Thank you. I rest my case.

Though, to clarify, I'm obviously not using this as an example to compare current consoles to. I'm just saying that just because something looks like a dog and barks like a dog, that doesn't automatically make it a dog. That's how I feel about the consoles now, and I think that the NX will have a very similar level of visable difference between its platform and current gen consoles like the XBO and PS4. I think that difference will be apparent, but it will absolutely not be a hardware difference. I mean, both will have touch screens, but that's not why Nintendo will market them as "smart" consoles, just like how touch screens are not what makes a smart device a smart device. (if they do go with that branding.)

It will be because of the unprecidented focus on firmware, UI, OS, and platform ecosystem that will put them in a completely different tier of consoles from the other two. And honestly, a lot of it will just be doing what Steam OS does now. The reason why it will feel like a big deal is because of that platform's relationship to the hardware. If Steam OS is like Android, Nintendo NX is like Apple's iOS. It's doing that for a much more mainstream console audience with, hopefully, a more modern UI and OS that doesn't only focus on making games run well, but that makes the user experience of interacting with your library of games as convenient as currently possible.

But this is not me saying that consoles are "dumb" consoles. Just that the focus, contrary to current popular opinion, is squarely on playing games and making those games run well. Not more conveniently, but well. The NX will have a different focus, since consoles don't really need to improve that aspect of games anymore. Consoles have been great at being hardware to play games on for generations. Arguably perfected last generation. I think the NX will, then, focus on making consoles the most convenient platforms for playing games that they can possibly be.

Digital only is convenient. A unified platform where you can play at home and then seemlessly play on the go is convenient. Streaming video games (seriously, Nintendo will be fools not to capitalize on this) is convenient. All the UI, OS, firmware, and platform stuff they will be implementing will be done to make the NX consoles the most modern, accessable, and convenient premium gaming experiences you can possibly get. That's what their MO will be, and that's what they'll be selling their platform on.

And that's why the membership program releasing any day now is so exciting. That is our first tangable, cunsumable glimpse at this ecosystem. If NX is iOS, this is a combination of Apple IDs and a Steam account. This is what will tie you to the NX. This is the key to that platform's doors, and as Nintendo has specifically quoted:

"This membership will form one of the core elements of the new Nintendo platform that I just mentioned." - Iwata

I'm pretty excited by what they may come up with, and I hope alot of what you say is right. The new membership service they'll be doing soon will speak volumes of the future, I hope.... exciting time to be a fan of the big n, I think...... and hope.

I agree with the things you said and I also think it is going to be very exciting. Being able to purchase a large chunk of newly released titles, Virtual Console games and indie titles once and play them on both devices (with my save file being transferred between the two) would be awesome.

What I wonder though ist this: How will Nintendo do this in a way that respects the different jobs handhelds and home consoles perform? What about input methods? We have seen multiple times that people do not want to play home console games on a handheld (at least outside of Japan). The next Nintendo handheld has to get better at competing with smartphone games: Quick, pick-up and play titles that can be played for 5 minutes during a bus ride for instance. If "all" we get is a home console + a handheld with the same control scheme Nintendo would be severely limiting its mass market appeal. The DS and Wii took off because they lowered the barrier to play games and right now Smartphone games are popular because they have a low entry barrier, as well. What I'm saying is: Nintendo's sales situation is not going to change if all we get for NX is a traditional controller (think a Gamepad without a screen) and a PS Vita-like handheld. Bundling two failed uproaches together with a unified account system is not going to make those into a success. It would just spread existing 3DS and Wii U sales more evenly across both devices or even worse make their handheld sales implode. 

iOS makes it easy to release one App for all devices because those devices have one common input method. But so far Nintendo's approach has been to introduce new input methods whenever possible. Buttons and sticks will be present in both devices of course. But how can you replicate the DS's touch screen (assuming there won't be another gamepad) and dual screen on home console NX? What about Wii (U) motion controls on a handheld NX? Is Nintendo going to just throw those things that made their most popular home console and handheld unique out and focus on buttons? And if so, what would stop Sony and Microsoft from making even better unified platforms in the future? In the end, both Sony and Microsoft are larger companies than Nintendo and this sounds a lot like direct competition. Also, third parties will still prefer to release games on their platforms if they offer a similar service. 

I'm not saying your argument is flawed or anything. I totally agree with what you said. I just wonder how Nintendo is going to take on these problems. Because taking away what made the DS and Wii successful for a unified system that features exactly the same input methods as every other console and handheld on the market doesn't seem like a very smart move to me. 

Lets be honest though ... assuming the 3DS actually could run Wii U engines ... which Wii U game that Nintendo has made wouldn't work on the New 3DS at least? It's not as streamlined as Apple, but it's not so different that games would have to be completely reworked. 

I think they are just going to offer Android apps full stop through their own eShop and OS (like Blackberry and Amazon Fire do). 

Which I think is fairly smart. Games aside even there are a ton of Android apps that would greatly broaden the user experience on a Nintendo portable. Video players could allow people to watch movies/TV shows/cartoons, drawing apps could allow people to create art, Facebook-Instagram-Twitter etc. give people their social networking, email apps, music apps, etc. etc. etc. and best of all Nintendo doesn't have to waste any resources developing this functionality. 

I mean, first, they're still going to have two screens for both the handheld and home console, so cross and backwards compatability won't be an issue. I don't think we've seen, at all, that people don't want to see console experiences on a handheld. We've seen the opposite. I think the gaming industry has this issue with thinking that when a platform fails, it's because of that platform's marketed feature. "The PSP Go proves people don't want all digital." "The Wii U proves people hate second screens." "The Vita proves people don't want console experiences on the go." No, they don't. They were just unsuccessful products because of their own plethora of issues.

Case point: The Vita didn't fail because it tried to give console experiences on the go and people were uninterested, it failed because its memory was overpriced, its overall limited niche library is unappealing to a mainstream audience, and it completely lost the multimedia/jailbreaking selling points that made its predecessor such a mindblowing juggarnaut in the pre-iphone era.

I don't think input methods will be an issue. With the n3DS, we can already see them making the moves to syncronize the common inputs between the two. There's very little they'd need to add on top of that to make 99% of games compatible with absolutely no work done between the two outside of scaling. Scroll bumpers can easily replace the LR buttons on the handheld variant. The 3DS already has all the motion controls that the Wii U has. It just doesn't have a Wiimote, but those games just won't be compatible with the handheld, on top of just not being made anymore.

Sony and Microsoft have no platforms to unify. Sony's not doing another handheld, and while I think XB and Win10 will merge, that's not really the same thing. They can copy Nintendo and come out with hardware independant platforms, but that would take time. That's not to say that couldn't eventually compete, but as we've seen with Apple vs. Android, being first to the party helps. They wouldn't necessarily be out of luck if those guys followed suit, which I don't think they will as they have their own ideas of what the future of traditional gaming is that Nintendo won't and couldn't copy.

But lastly, I don't think the handheld will or should try and compete with smartphones at all. That's suicide. They're different markets with similar form factors, but they are not the same. People buying handhelds are looking for more dedicated experiences than what smartphones, on the whole, provide. That's why Nintendo's on smartphones to begin with. They will make those games their and dedicated games on their platform. That's not to say smart phone games are bad, because they aren't, but they are different. They are designed, priced, controlled, and played completely differently than handheld or console games. Ones that try and emulate console games are less successful than ones that take advantage of the platform and its audiences expectations. That's why its absurd to me when people say things like "Pokemon is perfect for mobiles." No, it's not. Nobody wants to play a $40 40 hour, text heavy adventure RPG on their phone. They want to play Pokemon Go on their phone.

Coming soon on the gaming forums of all the world: "Zilog Z80: The Home Computer Processor That Outperforms a NX?"

Yep, I hate when people say things like that. It would be like saying iPhone would fail because N-Gage failed or iPod would fail because of the previous MP3 players that failed to become mainstream. The concept of those devices wasn't the problem, it was the execution.

Exactly. Bolded gets a gold star.

It's not always execution. People always think this is a merit based business and by golly if you do a good job consumers will notice and reward you. No, not always. The market is its own beast and it also dictates where and how things go.

Something that might have worked great 2-8 years ago can often times find itself in tough during a different time period.

Happens with lots of things. Consumer electronics, fashion trends, movies, music, whatever. Certain products that might have worked in a different time don't work at another time, the consumer is the ultimate arbiter of everything and what the mood of the market is constantly changes.

People always shit on the Vita but it's not a bad product. It's not as if the PSP was 8x better product and thus deserved 8x better sales. PSP just had much weaker competetion, back in 2004/05 having a 1.2 megapixel camera on your phone was "ballin'". The access you had to entertainment sources when you left your house was largely nill unless you were a kid that carried around a Game Boy or you had an iPod which was the hot thing that let you listen to music and basically did nothing else. 

If the iPhone did fail, then yes maybe it would be correct to say the market isn't ready for a "smartphone" yet, obviously though that wasn't the case.

Execution is part of it, but so are competitive factors. The market today is very different from the market 10-12 years ago and the market of 10-12 years in the future will be very different from today. The companies that are successful are the ones that can adapt to changing trends.

Making great products and of itself isn't enough. The new Blackberry phone is a well designed, very nice product. Nothing wrong with it. Other than the fact that Blackberry needed that phone 5-6 years ago, because it's coming out now it's not going to do much of anything for their brand. Doesn't mean the product is bad or poorly made. 

Well ya that's pretty obvious but not really what Spemanig and I were getting at. We were simply saying that a product failing doesn't automatically mean it had a bad concept, sometimes a good idea can simply be executed wrong and another company will come along using the same concept and have success.