I appreciate you correcting me about the Vita and phone. I should have checked to make sure before stating that.

I stll find several problems with the phone thing though. The price is one. People are already thowing fits over the price of consoles. 500 - 600 USD is steep, not to mention conversion in different regions. The market would also compete with Apple. I don't think the something the size of the phone can handle console equivalents in quality with that price. Not to mention the size of the phones would lead to even harder controll inputs: Smaller controllers/limited controlls. Of course you could use an actual controller, but it would be bigger than a phone. It could have built in controllers and that may work, but there is also factors such as it making the phone bigger.

They are capable of doing it, but I don't seeing being nearly as successful,

I don't see the price being a major issue since it is a phone in this scenario. As a phone they can sell it under contract and it will be priced the same as any other flagship product on the market. To me $300 is to much for the current Switch, however, if it had 4G, calling and text, a web browser, and streaming services, I would easily pay $500 for it, and it would be a much greater value than any smartphone I have ever bought.

As for size, that is a definite concern. I think multiple form factors would be required. A Slab style device that links with the DS4 or JoyCon/Pro controller would have to sit along side a Vita/Switch like device (what I call a handheld/phone hybrid). This would give people a "more professional option" that is smaller and more pocketable, and a more versitile option that is slightly bigger, but perfect for gaming on the go. With the expanded gaming abilities, a lot of people would accept a Vita sized gaming phone. With 10nm and 7nm die shrinks coming, Sony could make a Vita sized PS4 in that price range, but it won't happen tell 2019 or 2020. Nintendo could easily do it at 10nm next year or the year after. 

As for competing with Apple. That really can't be avioded. Any mobile/portable device is competeing against Apple, and that is why Sony and Nintendo need to change up their game plan. Your are not going to be viable in a market that offers iPhone, iPhone Plus, iPod, iPad Mini, iPad Pro, and many other similar product lines on Android and Windows, when all you offer is one sized gaming only device. You have to have a range of products that can reach a wider audience. That is why for example, if I was Sony, I would offer a 4.5" and 5.5" slabphone version of the PS Phone, a 5" handheld/phone hybrid version, and a 7" handheld version. This way you hit multiple markets, and build a sustainable userbase.

On the success of the platform. I don't expect them to be over throwing Samsung or Apple any time soon, but I do think both companies can grab a userbase of over 100M people in a span of 5 years. They can definitly build a profitable and sustainable buisness around this kind of device, and the userbase would definitly be signifgantly greater than if they only offered a wifi exclusive handheld. On Sony's side, they can not do any worse than the 5 billion dollars they have dumped into buying, paying for value adjustment, and making losses on Xperia. Since Sony and Nintendo would own their OS and Store front they would pick up a lot of revenue and profit from ads and every sale would yield them some cash. 

I just can't see how they can go wrong, and I definitly don't see how they can not even go after it. Both companies rely on thier gaming hardware to survive, and they have to adapt to a changing market if they want to survive. I just hope it happens before it is to late, and PlayStation and Nintendo have lost all market value.

So you mean that Nintendo wants to cater to the so called 'hardcore gamers', right? But these gamers want m-rated games, sports, shooters and cinematic experiences, this is (mostly) the opposite of what Nintendo offers. Nintendo offers not all that many m-rated games and we hear these days that there won't be a ME:A, Titanfall 2 and REVII. I'm not trying to be rude, but could you please explain what you mean? (If you aren't already tired of it)

I was surprised too. I thought they had accidently played in sound from another interview because at first I thought she wasn't speaking. Looking very hard I could see a little mouth movement.

I read somewhere that european and american people look at the mouth if they listen to someone, while japanese don't do it. Seeing her I understand that it wouldn't help, because she didn't move her mouth.

I was surprised too. I thought they had accidently played in sound from another interview because at first I thought she wasn't speaking. Looking very hard I could see a little mouth movement.

I read somewhere that european and american people look at the mouth if they listen to someone, while japanese don't do it. Seeing her I understand that it wouldn't help, because she didn't move her mouth.

I haven't heard that before.  That's interesting.  Thinking about it, I suppose Japanese doesn't necessarily require a lot of mouth movement.  I wonder if that's true for other Asian countries, especially those with drawn-out vowels.  

You really make an impressive argument. I can't really say much against what you are saying, and you really bring up some amazing points. (would you mind making a thread? This would make for a very interesting discussion).

All I can really say is fear based. I can't imagine something like a 500-600 USD product really being received well by core gamers. While yes, regular gamers wouldn't necessarily be the key market, it will have a strong field of influence.

Even if they are able to create another blue ocean market in the console space, I doubt Apple will sit idly byand let them have it. Especially if it contains a lot of features found in most mobile devices.

I do agree that it could potentially hit a 100m market in five years nontheless, but I feel it would need to contest with overwhelming negative circumstances.

Just because Nintendo does not have many (or for the most part any) M-rated offerings does not correlate to their desire to draw in gamers from different consoles. Its the main reason why they are so adamant about saying they have 3rd parties on board, and why they say they have 80 3rd party games in development). They know they want the gamers and realize they have so much need for third parties. The realized that with the Wii U. However, then they could not execute right. Even now they will struggle with the Switch as evidenced by the titles you mentioned (except RE7 I think the statement means nothing). Power is an issue. Online is an issue. Game quantity is an issue. Trust is an issue; the most important issue, and if Nintendo wants to suceed and gather gamers from other consoles (which they do), they are going to want to earn their trust. It doesn't mean they want to drive them away from the other consoles. Far from it. They want to create an ecosystem that those gamers can be comfortable purchasing their product and playing their games in. Think about it.

They are releasing their roughly 3-4 years into the lifespan of the other 2. They are probably releasing it earlier than desired due to investors and such. They wouldn't ignore Xbox and Playstation fans if they would devote sometime into putting EA on stage just to promote FIFA. They are desperate to engage major third parties to the Switch. And let's think about FIFA for a second. FIFA is a game you can get on every home console. Why would the Switch matter? For one, it shows Nintendo's dedication... to EA. Knowing this is the only thing they currently state is in development (we'll see), Nintendo still put the on stage in the forefront. Why? FIFA on the go could be a concept that engages many gamers, "hardcore" or otherwise into getting the system and getting the game. Nintendo is banking on that, which easily sustains the point they are interested in gamers who just game on Nintendo platforms for Nintendo games. They want to expand their market share, and the only way to do that is to expand their game library,

Lol. No. Why would they waste their time with that? No matter what Nintendo would have done, the respomse would have been the same.

Well yeah, you have a very strong point with FIFA and I fully agree with you on this. Playing FIFA on the go could be big. FIFA did 630k on the Vita and around 1.3m on the PSP, which are quite hot numbers (sadly, the 3DS numbers are lower despite the bigger userbase compared to the Vita). I also think that FIFA is THE key mainstream game ever, even more than a GTA could be. But aside from that, there probably won't be any more mainstream games coming from EA, at least that's what I think. And I don't think that's bad. I believe third parties can be very succesful on the Switch, but just not with their mainstream games. I believe a custom game that fits the Switch could do much better than a Battlefield, for example.

I'm probably going to get much hate for this but from what I can see, third parties only flourish on the other two platforms because Sony and MS let them flourish on purpose by reducing their own supply of games. Therefore, third parties are happy with high sales while the manufacturers are happy wth higher hardware sales and on top of that reduced internal costs as a nice bonus. Win win. But Nintendo is different, they follow their own strategy which is widening their audience in order to gain access to more people who they can show their iconic mascots to. Third parties have to accept the strong competition by Nintendo when they release their games on a Nintendo platform. I don't think Nintendo will ever reduce their games amount or quality so that third parties have a stage to shine. This might sound strange at first, but that's exactly what Sony and MS did after both of them closed some studios recently and concentrated their efforts to a small selection of strong going IPs. So to sum it up, I don't think Nintendo wants to have m-rated mainstream games from third parties. That's not a part of their strategy.