Does Nintendo require VR/AR to remain relevant...?

[freebs2]

oniyide said:

freebs2 said:

It's not a matter of pride. It's a matter of acknowledging the fact that what they offer is different form Microsoft and Sony, so to try to extend their userbase without the presumption to take their place.

If that's seen as sign of being inferior dependes on your personal tastes, for one like me, who likes Nintendo consoles and other platforms as well it would be an equally great thing. After all, you only mentioned PS and Xbox in your comment which leads me to believe if I only mentioned Tablet and Smartphones you wouldn't have seen this as an admission of inferiority - That's because, for your personal tastes, you don't put to question the superiority of consoles over smartphones as gaming devices.

sure what they offer is different, BUT to say they are going to be a good secondary, would have to entail their is a PRIMARY and if they are not the primary then wouldnt they be in fact inferior? 

Consoles arent even in the same markey as tablets and phones, im not quite sure why you brought them up to be honest. Im talking strictly home consoles. And for me they could be seen as equal. But as we see the vast majority arent seeing it that way.

It's not a matter of being primary and secondary. It's more a matter of being complementary. Yes, they should be a good complementary (but you can also call it secondary) option for those who prefer other devices as thier primary choice, which doesn't exclude being a primary choice for a different people or a different target. Take any handheld for example, it is a commonly accepted they're mainly targeted at kids - meaning they are a primary choice for many kids, but at the same time they're also a good complementary choice for many home console players.

Also if we talk about games, consoles, smarphones and tablets are in the same market, but they don't compete with each other yet since their not seen as substitutes.