You're vastly underestimating how much some people prefer gaming on consoles. Even with the PS3 and Vita, people vastly preferred the PS3 even though the Vita was cheaper and could play many of the same/same types of games, just scaled down. The similar library was a problem for the handheld, not the console. It's a large price difference but also a large performance difference. If you asked most Wii U owners if they'd rather play Zelda U on the Wii U or on the 3DS with downscaled graphics and effects, 99% would choose the Wii U version. You get what you payed for.

If you don't care about the graphical boost and different features offered in the console version, then you could simply buy the handheld. Nintendo wouldn't lose anything from it. They could actually expand their audience even more. People who game on the PS4/XBO who simply refuse to purchase a Nintendo console (or more than one console in general) just to play the few games they're interested in may me more easily swayed to instead purchase the handheld with the same games at a much lower price point.

If Nintendo are going to make another console, they're going to make the leap significant. The console would be more popular in the west, the handheld would be more popular in the east, and the software would be more popular everywhere because of the wider market place.

PS3 launched 5 years earlier and accumulated 100's of games before Vita released and actually they have been the same price for the entirety of Vita's life.

Vita launched in late 2011/early 2012 at $249-wifi, $299 -3G, PS3 at the time was $249-120gb HDD, $299-250 gb HDD. Now Vita is $199, the same price as the 12gb PS3 and I believe $249 for the 500gb sku.

If u make devices with the exact same games, the majority of people will choose the much cheaper option, I have a hard time seeing many people buying the Nintendo console that is $299 when they can buy a Nintendo handheld with the exact same library for $199. And the fact that's just a bunch of extra power that isn't needed.

If a $199 device can offer 1080p/60fps games on a TV, why does it need to be much more powerful, since u already said most Nintendo games are just going to use Wii U level visuals anyway?

U haven't actually explained any reason why adding a bunch of extra power does anything for this device besides adding unnecessary costs.

No, I said that most Nintendo games don't need to be much more complicated than the Wii U's games. Look at the jump from the Wii U the Wii U. How many games truely use the power difference for more than just visual upgrades?

It's not an unessecary cost. People want more power on their home consoles. That's a major reason the Wii U is selling like garbage. If Nintendo releases yet another console in two years that's still not on par with the PS4 and XBO, it'll sell even worse. People are willing to pay more money for stronger hardware. Why would anyone buy a handheld for $200 when they could buy a stronger console with the same games for literally the same price? And a blanket statement like

"If the console can be 1080p for $200, why does it need more power?" Doesn't hold up at all. The games should scale down, not up. The types of games you can potencially make in 1080p 60fps with PS4 hardware will always be more impressive with the types of games that can be made in 1080p 60fps with Wii U hardware. With the Wii U successor having $100 more power than the 3DS successor, it would have much bigger games to scale down. With the gap in hardware power, it differenciates the two platforms. Do I value better looking games with a smoother framerate and better controls on a bigger screen for more money or do I value portability and all the above significantly downgraded for less money, or do I value both and buy two systems?

What I'm saying makes sense while yours doesn't. People simply want the higher performance and are willing to pay more money for it. If you asked someone if they'd rather buy a PS3 to play Destiny or a PS4 to play Destiny, the vast majority would pick the more expensive and more powerful PS4. That difference is stretched even further with a handheld to console difference. If you asked 100 people if they'd rather buy a $300 or even $400 Nintendo console to play the newest 3D Metroid or a cheaper $200 handheld to play the exact same game, the vast majority would chose to pay the extra $100-$200 just for the superior console experience.

The difference is that with a unified platform, Nintendo still gets the people who would rather play it for less on the handheld. 

So basically if games like Tropical Freeze/Mario Kart/Smash Bros were on PS4 level hardware, people would be willing to spend more money on that console?

I don't think power has much to do with Wii U sales, it's because of its price+software output+advertising/marketing. If Wii U were the price of 3DS, along with the software output of 3DS than it would be selling more. If Wii U had more power but the same games it currently has, sales wouldn't improve.

My theory makes just as much sense as urs, it just comes down to preference. But if people really choose power over price, than why did Xbox One sell better than PS4 in the most recent NPD despite losing the previous 10 months? Power has literally never been the major selling point of Nintendo consoles, even when they were as powerful as the competition, it was still software that caused them to sell what they did.

Make them the same price and the only thing comes down to preference. Do u enjoy playing on a handheld or a console, if u make one significantly more powerful/expensive than ur stealing sales from one because ur overstating home much power moves Nintendo devices.

Power has absolutely everything to do with the Wii U's sales. If the Wii U were the price of the 3DS, it would barely be more powerful than the 3DS and would sell less. The Wii U would have more games than it currently has if it were more powerful.

It has nothing to do with preference. PS4 and XBO have different games that make them sell differently to different audiences. The Nintendo platform doesn't have that. It has specs and form factor. Nintendo's consoles have been selling less and less every gen for being less powerful, and everytime their power was competitive, they bottle necked it with something else whether that was carts on the N64 or miniCDs on the GCN. Selling weaker console hardware only harms Nintendo. Selling hardware as weak as you're suggesting is literally suicide. Never before has there been a console weaker than a console a generation before it, which is what you're suggestion. Not even Nintendo is stupid enough to release a 9th gen console that's not even stronger than the weakest 8th gen console.

Making them the same small price only makes the console look cheap and underpowered, and the entire platform will sell less. Consoles are bought for power and consoles are bought for portability. People spend the extra money willingly to get the most out of their system.

Ok, so much wrong with this post. I have to agree with JEMC that there will always be excuses. Gamecube (at NA and European) launch had pretty good 3rd party support, but it died right after.

The thing is that the third parties make their decision on who to support as corporate decisions, not as "who their pals are or which is the easiest to develop". They make it based on money.

Gamecube was designed with developers and costs in mind. It was easy to develop games for, hardware was balanced and development costs were low (in relation). Middleware was well designed and specs were really detailed. Nintendo was very friendly considering third parties, they could come and go as they wish. And Microsoft was not only paying the publishers to have their games on MS system, also had X86 hardware that's familiar to all the PC developers, and the system was the most powerful.

If that's what Nintendo and MS did, Sony must have been really great, right? PS2 had similar architecture with it's geometry engine the N64 had and the devs thought it was hard to develope for. Sony also didn't give any useful specs for 3rd parties, they had to figure everything out themselves. If you wanted to port your game on PS2, you had make extra content on it, otherwise you weren't getting your game on PS2.

Mini-DVD wasn't bottlenecking Gamecube, what the problem with the medium was, it didn't allow lots of animations and maybe large scale voiceacting. With games like Starfox Adventures, Wind Waker and Metroid Prime it's really hard to see the disc size as a bottleneck.

It doesn't matter which games Nintendo makes; third parties are going to tell you anyway that they can't compete Nintendo (not a joke), so by making titles you suggest, it would just make things worse for 3rd party relations.

As Nintendo being one of the big players, it's quite certain Nintendo how to a platform that's affordable to devep for, but the problem is that the industry (which is a handful of big players) would be more willing to see costs shooting even higher than they are, as that's what's limiting the competition and make their positions more secure. Back in 2000, there still were small and mid-sized publishers that had lots of experience on consoles, but today there are only big boys and really small ones - with lots of developers having background on developing on PC.

Historically speaking, usually the less you have cared about third parties and more about yourself, have resulted in better 3rd party support on any platform. Just look at PC - nearly all the games are made with consoles in mind, even when you could just have your game on PC and not give a fuck about the console manufacturer who's after royalties from the games you sell.

You have a point - Nintendo has stated on multiple occasions that it's the software sales where the profit is coming from, and this is what everyone else knows too. But you're wrong about the power; it means basically nothing, while home consoles and handhelds offer you different experience, and besides, even if the platform was unified with two (or more) different devices, the same game could have different features for each device based on their hardware characterictics. If Smash Bros required for example 80% of the work done twice, making a game for same platform with different HW characteristics could require only 10% of the work done twice.

Wii is $99 and more powerful than 3DS, 360 is $179 and much more powerful than 3DS, PS3 is $199 and much more powerful than 3DS. So no I'm not buying ur argument that a 3DS priced console would only be as powerful as 3DS. I'm saying a Nintendo console with the price of a 3DS along with the software library comparable to 3DS would sell much more than Wii U because it would be cheaper and have 100's of games not currently available on Wii U.

U are completely wrong about why Nintendo consoles have sold less than the predeccessors. Most of the decline from NES to SNES was in America, this is due to giving Genesis a 2 year head start and letting it get it's killer app out before the SNES launched. Also an effective ad campaign slandering Nintendo by calling it a kids system, which Nintendo kinda went along with by censoring Mortal Kombat, hurt Nintendo's image.

The majority of the decline from SNES to N64 came in Japan, this is due to losing the RPG/Fighting fanbase, PS1 now had Final Fantasy & Dragon Quest as exclusives and the 2D Fighting crowd had now moved onto 3D Fighters like Tekken which was another PS1 exclusive. Going with carts is why these games ended up on PS1 but consumers did not care about CD vs carts, they cared about the games, if those games were on N64 it would have won regardless of using carts.

The majority of the decline from N64 to GC was once again in America, this is due to losing the strong FPS crowd they had with games like Goldeneye, this crowd went to Xbox because of Halo and the fact that Nintendo no longer had a big FPS exclusive.

Just because a console has never been weaker than a previous gen console, doesn't mean it can never happen. 10 years ago u could say there has never been a console with such a small increase in power over previous gen consoles, then came the Wii which was basically a redesigned, rebranded GC with a faster CPU and more RAM. So just because something has never happened does not mean it can't or never will.

If Wii U had the specs/price of PS4 but the same library that Wii U currently has, would it sell better? Probably not, because people don't care to spend an extra $100 to play 3D World, MK8, Smash U but with improved visuals.

If Wii U had the price of 3DS along with the entire 3DS library but lower specs, would it sell better? Most likely, because it would be $100+ cheaper and have 100's of extra games it currently doesn't have.

i dont think that will be an hybrid handheld/home console.
they will keep a home console and a handheld, but with same OS for easy porting.
arround 50% of the games will be shared, but each console will have their own exclusives.(the big hits will be exclusives: pokemon on handheld, 3d zelda on home console), all VC and indies will be shared.
powerwise, i wouldnt believe in something much more powerfull than ps4. 250 to 300$ at launch.(ps4 will last for at least more 10 years, developers will port for it even when ps5 is in, nintendo home console would benefit from it, if power was a issue for porting)
handheld somewhere between vita and wii U power, 150 to 200$.
date?2017

I don't know where you got that idea from, not saying its wrong simply I have never seen such a pattern. Nintendo's products are typically overpriced by what they're offering in comparison to the competition, luke warm home console sales for them have always been down to software weakness or hardware design. When the Wii U dropped in price there was no notable sale adjustments, sales were more or less flat. Its hardware is wholy unattractive and software line up still one of the worst we've seen despite a few big games here and there. So I will stick firmly with the believe that Nintendo's core fanbase will pay a premium price for Nintendo hardware if it features there key properties delivered in a timely fashion and the hardware itself offers a premium value (cutting edge). They would not just be selling at a premium price, they would be delivering a premium service and marketing the system as one and for that reason your Wii U comparison doesn't make sense for me. When I say price will ''play into repositioning Nintendo's brand'' I'm elduing to being a generally rebranding/marketing the system. Stuff like finding relevant Tv spots and marketing styles to mature/generalise their brand isn't rocket science.

''they will neither be able to get their fans to buy their console nor would fans of the other consoles buy their console for the same reason they aren't buying Wii U's right now''

No one is buying Wii U's right now because it has weak outdated/unappealing hardware that was obsolete the minute it launched, the software is weak, it lacks third party support (largely down to the lack of appeal in the hardware) and has horrible marketing attached to it. I'm suggesting Nintendo's next system would do away with all of those issues.

-Have great, cutting edge hardware far above PS4/X1 and future proofed for the next generation (and as a result)
-Have great 3rd party support, with games which perform far better on it then on PS4/X1 (incentive for core gamers to pay interest in the system as PS4 and X1 will be showing there age in 2017 but probably not have successors for another year or 2). 
-Have great 1st party support out the gate to secure they're core fanbase early, (a matter of planning). This alongside future proofed tech would make far more people comfortable in making the system a primary console for the next gen and thus garuntee them a very impressive launch year in regards to sales (impressive sales act as a form of marketing)
-Market the system in a more mature/neutral way (something which isn't as challenging as you make out-just focus on the games  both 1st/3rd party/focus of the tech using slogans like ''most powerful console ever'' /and design the actual hardware to look sleek and modern. Use the same marketing channels that everyone else uses.

I would expect Nintendo do diversify they're portfolio and have Retro/other western devs deliver something like a Turoq reboot and more mature games big games. The sysem I'm proposing wouldn't have a ton of ''Uncharted/Halo/God Of War/Gran Turismo'' but Mario  >>> All of those franchise if we're being honest. What it would have which is far more important then playing tic for tac in regards 1st party Ips (something even sony has stopped trying) is the established mega selling and consistent 3rd party games people spend the majority of their time playing. Whatever the 3rd party franchise (Mass Effect 4, Elderscrolls 6, Battlefield next, GTA, Metal Gear Solid,  Final Fantasy, Assassins Creed etc), it should be on Nintendo's platform. Third parties like new hardware, especially ones that they can easily port to... even with the Wii U many gave it the benefit of the doubt in spite of its ill fitted hardware. All Nintendo actually needs to do to garunteed long term 3rd party support is not mess up.

The only thing that will be a genuine issue imo is Nintendo being competetive/taken seriously in the online space, but thats fine. This is simply how I think they will grow not how they will convert the entire COD audience and go on to sell 100m systems.