really Miyamoto? you think you are helping people save money when they literally have to buy a second console in order to play all the 3rd party AAA titles that skip your console :/

you better try hard, with a really good idea this time then

weird.

A. this "processing war" you speak of had next to nothing to do with ps4's success.  Pricepoint and consumer freedom is what made them so popular.  The processing power isn't even THAT big of a difference.  Most regular consumer's aren't going to notice.  Remember, probably about 50% of gamers are still having their parents buy their consoles.  Their parents don't usually know a processor from a hole in the ground.  What they do know is that on system was $100 more and all that it adds is a camera.  Oh you don't live in an area that has broadband internet available?  well, then your not getting an xbox one.  

B. I may just have a misconception of the popularity of modern pc gaming, but if there are more people playing non-pirated copies of fallout 4 on pc then either xb1 or ps4 then i would be absolutely dumbfounded.

strangely i agree with most of your conclusions, just not how you obtained them.  

i think i just broke ferguson's rule.

been saying that for a LONG while. he, iwata and riggie all need to get sacked right away. 

"We're not interested in High End specs", we are interested in casuals that will buy our toy because it's a fashionable gimmick.

Wii-U Specced tablet with useless gimmicky Amiibos features incoming!

I'm not suggesting that more people are buying fallout 4 on pc than on consoles. Piracy isn't really a factor here.  We are having a discussion about whether specs matter and i'm saying the do and pc gaming is much better now then a year into the ps3. Steam alone has 60 million regularily active users. Even Microsoft recongizes this and is baking a kinds of pc gaming cookies into windows 10 to make sure people are buying windows 10.

My understanding is the ps4's gpu is about 50% more capable than the one in xbox One.  Remember xbox actually has the more advantageous price. Sony may have a lot of exclusives but they aren't selling that well. I could see someone buying a ps4 for exclusives once there is a Gran Tourismo, Uncharted, God of War ect but not for the mediocre collection of exclusives they have to date. Yeah some of them are quite good like Bloodborne but the ones which have mass market appeal haven't been that stellar.

All I know is I went ps4 this gen and I was hardcore xbox before Don Mattrick showed up. Xbox just wasn't speaking my language. Kinect and lower specs than ps4 just didn't work for me. Personally I prefer Microsoft's exclusives compared with Sony. I don't find Sony's style that appealing as Sony seems to be focusing more on games with a lot of story but thin on substance wheras Microsoft exclusives tend to be more gameplay focused experiences like Halo and Gears. But Microsoft still lost me with their lower specs and focus on kinect. I already have to buy a gimmick every gen just to play my Nintendo games when I buy a second console i certainly don't expect to be buying something else with a forced gimmick. Graphics aren't everything but when i'm playing a game i want it to be the best version of the game.

Seems Nintendo os insane according to Vaas if we exclude the Wii of course. Since Nintendo obviously believes the vicious circle can be broken.

Because if they have the most powerful hardware, the system will cost $400+, which is not a "Family friendly", let alone anything outside of "hardcore gamer friendly" price point. Most gamers do not have the raw $$$$ lying around to just run out and buy a $400-600 system, and certainly families do not. Nintendo has always tried to keep their systems around or under $300 a pop at launch, later lowering the price from there (which they need to do with Wii U again very soon).

And beyond that, the fact is, MS and Sony both have direct access to their own hardware resources, while Nintendo does not, they have to go outside to other companies for all of their tech. In general I would imagine it costs them more to go after "high end" tech than it would their two competitors because of that. So it's not cost effective for them, or for the consumer, for them to go after a system that is going to cost too much for the average consumer to be able to afford. I can tell you right now, being a single adult with no kids, that I still, if seeing a new Nintendo console priced $400 or above, would very likely say "nope" on buying one, until years later when it drastically came down in price. Not everyone dedicates huge portions of their personal budget to gaming, and not every gamer should have to.

Why wouldn't they just do both though? A affordable casual console and a "pro" console. Their own games release on both systems, and if they have a cool idea like with the Wii the cheaper casual system makes it accessable to more people.

yeah i said this afew days ago, there next console will be super cheap, price will be there main focus, no expensive hardware, no over the top peripherals.

Yet I can walk into a store and buy a $200 GPU these days that blows the Wii U out of the water. The thing is the tech Nintendo is using is expensive because are adament in using highly propietary parts with an emphasis on low power consumption, small size, etc. 

I don't really see the point, it's not like a console the size of say the NES is unusable, we managed just fine back in the day, but Nintendo's insistence of being a special snowflake and having power consumption so low is puzzling to me. A game console is not like a car, where fuel mileage matters to many people.