I expect 2017, as it'll be the traditional 5 years between consoles.

This is all actually what I was thinking Nintendo's strategy was going to be with the NX and mobile; mobile as the replacement for their handheld market and the NX as their main platform.  The only difference is that I think Nintendo should eventually introduce a 3rd device in the NX line; a budget console that's $125-150 and plays games on the big screen at the same resolution as the handheld.  Essentially a model for people who want to use the NX as a companion platform to round out their gaming library and don't care about portability, great graphics/performance or local co-op.  I'd also hope that Nintendo puts some kind of expansion slot on the console model to future-proof it against the PS5/Xbox2.

Like Rol said, multiple exclusive Star Wars & Resident Evil games, Eternal Darkness, Twin Snakes, it also got Mortal Kombat, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, Medal of Honor, Soul Calibur, Prince of Persia, Need for Speed, Madden, FIFA, Tony Hawk, Burnout, Spider Man, Xmen, etc.

The controller was slightly different but very similar, 2 control sticks, 1 D-pad, 4 face buttons, 3 shoulder buttons. And yes it had a purple sku but it also had silver & black.

I think they could simply just take the chip from the handheld and make a microconsole out this, but from the patent it seems like they may want the console controller to have a screen on it too (hence the deal with Sharp for free form LCDs). In which case it probably couldn't be quite that cheap, so if you're going to have a LCD there anyway ...

I guess they could still offer it, but what I'd say is just allow the handheld to then become the "base" Nintendo system. For $220-$250, something that replaces basically both the Wii U and 3DS (which costs $450 to buy today effectively). Mobile chips are becoming so advanced that they can do the job of low/mid-range console these days. This could actually be a bit more powerful than a Wii U while also being the successor to Nintendo's portable heritage. Japan would eat it up and as dual purpose device, it's a nice differniator from cheap tablet games that the consumer can easily understand ("oh I can use this as a console AND like a portable ... cool").  

The "big box" home console that just sits under the TV, I would rethink that entire concept and make that more of a specialty high-end device. Lets face it, the modern console business is Western PC-style games made for American/European players. So the console should be made for that audience and the needs of the Western market. But Nintendo games are shared on both devices, so Nintendo themselves doesn't have to spend a ton of resources they can just take their portable Wii U-or slightly better-looking games from the portable and upscale them 1080p (or even 2K resolution), add in a few graphical effects and call it a day. High end third party games can really take use of that extra power though. Have at it guys. 

Obviously it doesn't need to be some massive $50 million budget game or anything like that but to think kids, females & families don't value quality titles and won't buy games aimed at them is pretty niave. The gaming market is more than teenage & adult males and very few games are being made for anyone but those demographics on consoles.

So make games for them. It's called an iPhone. iPad. Stop forcing a square peg into a round hole. Those types of people don't want a home console and more importantly don't need one in the age of a smartphone/tablet that is with them and super convinenant to play games on. They have good enough graphics for them and a user interface that can't be beat in simplicity (touch only, no buttons, even a 3 year old can play). 

Take advantage of this and simply aim to become one of the top smartphone game makers in the world. And reap a ton of profit. 

Banging your head against a wall trying to sell a audience something when they're not *that* interested is simply a waste of company resources. 

From a practical POV, if all you want to do is play games for maybe 15-20 minutes 2-3x a week (if that), and you don't like complicated or complex games ... what the hell do you really need a console for?

This is like trying to sell a person who just wants to do some light fitness that they need creatine, post work shake, pre work out shake, vitamins and $300 more worth of supplements on a monthly basis. They don't want to be "ripped". They're not training to be Mr. Universe or Wolverine in a Hollywood movie. They just want to be a little healthier.

A game console in the modern world is simply overkill for a person who doesn't want to play really intensive, long game sessions. We have the magical option of choice today. 

Dissapointment with what? I buy whatever product they make, I'm simply stating the realities of the market as they exist in 2016. 

Sell me a console if I'm a casual player. Why should I pay $200-$300 for something like that if all I want to do is playing games for maybe 45-60 minutes a week and smartphone games have plenty of fun to offer, are super easy to play (no buttons or even hand movements), don't require me to buy seperate hardware, and best of all are free. 

It just isn't a sales proposition that I don't see making any sense. "Bu but but ... Mario! Zelda! Nintendo is a special snowflake! Wouldn't you rather pay $50 a game for the same entertainment value?!" isn't good enough of a reason. 

If they do, fine. I would make that model very much like a PC and very easy to port PC games to. Make it cheap and simple to port. 

If they don't want to, so what? 

That's the advantage of a multi-tiered hardware philosophy, you're not stuck up shit creek if one model isn't selling as well as the other one. Apple doesn't give a crap if you buy an iPad or an iPhone or an iPod Touch ... as long as you buy one you can access their app ecosystem and they make money. The higher end model could still have things like a HDD, better graphics for Nintendo games, which will still probably appeal to a bulk of Nintendo fans (who are actually adults, not kids). 

The home console market is what it is, denying it and wishing it was something else isn't going to change that either, or making consoles for the tastes of Japanese housewives isn't helping them much either. 

No one is asking for a niche console that only has 1/10th the content of every other standard. Would you want a cable box that had 1/10th the channels? Or internet service that only let you access 1/10th of the internet? Would you buy an entirely seperate Blu-Ray/disc format for Disney animated movies? Then why is this supposed to be an attractive proposition to someone looking to invest in a video game platform?

The game market actually really didn't change -- Nintendo did. The NES offered the widest breadth of content and had something for everyone even if you didn't give a crap about Mario or Zelda. They are the ones that have turned themselves into the Sega Master System of the console business ... the niche platform with a limited roster of a few nice 1st party games that are supposed to be enough to convince everyone that they should buy into that platform.  

I think it is more likely that they will try to bridge the gap and make games designed to appeal to both sides.

They need to just give this a rest. Casual gamers are casual for a reason, they don't want to sit around playing hours and hours of games, this is not even appealling to them. 

Make games for set audiences, the industry has grown and evolved past this, people have different tastes. Stop trying to argue against them. 

The industry isn't something that needs a savior that Nintendo needs to swoop in rescue, more people play games today than in the 80s/90s/or 2000s on a daily basis and are happy to do so because they have specific hardware options that meet their specific needs. And that's a *good* thing.