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No one is buying Wii U's right now because it has weak outdated/unappealing hardware that was obsolete the minute it launched, the software is weak, it lacks third party support (largely down to the lack of appeal in the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. 

Just to point you out that Iwata talked about programming directly to hardware, meaning hardware compatibility and not OS,  and unified development, that specifically means no porting.

That's why Iwata mentions a unified architecture.

What Nintendo could do is, for example, launch a handheld with a low power AMD APU like Mullins with 2 or 4 low power AMD x86 cores and a 128 GCN GPU. And then, for its home console they could go again with AMD with 8 of those low power x86 cores and the equivalent of a 280X GPU part that's also based on the GCN architecture.

That way Nintendo could develop just one set of tools for both platforms, meaning that the devs would only have to learn them once, making the development of the games faster and with the option of launching them on both machines without the need of porting the games, just scaling down or up the assets.

There are two main characteristics for any videogame consoles; ones that are overpriced compared to what competition is offering and ones that underpowered. All the 8th generation consoles fit both categories. It's really hard to justify the pricetags of the 3 consoles when the last generation ones have big libraries and they're going to sell you only sequels anyway.

When we look at the most mature games this generation so far, they're already on the Wii U, as it has Wii Fit U and Wii Sports Club.

LMAO well I see no lies here

The above however makes no sense to me. PS4/X1 are the future of gaming, its not hard to justify there reasonable 399 price when they play superior versions of all of the games released this holiday/most of the games over the last 12month and have had majors exclusives over their predecessor in the last 12month (Halo MMC/Forza 5/Sunset OD/DeadRising/Killzone/Infamous/Driveclub), far better OS and social features and they are the only way to access 2015's major game line up (Dying light/Evolve/FFType/Witcher3/Batman/Devision/Starwars Battlefront/AC victory/The Order/Halo 5/Uncharted 4....) In terms of being underpowered, not in comparison to their competition (each other-PC is not direct comp), not respective to there price over their predecessors.

I'm not sure that's enough, performance difference is pretty big.

I think if they're trying to go for 4-5TFLOPS console GPU (which would be pretty good since I think they'll stick to 1080p, upscalable to 4K, as opposed to MSony which will most likely go for anamorphic 2160p), IMO, they would need at least equivalent of iPad Air 2 or nVidia Shield Tablet if they want to make development for both systems scalable enough, even if they opt for 540p screen - which is not really out of reach considering that Shield is $300 with 8" 1200p resolution screen and that nVidia has just recently shown Tegra X1 with around twice the performance, so by mid 2016 K1 equivalent hardware shouldn't be very expensive.