Its obvious to us, that this is the right way to go.

Doesnt mean nintendo cant screw it up.

People are irritated that you have to buy VC games twice on the same NNID to be able to play them on 3DS and Wii U so buying the same game twice is not going to be any better, even if one version is cheaper that's still $100 you've suggested there on one game, it also makes migration onto the other platform more of an issue if the only games they're familiar with they have to purchase again. This is why Nintendo had to do incentive for such games like Smash, look at what happened to the PSP when that strategy of porting was being utilized software sales began slowing as people justed opted for one, exclusives that are system sellers are the games that require the most time and resources and handhelds now equal consoles in that department this is why Sony's first party teams don't want to even touch Vita as it's like developing a full on PS3 game. 

The only way Nintendo can make sure their userbase buys both portable and console is through a Fusion platform, just the core amount of Nintendo fans alone on both formats would be around 30m consistently, given the software attachment they are currently showing on their preferred platforms they would shift a good amount of software. Look at the 3DS and Wii U libraries, they're both said by many to have great libraries even over their competitors so picture if they were one platform and the type of library you'd be looking at now.

I think they could go with $50 across the board for the higher budget games and big sellers. One thing to look at is the price for handheld games has consistently gone up.

GBA-$29.99

DS-$34.99

3DS-$39.99

Next gen-$49.99???

Also depending on budget/scope of the game, we will still likely see $30-40 retail games with a bunch of sub-$20 eShop titles. Some ways I believe they can get away with charging less than $60 for games is due to the lower development costs of creating 2 separate entries per series, and because of the potential higher sales of games.

We used Mario Kart as an example, but let's use a lower selling title now. Pikmin 3 has sold like 800k units, if it were available on 3DS as well it could possibly have crossed the 2 million mark. Other games like Tropical Freeze, Captain Toad, Rainbow Curse would certainly have benefited from having the 3DS user base to sell to as well.

I concede my earlier point, Rol and zorg.

To be honest none of the three console manufacturers would be able to adequetely support a modern home console (I mean something that's in the range of a PS4 tech wise or even better) and a portable platform that requires PS3 level assets either.

You look at Sony, this is the THIRD straight holiday season coming for the PS4, and they still haven't managed to internally create a big fall title for the PS4 with Uncharted 4 missing the holiday season.

There's no way any one of these three could manage a decent flow of next-gen games if they also had to make 7-12 handheld games per year with visual fidelity of those games being in the X360/PS3 range.

Expecting Nintendo to somehow be able to do so when they are probably an even smaller company is completely unrealistic. With rising dev costs, Nintendo has to adopt a different model, the fact that the Wii U sold like crap probably just makes it a much, much easier decision.

And I agree with zorg's point above, in fact I'll go further ... the biggest winner from a unified platform approach will be "mid-tier" Nintendo games like Pikmin 3, DKC: Tropical Freeze, Kirby's Rainbow Curse, Captain Toad, etc. All of these games would've likely had sold 2-3x more copies if the 3DS audience had access to those games. But under the current "seperate software ecosystem" setup that Nintendo has, this is impossible, so these games are left to die on the Wii U and underperform. 

There's no reason DKC: Tropical Freeze, a sequel in a franchise that routinely averages 5 million per entry should be sucking wind like a fat kid trying to get up stairs just to hit 1 million perhaps. That is a massive dissapointment for an entry in that franchise. Splatoon would also be far bigger if it wasn't stuck on the Wii U only. 

The Mario Karts ... they'll benefit too of course, but it's the Pikmins, Splatoons, DKCs, Captain Toads, of the Nintendo world that stand to benefit the most from a unified platform approach, right now these games are getting killed by being left to die on the Wii U's piddly 10 million userbase. 

^ True!

Even if the big games like Mario sell copies overall, we shouldn't overlook the fact that one version comes without a budget for development and marketing.
Also, "smaller" games selling more bring in more profits; more games bring in more profits; a diverse line-up brings in new customers, which normally leads to more games being sold.

We can't just look at what may be a loss without looking at it within the bigger picture.

It's not there's some rule on high that there can be only one Mario Kart per generation either.

NX could have Mario Kart 9, and then Mario Kart 10 two or three years later. I don't see the issue, if you can have Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 or Zelda: OoT and Majora's Mask in one generation, then two Mario Karts certainly shouldn't be out of the question.

I think Nintendo's plan will be: release game + DLC for a year or so.

Personally i don't mind only having one MK, Smash strategy. I think it keeps the franchises from going stale and gets people excited for the next installments.
I wouldn't mind seeing the same happen to Zelda, too.

The problem with that is that, with two completely different systems, you could justify two games. Each version provides with enough unique features, thanks to different hardware, to be considered its own game. If you do that with a Fusion, you'll be accused of milking the franchises. Mario Party and seque-based series can be justified, as every incarnation is based on a different gimmick or it's continuing the story, but most of the heavy hitters (Mario Kart and Smash specially) can't be allowed to do that. It's better one MK and one Smash per gen that multiple titles. If you make two different titles per game, people will complain (and with good reasons) about why didn't you just mix the two games to make a more complete title. In the age of updates, DLC and online support, releasing improved versions for the same price is a fraud and a scam (ejem every Street Fighter update ejem).

I agree the doesn't need to be more then one MK, Smash etc per gen, these games retain the core concept in each installment even with adjustments to their approach, it also makes their impact each gen more significant because the one title will reach the majority of its fanbase and with much better online now DLC and balance patches can keep the game going well into the next gen.