I´m still confused about the whole fusion thing. I mean sure it will save Nintendo some time for a couple games, but will cost them way more time than the 2 different platforms strategy overall.
The way I imagine it (and have read here) Nintendo will only produce home console level games (Assets/Size/polish/LoD/vision) and then downscale them to their handheld. This means that every single Handheld game will take as much time (and most importantly money) to develop as a console game. Sure now they instantly have a port of each console game on their Handheld but the overall output would significantly decrease compared to the OPs list.
The other Method would be every game is developed for the HH and ported to the home console. However that would probably spell instant death for the console.
Last but not least would be a mix (every console game is ported to HH and HH to console) of these. Now I really wonder who would buy that console in order to mostly play HH games? And let´s be real most people would still buy the HH instead of the console and Nintendo knows that. Thus we´d essentially be in a kind of reverse Vita situation ("all our HH games can be played on the Console...No need for a lot of original content").

Maybe I´m totally off here and missed some essential fusion concept or took things out of context. If so then tell me what exactly you mean with the fusion/unified platform as well as how it would actually help.

To me, the Fusion strategy, isn't just the same game one two consoles.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo to have bonus content for either version (like a world in a Mario game) or even bonus content for those who have both versions.

Also, another strong selling point would be if you could actually have the HH serve as the controller.
Imagine if for 400-450 you could buy a bundle with the HH and just the HC (the gamepad could be purchased separately, if you wanted it) and then you get all the bonus content.
Wouldn't that encourage people to buy into the strategy?

PS4 and the Vita work together, but they weren't designed to be as one. The Fusion strategy would.

And let's be honest, the situation Nintendo is in right now is a dead end: declining sales for the HC business... again; declining sales for the HH business aswell; little to no 3rd party support on Wii U and only japanese support for 3DS; Wii U games taking a lot of time and man power to develop; next gen HH will require even more manpower and time.
Is there really a better solution for Nintendo?

Pretty much this.

So it would be same game on 2 platforms with bonus content on each? That sounds like the Pokemon v1/v2 tactic but instead of buying 2 versions of the same game on 1 Platform (or trading with friends in pokemons case) I´d have to buy 2 consoles with 1 version of the game each in order to get the "full experience"? I really hope that´s not any kind of idea nintendo looks into right now.

The handheld as a controller thing is ok but not really anything to entice owning both.

To be honest I don´t know if there is a better solution for Nintendo. However I really hope they will find a better one (even if the idea they come up with will exclude me like the wii did) as I agree that it seems both markets are shrinking.

Anyways I still don´t see how Fusion would help a lot with game development.
1) All games are made with hc quality/scope -> less game output/longer dev time -> higher budgets
2) All games made with HH quality/Scope -> dead HC (Or vita TV lvl)
3) Mix of both -> essentially same situation as right now

Yes but they must support the titles with dlc like Mario kart 8. They have many ips but they must learn not to release the same game type together like dk tf and Mario 3d land. Also they need sport games. They have many like power tennis Mario strikers etc. But could you imagine the games schedule. I definitely think I would match the playstation on sales.

What do you think would get more attention: a 200$ HH or 350/400$ HC or a bundle that gives you the best experience for 400-450?
The bonus content is just that: bonus content. You wouldn't miss the full experience if you didn't get one of the versions.
Even in marketing, advertising would be a lot easier and stronger as everyone one seems to love the idea of having your devices all working as one.

If you ask me, it's a whole lo better than the Pokemon situation where you are indeed missing a lot of content.

I have no idea how development is done, but when i look at PC development and see a game running on PCs with different levels of performance, i can't see a reason why Nintendo can't do the same.
And it's nothing new for Sony, for example. Several of their games ended up on PS3 and Vita or PS4 and Vita.

Iwata mentioned that not all games need to be graphically impressive. So you could have games - smaller games - that are based around the HH if that's the case.

As the OP showed, Nintendo can bring a lot of content per year, the only problem is that it's spreadout throughout 2 consoles - with a clear push on 3DS.

As i see it, either they unify development or they keep it separate. And this generation has proven that they can't keep development separate anymore. If 3rd party support was there... then it would be a different story.

This is partially why I increasingly feel that they should go with something that is a "unified" console next gen, something that is an evolution of the Wii U/GamPad concept, except that this time the GamePad is a fully "take it with you and go" portable system of it's own, as well as being a controller for the home unit hooked up to your TV.

Ironically, I also feel if they did this, the third party presence just might come back stronger than ever.

Absolutely. They need 3 or 4 games a month. Even if only half those stick with each person you'll have something new every 2 weeks as far as physical big titles go. Indies fill the gap

There needs to be a lot more diversity if they are going this route, otherwise the platform is going to become oversaturated with bright/colorful looking mascot games.

They're going to have to be careful in that respect, just because you're releasing a lot of games doesn't mean you're necessarily reaching a wide variety of consumers if many of your games are aimed at the exact same demographic.

Maybe... But I really don't like the unified concept to be honest...