You can say it all you like but the fact of the matter is that at a $200 price point, console won't be 2-3 times more powerful than the wiiU... They have already finalized the hardware a while ago because they need to in order to develop the OS and games in time for the launch. And please don't use the Nvidia shield argument because Nintendo does a royalty/license based system where as Nvida doesn't do that since they make it all themselves. And not to mention that not even that can probably do 1080p with old games at medium settings... Unless you are expecting it being powered by magic, it will be very close to the wiiU. And no, I don't think it can run MK8 and 3d mario at 1080p but DKC:TF, sure

Fine, I will give u the space part cause I heard somewhere that it was less than 4gb but doing some more research, the 3ds is indeed 8

And yes, MK9 will get worse because it won't be an improvement over the wiiU version... Infact, it will be a downgrade because it won't have local play and since both platforms are essentially the same, we won't be having the full fledged console version.

Honestly, I don't see any reason for third parties to make games for the unified platform if they don't put the games on both. The whole point of having the platform unified, at least from a publisher's POV, is that you have access to what is effectively two entire installed bases. They'd be missing out on the millions of potential sales from people who choose to only buy the handheld, especially when the technology is made specifically to make downporting as effortless as possible.

If the unified platform is well recieved and third parties jump in, I think you will see very few examples of games that don't run on both. That's not to say that there won't be differences, but especially games like AssCreed and COD aren't games that couldn't be done on 7th gen hardware and maintain mostly the same gameplay experiences. Smaller crowds and less pretty graphics on the handheld version. Knowing them, they'd probably make the thing run at 30fps to make them look as good as possible.

Well too bad.

There must be a Home and a Handheld version. With UNIFIED OS and Services and Cross Platform ect.

I agree with u that profits are much, much more important that marketshare but the post I was replying to said that such a device would get crushed so I was just pointing out to him that 3/4 of Nintendo's most recent consoles have been crushed by the competitors.

Wouldn't a $200 console that is essentially a souped-up variant of their handheld be more profitable than a $400 powerful console that tries to appeal to an audience that has never really cared about them?

A $400 Nintendo PS4.5 isn't going to win over the COD/GTA/FIFA crowd from PS4/XB1, they will stay on those consoles until PS5/XB4 release, it will essentially sell to the same 15-20 million dedicated Nintendo gamers that buy a Wii U.

A $200 Nintendo consoles that uses a more powerful variant of their handheld chipset with more RAM (think iPhone 6-A8 chipset, 1gb RAM vs iPad-A8X chipset, 2gb RAM) saves Nintendo alot on R&D by not making 2 completely different pieces of hardware and they no longer need to develop games for 2 completely different pieces of software.

Even if it sells less, it's not costing them as much money in R&D and developing exclusive software that is locked to a low install base.

COD, Madden, FIFA, AC were on Wii U at launch, they didn't do shit for Nintendo.

Gamecube had Madden, FIFA, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, Ghost Recon, Medal of Honor, Tony Hawk, Turok, Spawn, Spider-Man, X-Men, Need for Speed, Fight Night, Call of Duty, etc. and a $99 price tag 2 years after launch and it sold a little over 20 million. No multiplats have never helped Nintendo in a meaningful way.

I don't even know if Nintendo has much of a choice.

I've said it before but the way they operate now simply isn't sustainable and it's borderline insane. They are a company that is smaller than EA or Activision in work force, yet they have to support two distinct platforms at once.

And Nintendo does NOT want to expand to be too big of a company because according to Iwata that would ruin/dilute the culture of Nintendo. OK, so that's out.

But the fans then want increasing hardware spec each generation.

They are *barely* able to make ends meet now, you have Wii U owners who are grumpy over a poor release schedule, and you have 3DS owners who aren't happy either as the 3DS has largely been kinda pushed to the side since 2013.

What happens when the 3DS successor comes out and has Vita++ tech and requires even more resources than the 3DS does? And I assume the same Nintendo fans won't accept a Wii U successor that isn't at least on par with PS4. So how is this supposed to work? 

This isn't the 90s anymore where Nintendo could put 15 people on a game and get a blockbuster hit like GoldenEye, and the biggest scale games like Mario 64 had a staff of maybe 40 people. Game Boy development was basically a joke, most GB projects were made with teams of a few people and many games were watered down NES/SNES downports. 

Today Nintendo simply can't operate that way, unified platform that shares games is really the only option they have if they want to have both a handheld and home console that have adequate software support.

And I bet Nintendo would kill for GC sales right now.  GC didn't even get the big blockbuster third party games of that generation like GTA, FF, KH, MGS.  You can't half ass third party support, gamers need to feel confident that when they buy a console they can play all the games they want on that one console.

How could the console be much or any more powerful than Wii U and how could it be an effective handheld from a battery standpoint? If they have some true genius masterminds that can figure those two things out, then fine I guess. But I don't see a fusion console that doesn't sacrifice power on the console side and durability on the portable side being a reality. Both the console and portable aspects take hits. It's like combining both to make both inferior products. I think it would be a huge fail, and this time they wouldn't have a successful portable market to fall back on like the 3DS.

Mobile processors by 2016 will be quite powerful. The Tegra X1 which is launching *this* May in a $200 mini-console from Nvidia (sold at a profit with 3GB RAM no less) generates about XBox 360/PS3 visuals, maybe slightly bigger. It runs Crysis 3 for example. This is a mobile, smartphone/tablet chip mind you. 

Lets say Nintendo had a similar class of chip for the NX portable. 

If they put three of those in a box for the NX console (brother system), it would be a fairly large upgrade over the Wii U. 

Nothing to throw a party about OK, fine, but Nintendo's games already look fantastic on the Wii U really. Something that's even a nice sized upgrade over that would be OK I think. 

A portable and a home console are both fairly different concepts.

Trying to have a compromise of both seems impossible if you ask me, considering you'd have an extremely expensive portable that you most likely wouldn't want to risk taking around, and would need a large battery to support a home console's high specs.