Asymetric gameplay was for multiplayer. Problem with the concept is:

a) It is not marketable

b) The concepts that would work well with it are fairly limited, and Nintendo would never make a Dungeons and Dragons game

c) People don't play multiplayer locally anyway

Why did they think the Gamepad was a good idea is beyond me. Do they even have focus groups there?

Allot of gamers are reluctant to say it, or even admit it but, being the most under powered also played a huge role in its demise. There is no excuse for that anymore.

He forgot to say there must be something wrong with users that didn't buy it, we'll have to slash at least ten troll points away from his score.    

Not to mention the fact that it had/has support for only one Gamepad, which makes even the local multiplayer kinda worthless in that regard. Even if they supported more than one Gamepad though, the price would probably send people screaming out of stores.

to this day, most people think it's an upgrade, an add on. One of the biggest fuck ups in the history of gaming.

Properly marketed and with a price cut, it could have easily sold 25/30 millions lifetime.

Nintendo went full retard for this gen, they were full of themselves, arrogant, they thought they couldn't fail and that they owned the market... 

They did the same thing with the N64, and Playstation did the same thing with the PS3. The history just keep repeating itself... 

So, in other words, you have NO argument against what I have said and must resort to insults.  Good to know.

It doesn't change the fact that your decision of which handheld belongs to which console "generation" is completely arbitrary, and thus your "statistics" on how many devices Nintendo sold each generation completely meaningless.

If you want to argue against that point, please go ahead and point out why you decided the Gameboy was part of the SNES "generation" and not the NES "generation" or the N64 "generation". Even though the Gameboy was released 2 years before the SNES, and, if you even want to call the Gameboy color a different console (it wasn't, unless you want use the same logic argue that the new 3DS is a new console and separate from the 3DS, which I see you haven't done) was replaced as Nintendo's flagship handheld 2 years after the release of the N64.

The only reason people use this "generation" argument is because it obfuscates Nintendo's declining sales with each console's successor (of course with the exception of the Wii and DS).

So, as we don't know in what exact generation we should place every handhelwd, we just have to ignore the 420m they sold through times and keep telling shit like "Nintendo branch is losing strenght since the very beggining" even when handhelds are part of that branch and, as is already tradition in VGC, completely ignoring the wii era too. Then once you have eliminated those 2 completley essential things in the history of the company you can make any dumb doom theory that you want.

We don't have to ignore it at all. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has released 6 Home consoles, and only one outsold its predecessor. Another fact is that Nintendo released 4 handheld consoles and only one of them outsold its predecessor. It remains a fact that Nintendo is selling less hardware annually than it has since it introduced the Gameboy. You can bring up the Wii and DS era all you want, but as time goes on those console's success appear to be more and more of an anomaly than anything else. It's really hard to argue otherwise.

You can spin things however you want, however it's obvious to everyone that isn't playing for team Nintendo (and that number is dwindling every year) that Nintendo's presence and strength within the console gaming community is diminishing, and has been for quite some time.

That's hardly a fact when in just 4 years GBA sold almost the same as Game Boy in its first 9 years.