lol? do you think young teenagers who like COD etc nowadays will even look at the next nintendo console?

nintendo has an image nowadays of 'casual' 'motion controls' 'nintendogs' etc.  there's an audience for all that shit, but the core don't want it, and so the core don't go near nintendo at the minute

there's no way that nintendo can both keep their casual market, and then change their image enough to capture the core market.  you can quote me on that.  for goodness sake nintendo doesn't even have a substantial online service yet.

On every forum I am everyone is happy about Cafè and hyped for what could happen at E3. And everyone is enjoing its 3DS too, many are waiting for some games or for a redesign. Only on VGC the number of negative thread is so big, I think this as more to do with the sales, but anyway why shouldn't someone be excited about a new console and new games, especially when the previous console (Wii) is pratically dead for new great releases, even by Nintendo?

Tides change quickly in this market, you'll understand that when I quote you 4 years from now. If nintendo even recaptures a portion of that market (which is very likely), you're already wrong.

Wait, are you saying that the "core" = teenagers who play COD?

His question was do you believe them to be teenagers, who play COD. COD is in no way Halo, not even infamous.It sure is a popular game, but does not have the charm Halo has, it is a mass-market game. I won't argue on its quality, but I do doubt its long-lasting appeal as a franchise. Think Tony Hawk here.

The point of all this is that, there are way more segments in the market than you seem to portray. The core itself is very diverse. There are tons of the core who wouldn't care which console they played it on, as long as they got their COD fix. I'm talking masses. They are not the same as those who would buy Uncharted, or Infamous, different than those who would buy portal, and even different than those who would buy Mortal Kombat. All in all, the core in and of itself is a very broad and deep market, on which a sweeping argument like Sony and MS own it is clearly insufficient. 

I think a large portion of the problem with both sides is that they’re based on assumptions rather than information. Basically, if you assume that the rumours are true (which they may not be), the rumours are so vague that they don’t tell us anything that can be used to say anything about the system.

First off, in terms of hardware we have been given vague information about what the components will be without any specifics that would imply how powerful this hardware is; and people are assuming its performance range to justify their biased opinion on whether the system will be successful or not. In many ways I think that this argument is (somewhat) irrelevant because how Nintendo intends to use the hardware is more important than the actual specifications are. After all, the visuals created by similar hardware when outputting graphics in 2D at 720p @ 30fps are significantly different than what can be produced in 3D at 1080p @60fps; and I’m more inclined to believe that Nintendo would focus on 2D at 720p @ 30fps.

Secondly, there is the controller which we know almost nothing about. Even if you assume that Nintendo has a controller with a touchscreen the implications of a device like this are largely based on people’s assumptions about it. If it is their standard primary controller it will have a different impact than if it is a standard alternate controller (see: Nunchuck) or if it is a game based add-on (see: Wii Fit). Secondly, and more importantly in my opinion, is how is Nintendo going to use it. If it is a touch screen for the sake of adding a touch screen it will have a different impact than if it was something Nintendo saw as essential; and even why Nintendo thought it was essential could have an impact, because Nintendo could see it as allowing people to have more undefined widgets in games, or it could be used to merge videogame playing and social networking, or it could even be used to allow people to play videogames without the need of a TV (possibly even introducing interactive TV).

Finally, I see lots of arguments about who people believe that Nintendo is targeting with this system primarily in hypocritical arguments. Even though they always argue that they own a Wii that is gathering dust many (so called) core-gamers argue that Nintendo couldn’t possibly attract their attention to buy a system; and (at the same time) in spite of Nintendo converting the casual audience from the Playstation people argue that Nintendo could never convince casual gamers to buy a new system because they already have something that is good enough.

nintendo got the casual market from playstation because nintendo went way more casual than playstation ever was, and because playstation became a lot more un-casual. the casuals weren't going to buy a ps3 or xbox 360 - and when they seen this mega-casual wii - of course they were going to buy it.

i agree though, that if nintendo makes the most core system we've ever seen, and both ms and sony turn to the casual market, then nintendo will capture the core market.

however, the chances of that happening...........

You're probably not old enough to remember either system, but in terms of "Casual" appeal I would say that the Wii was fairly inline with both the original Playstation and the NES; and the primary reason why the PS2 and SNES could be considered more "Core-friendly" systems was how third party publishers treated them, not based on anything that the console manufacturer did.