Yeap, I think Nintendo is the undisputed champ here ...

Not even Sony could translate their dominance from the console market to the handheld market like Curl said ...

Although that doesn't mean they could keep banking on it ...

Probably safe to say but I'm more interested in tallying up the number of people that aren't into strict mobile only gaming vs those who are invested with handhelds, I want to know what Nintendo thinks will happen to the latter crowd since there is always a market for big enough crowds.

they are the best in the handheld market and their games sell great on handhelds

In a way, they've lost to phones.

Whatever, this sort of pressure on Nintendo keeps them creative. If the rumors of the NX being a handheld-console hybrid type thing are true, should be interesting.

Technically all of gaming has lost to phones, we've all lost to the average joe, the casual user if you will, an everyday person who has some time to play a few puzzles but also pop some change towards the game each time they play it which makes the end user insanely rich, if we look at the size of the mobile gaming userbase and total profits then the entire industry has lost to the crowd that was once a part of the Wii, this happens with many different industries these days, especially when it;s easier now to look at one crowd and then another to easily see who's the new/old minority/majority.

I've been this saying all this for quite some time now.

I think Nintendo making another handheld like the 3DS and dominating that traditional market is going to be a moot point because that market is going to become a lot smaller in the next few years. Who cares about dominating a market that only has the capacity to sell 30 million units? Nintendo does and should have higher ambitions than this. The current mobile gaming market leaves a lot to be desired and Nintendo can be the ones who create the next "cool" thing since the Iphone/Ipad. If Nintendo still wants to cater to old-schoolers like me who want a traditional handheld then they can always make a secondary model that does that. That said, their next gen of handhelds should set its sights towards bridging the gap between the mobile and handheld gaming world and addressing the shortcomings on both sides of that gap.

There is no doubt that the idea of a dedicated handheld is going to have to evolve over the next few generations. Nintendo is going to have to think long and hard about ways to continue justifying to gamers why it is important to have a second electronic device in their pockets next to their phones that's just for gaming.

Nintendo might go with a device that is a physical add-on to their phones (ie. "the shell" concept). Even more interestingly, I think Nintendo might develop a razor thin LCD device with on-screen buttons that can wirelessely interface with the gamer's phone and use the phone to do all graphical and processing computations. I believe that physical real-estate in a person's pocket is going to become increasingly important for future gaming handhelds as this will be what justifies to a casual gamer that it's worthwhile to carry two portable devices.

I think that this is the real question to ask: Nintendo needs to be looking for the next new thing, they can't be sitting back and massaging a dying market. Sticking with the traditional and familiar may be what we gamer's want but it is totally the wrong mindset to be having in business.

Not to be nitpicky, but they did. It perform significantly worse than Vita.

Reason why Playstation Phone can never succeed is because market that Sony would want to sell such thing doesn't care if that phone is PS or not. Game is secondary bonus, not a primary goal. And phone market works significantly different from Console market.

Said 'Playstation Phone' will have to include traditional game control, that would make phone extremely thick and at least twice as heavier. Also, it will increase price tag, Game launching for that phone won't be too different from Vita, so it won't attract any 'casual' crowd. And for people who already have a phone, they will have to either purchase unlocked phone at price of 500$+  or set up a new contract.

Considering they will have to keep hardware spec at similar level for around 2~3 years, sales will drop drastically after first year.

That is all assuming they can take the losses from making such product in the first place, AND someone won't just create the emulator for it. Since not using Android will ailenate even more possible buyers, as environment for app would be nonexistent.

That said, getting jailbroken is a given, since it uses Android, which uses Linux frame, they can't set up a low level hack protection. Chance that Google or Apple is going to bend themselves over for Sony is nonexistent.

There is good reason why Sony Ericsson ditched the Idea immediately. Also why Nintendo doesn't seems to bother.

At least, that is how I see it.

Nobody will defeat Nintendo in the handheld market because nobody else will make handhelds in the future.

But are those userbases (core gamers/traditional gamers vs mobile gamers) in the same demographic subset?  Or rather should they be considered as part of that?  I think not.  When the behaviors, desires, and goals of one group differ so radically from another, grouping them together into a subheading of the "general gaming market" or some such is not useful.  What I am saying I suppose is have we lost to them or are they a totally separate, neighboring market that has only recently developed around new technology and only ever used traditional devises for lack of better means to satisfy their needs/wants.  I go with the latter.  And I think most companies also recognize this.

Also, while the mobile market makes it possible to make a lot by spending a little, it is also a massive gamble.  Popularity is so unpredictable and trends move so fast it's hard to find success.  You could produce a game and make oodles of cash.  Or you could produce a game that is actually better than most of the competition only to have it rot in irrelevancy for no quantifiable reason than bad luck.  And the mobile platform limits you because of how the race to the bottom price has driven the perceived value of all mobile games through the floor, limiting what you can charge for any given game.  Basically, you have to bank on freemium revenue (big risk) or bank on selling massive quantities at very low prices (again a big risk).

Basically, all of those two paragraphs to simply say I don't think this arbitrary "mobile vs ttradition" cage match the media plays up is really an accurate reflection of the realities of either market.