I agree with what you're saying about Nintendo needing to "change the rules."

Nintendo has never been successful when they were copying what other companies were doing.  Nintendo, at its best, has always been a company that breaks down walls and then estabishes new boundaries where they are at the centre.  This was done most significantly with the NES where Nintendo took the broken pieces of the gaming industry and rebuilt it by addressing many of the legitimate concerns that fans had with the old industry.

The NX won't be as earth shattering as the NES, but I feel that it could follow a similar formula.  For example, what are some of the things that Sony and MS are doing right now that are buiding up walls and turning people off of gaming?  

I think one is definitely the high cost to entry that we're seeing now: expensive hardware, fees for online access, saddling games with additional costs by having episodic releases and/or launch DLC.  If Nintendo, on the other hand, can implement a system where gamers could donate their spare CPU cycles to the cloud then Nintendo could potentially even "pay gamers" to beat their games.  Imagine a kid who gets $20/week for his allowance being able to get 20-30% off of new NX games as a reward for beating some of his other games.  A discount system like that could really bring people back to the love of playing games.  Heck, I could even see a lot of adults finally having motivation to go back and actually beat some of their games if they knew that this could give them discounts on future purchases.

I think another area might be the hyper-realistic games and the ever-increasing development times that we are seeing.  Splatoon showed us this year that a shooter doesn't need to be photo-realistic to be fun.  I believe that a point is going to come in the future where developers are going to hit a glass ceiling with how amazing games can look with realistic development timelines.  When that happens, I think gamer's are going to start looking at hyper-realistic games the same way that people now look at movies that have way too much CGI and not enough story.  The point will come when people are going to start caring about other qualities in games and less about the graphics.  I think that Nintendo could be in a good position to capitalize on this since their games already focus more on style and less on graphical realism.

Now, I am not saying that the NX shouldn't be powerful.  I definitely hope that NIntendo can win back some 3rd parties with a more powerful box that is easy to develop for.  That said, I believe the factor that will decide if the NX is successful is (like you said) whether Nintendo can carve out a new market and change the rules of the game. 

You're right, I misunderstood you. My apologies.

Dude, we're brainstorming and it's an idea.  I personally find that Soundwave and Zorg both provide excellent speculative analysis when it comes to the NX.  They don't have to be right for their ideas to be interesting and useful.  I think your criticism is unnecessarily harsh and I, for one, hope that Soundwave continues to share his ideas and make threads.  

Singular Nintendo hardware will be doomed to fail unless it has a miracle controller.

That's just what the market is. You can say "blah blah blah hardware upgrades, multiple hardware doesn't work" well guess what else doesn't work in 2015. The NINTENDO CONSOLE. Unless Nintendo changes the formula dramatically, they are not going to go anywhere.

Nintendo's own games IMO would scale fairly easily anyway. You look at the new Zelda game, and if you bumped that to 1080p resolution (or even beyond that ... 2K?) added in anti-aliasing and some better lighting shader effects, you'd have a game that would look on par with just about anything on the PS4/XB1.

I mean shit, Zelda: WW, a 13 year old game bumped up to HD with some redone artwork basically looks as good as most of their Wii U titles.

If you can take their internal games and scale them up and down, then the trade off there is worth it IMO because they won't have to make seperate games for console and handheld. Then you can have varying form factors.

The way the market is now, Nintendo has no chance of competing against Sony. What Nintendo fans are asking for is for Nintendo to basically keep doing the same thing over and over again and thinking it will yield different results. It won't. Even just sharing handheld and console games IMO won't do enough. All that will do is basically kill the Nintendo console as people who buy the portable will have zero practical reason to buy the console. 

Personally what I would reccomend is NX be a NEUTRAL BRAND. Not "here's the new Nintendo console with 1000 fruity mascots and a traditional toy design! It's the GameCube 3 basically!". Make the brand "NX" almost separate and distinct from "Nintendo". "NX" plays video games. "NX" is multiple devices. "NX" is age neutral, it's not "your little brother's console" that all Nintendo consoles get stigmatized as. NX just happens to have (wouldn't you know it) all Nintendo IP exclusive and Nintendo Virtual Console on top of other video games. 

Also the cloud computing patent Nintendo filed to me shows something far more ambitious than even what I'm proposing. If that's what Nintendo is actually doing it will completely change the traditional hardware market IMO. It will basically destroy the entire hardware model of the last 30 years. 

But Soundwave's ideas objectively aren't useful in this case. It would be similar to someone making a thread of how great of a move it would be if Sony published all of the Uncharted 4 on the Xbox One because they would sell even more copies of Uncharted 4 than they could just selling it on PS4. I'm sorry, but no, that really isn't a good idea for Sony to do that. Period. This whole concept of Nintendo making an upgradable modular console It makes even less sense.

Sega tried it with the Sega CD and 32X. Nintendo tried it before with the N64 and the expansion pak. Valve is trying it now with the Steam box platform. How well did any of those ideas churn out? Ohh right. All were complete and utter failures. The 32X sold well less than a million units. Two games actually required the expansion pak, and the Steam box platform? No one's buying it, and that's marketed to people that demonstratbly want to have upgradable hardware. It is just so obvious that the mere concept is such a horrific idea. It's really that bad.

You can dream of all the nonsense you want, but it's another to say "this is how Nintendo should make their next console. This idea would be successful". Well no. No it won't. No one will buy it. No third party would support it, and it takes very little common sense and knowledge of the game industry to know how obvious it is as to why Nintendo shouldn't even think about going in that direction.

Let's move on to ideas that actually have some merit, some validity. Let's not keep exploring something that is a blatant waste of time.

And now we're back to "scaling". Brilliant. Because it's just that easy, right? Last I checked, HD remakes were a tremendous amount of effort that take dozens of people months, if not years to just take a game from one single hardware spec to another. And that's not creating a game that can "scale" between multiple hardware specs. Now Nintendo is just going to make a development platform that practically does this on the fly, or just allows developers to "recompile it to use different specs"? Okay Still not a practical idea.

Aside from that, you're essentially suggesting that NX be an operating system. How's that working out for Valve and the Steam OS? I thougth you were suggesting that Nintendo should push the video game industry in new directions. Every idea you've mentioned as a direction to go for either a) already exists in a well established market with dominant industry players that Nintendo would have to compete against b) has been tried or is being tried by a rival which they've failed at, or c) the kind of idea that would get someone fired for even suggesting it, and expecting other decision makers to actually take it seriously.

Even the cloud computing patent you're referring to would be Nintendo's version of "Playstation Now" with a twist of "folding at home". Or in another way of looking at it, it's Microsoft's cloud-based solution where instead of server-based cloud computing you use other people's game consoles and rely on other people's internet connections to supplement your single player experience. That's supposed to turn the industry on it's head?What could be an "always-online single player solution"? Ask MS how that turned out for them, while you're at it, why don't you ask them how Microsoft's supplemental cloud computing solution has allowed the Xbox One to close the hardware gap to the PS4. I can promise you that Microsoft is way way better at cloud computing than Nintendo will ever be.

Just please before you make another post about how great of an idea this is or that is, take a while and think about where the industry is, where it came from, what Nintendo has done, what their competitors have done or plan to do, and if this idea will actually work. Take a few minutes and think long and hard about it, and see if you can think about any reasonable reasons why it wouldn't work before you start raving about how great the idea is. It might serve you well.

Sure. But when was the last time they suceeded on capturing both markets? SNES? Its a tough one.

They captured both markets with their handhelds. The 3DS has a bigger proportion of dedicated gamers than the DS and the GB. The GBA seems to me like the perfect equilibrium.

I can only say i hope they can do it, but i have my doubts.

Like I just said, Wii & DS had a bunch of solid titles for hardcore audiences.