're operating under a grave misconception.

No i do not see NX being weaker than PS4/XBO as a negative because the positives far outweigh it.

Like i said, stores do this to be organized, not for competition purposes.

Wii U aimed to be a direct competitor to Sony/Microsoft, something they did not do with Wii and should not do with NX.

If it's 6+ inches it's primarily a home console as far as I'm concerned. :P

Errrr... if you don't see a weaker system as a negative, I don't know what to say.  From a consumer perspective, how can that possibly be a positive?

Stores are organized that that products so that products that consumers are likely to choose between are together.  Similar products are grouped together.  This was a response to your comment about iphones and TVs competing, which is obviously a faulty analogy.  I'm not going to argue about how retailers organize their stores, but it's clear that the Wii U is far more similar to the PS4 than a Galaxy note is to a TV.

"Wii U was not aimed at being a direct competitor to the Sony/Microsoft any more than the Wii was.  It was an underpowered system meant to sell on the power of a unique controller.  Only difference is that the execution on the Wii U was horrible."

If I really have to drag up comments from the Wii era... fine.

"360 is selling well only in one country: UK," he said.

"Across the rest of Europe, it is not performing well. Wii on the other hand, is selling exceptionally well all through Europe."

""they've [Sony] got some great games that they've been able to bring out, some great content, but you look at the results and clearly they've got some challenges".

"Why would [Wii owners] say that [they now want a PS3]?" Reggie asked. "So I'm a consumer and I'm having a great experience with my Wii. And we know that's the case - we look at the software that's being purchased. Consumers love the Wii. What's going to motivate them to spend minimally $300 for a new [PS3] system, plus minimally $100 for the Move motion bundle? So [as a consumer] now I'm into this for $400 and I still have to spend money on software. What's going to motivate me to do that?"

Yes, Nintendo's video game console is competing with other videogame consoles that are in the same price range, share many of same games, many of the same features, and have the same core functionality.  Just because one has Mario Maker, and one plays Little Big Planet does not mean they are not competing.