Nintendo was never doomed

[Wyrdness]

DélioPT said:

More platforms can absolutely mean more consumers, or do you believe that everyone has the same tastes?

GBA had a monopoly. True.
The 3DS pretty much had a monopoly, with the exception of Japan, where, despite not having a monopoly, it still outsold the GBA. Which means that, not having a monopoly doesn't automatically mean you'll have less sales.
If it outsold GBA in Japan, why couldn't it do it in the US and Europe, where Vita was less competitive?

Why do you bring up profits and mix it with price points?
What matters is what consumers pay. And a few months after launch the big price gap became a low price cup and a year or so after, the price gap was null because of the 2DS.
So, if price was THE biggest issue, when 2DS appeared sales should have soared and they didn't.

So, Nintendo designed 3DS the compete but forgot to do it with Wii U and strangely did that with the first GB (lasted a ton of years and it's "real" competition only came out later)?
The biggest reason why 3DS hasn't been replaced is because it never had serious competition and won't have. Or do you think Nintendo would let 3DS be if Sony had a success with Vita and was planning a Vita 2?
They don't make a move because there's no need.
The second reason being that it was a life saver for Nintendo (given Wii U's bad sales) and they couldn't just start from zero at any time.

It doesn't make sense because you didn't understand me.

At first, i defended that Nintendo did want DS to be a third pillar. 
Business wise it would make sense seeing as it could make them more money - assuming it would work - by attracting a different crowd.
Then, you said that Nintendo already had 2 platforms at once. To which i replied that i was only talking about handhelds, but, given that, it would mean that they would have 3.
I ended that that idea was more of a dream than a reality.

What brings in more consumers is market approach not more platforms as that's what caters to consumer types not having multiple platforms, Gen 3 despite only having the NES and MS moved more units than the Gen before it because the platforms had different approaches where as the gen before it had a tonne of platforms that all did the same approach and ended up crashing the market. What you're saying is flawed and untrue as you're equating two different things into one. I bring up profits because that is what's affected by price point and is what drives business approach, Nintendo are purely a gaming company so have to make profit which in turn affects the price point they go for, if tech is more pricey than what they're used to it will make pricing choices harder as they can't afford to continuously use a business model where they sell at a loss. What the consumer pays is the whole point as portables are still seen in the west as being of lower value because so the price going into console territory was a massive issue and 2DS came out 2 years later when momentum was established, what backs my point on pricing is when the price cut happened the baseline shot up, pricing was also what helped bring down the Vita as well. 3DS was pricier than they wanted because Vita was on the horizon with harware improvements over the PSP which despite getting run over did pretty well so they had to be competitive with progression, this is what competition forces, GBA had non of that.

3DS doesn't have a monpoly because even though it has demolished the Vita the latter putting up a fight in Japan has lead to it snatching a significant chunk of support from the 3DS as a whole not to mention its sales of 16m if they were 3DS units would put the platform's sales above the GBA total, GBA had no platform at all putting up a fight anywhere. Markets shift that's why sales in EU and US aren't like those in Japan, the west has become more console centric in its preference while the east is more portable centric, the's also the case of the consumer base for gaming as a whole changes overtime while the industry is changing. Portables today are seen as the same experience as their home console couterparts which they pretty much are now days so consumers tend not to double dip like they did before when the portable experiences had quite a number of differences when designs were base on pick up and play concepts, instead consumers will buy the one platform that will fill most of their needs. An example is that if half or even a third of the Wii U consumber base don't have a 3DS and were 3DS owners instead it would push the platform wel into the 70m range and likely help the platform finish LT at or above GBA numbers alone.

The 3DS hasn't been replaced because it was a competively good platform and yes Wii U was not a competitive platform either, 3DS destroyed the competition because it allowed Nintendo to be heavily competitive in fighting for consumers even with out the blue ocean consumers that's why it's not replaced and still going. This part of your post is not even very coherent in what point you're trying to make either so I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.

It doesn't make sense because it's not logical as having two portables would hamper and compete against each other, any revenue made would be drained because more resources are need for all platforms.