OK?  You were the one disputing numbers (my numbers) and you were correct (no dispute at all from me).  That doesn't magically make 4% a large percentage of something.  4% of the entire human race is a large number (no argument), but it's still a small percentage.  If we're talking about relevance to the human race (which we were) then 4% is not 'a pretty large percentage'.  4% will never be a large percentage of anything, regardless of how large the total is.  That is how percentages work after all.  

It's really not that important if it's 99.6%+ or 96%+ humans on this planet not caring about console gaming - the outcome is still the same.  Gaming is not relevant to most human beings.  That was the point being made and it's accurate.  

It's not accurate and don't tell me how percentages work. You were the one that fucked up in the first place. If you had any inate sense of how numbers worked, you would have realized when you were typing ".04%" that the number was obviously way too low. But in two separate posts, you typed ".04%", which means that you obviously don't have a great understanding of what a high percentage is and what a low percentage is. So why should I accept your OPINION that 4% of the human population is a small percentage? In other scenarios, I totally see what you are saying. Getting a 4% on a test is certainly a low percentage. But we are talking about 4% of the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION! And I don't even know why were just talking about 4%. We all know that way more than 4% of people have played a console game recently, because there are tons of people that don't own consoles that still play them. But if we are talking about 4% of the human population vs. .04% of the human population, that's the difference between gaming being relevent to every person in the entire United States and gaming being relevent to every person in only the city of Chicago. That's a huge fucking difference. FYI, just because something isn't relevent to the majority of human beings doesn't mean it isn't relevent. You would be hard pressed to find something that's relevent to more than 50% of the world. Besides stuff like going to the bathroom and eating.

No flaws? If you used the same argument in Nov 2013, Wii U would be the most successful 8th gen home console. Sega Saturn once had 100% of the US market too. Dreamcast had 100% of the 6th gen market worldwide in a give timeframe. You can't just take random snapshots of the market and ignore the entire context. X1 is only slightly ahead of the Wii U. Does that means that both are almost equaly successful? No. X1 did that in a year, Wii U did that in 2.

Want to prove their relevance? Use an argument that works instead of a flawed one.

Because the reason they chose to delay it in the first place is Nintendo's fault. 

You don't know the reasons why it was delayed. Conveniently you forget too, Ubisoft started this whole mess to begin with by delaying Rayman Origins for a year. 

Can't blame players for not wanting to buy a console they don't want, or developers for not prioritizing such a system.

So by that extension, you blame MS entirely for screwing up the Xbone? Neither the audience, or developers, are to blame for their current circumstance? (the 3rd parties were chief whips in implementing used game licencing control, they just won't state it publicly)

It all starts with Nintendo's initial decisions with the console and which audience they focused on.

How has the focus on Nintendo audiences changed in its history though? They haven't left 3rd Parties behind imo, they told 3rd Parties to come to them (which in retrospect, and the way the industry was heading, was completely wrong and pompous of them) As for the Wii, and DS and 3DS, I think its pretty clear their initial decisions more often than not have worked in their favour. 

What audience does the Gamepad appeal to? There are those who genuinely like it and find it worth the price, and then there are those who tolerate it because they really want to play Nintendo's 1st party games. 

Tolerate is a tough word. If it was anything, it was too similar to a tablet, but not cheap enough or slickly designed enough to be comparable in the same market.