I don't mean nor did I imply that they are not in the console market or trying not to be.
If this is true then they are competing with Sony and Microsoft in the console market. It is as simple as that.
Even if they didn't come up with a new controller, chances are they would still try to be different than the rest, it's just how Nintendo is nowadays.
But they're not unique in doing that. Microsoft is attracting a different type of gamer than Sony is by providing a different gaming experience. While there is overlap (especially in terms of third party games) that is done purely to offer the customer as broad a range of gaming experience as possible, but each company has their own target audience. Even looking at the last gen it was easy to see what kind of gamer would choose which system. For Nintendo to say the Rev is not competing with the 360 or the PS3 because it's different (especially if their main arguement is what you said about not keeping up technologically) is like Sony saying it wasn't competing with the Xbox or the Gamecube because it was technically inferior. The phrase "different than the rest" can be applied to every company in the next console war, and it does not mean they are not competing against each other.
Price, quality and game selection usualy can define these two catagories. Or you can go with ease of development or game quality.
First problem with your definition: Deciding whether choice 1(price, quality, game selection) should be used instead of choice 2 (ease of development, game quality), or vice versa, is in of itself a subjective choice. Choosing either of these will be a result of your personal bias of which you find to be more important. Already objectivity has been lost
Second Problem: while the lowest price can easily be found, it is not always a good indicator of "features and benefits." In fact, the lowest price usually results in the fewest of these, and that can hardly be considered the "best" product. A product that has all the "features and benefits" will most likely be priced much higher than a product that does not. So when you say that price can help define a product as superior or inferior, do you mean that the highest price will help it be the superior product? Or do you mean the lowest priced product that still provides as many features and benefits as possible is the superior product, the most "bang for your buck" as it were? But which features are necessary and which ones aren't? Which benefits are the most important to have? Or is it more important to have all the features and benefits no matter what the cost? Again, subjectivity, opinion, bias comes into play.
Third problem: Quality is a subjective term in itself. Does quality mean newest technology, reliability, lifespan, durability, look, or physical size? And if it is all of these and more then is the superior product the one that wins all of these categories, or is lifespan more important than physical size? Would you rather have the latest graphics card or an older, more stable one?
Fourth problem: Game selection. Do you mean the largest game selection? The game selection that offers the most "quality" games? Does a company have to do both in order to have the superior product, or is it more important for them to have quality titles than a large quantity of them?
OK, I won't even continue, because what I've said is already overkill. But I hope you see what I'm saying. Just because average Joe has been spoon fed his information from his neighbour, that doesn't mean the information you've been spoon fed is any more credible, or any more
correct. Everyone is subject to their own biases, everyone. There is no universal truth about which console is the "best." There are a lot of opinions about the subject, many of them equally informed, but there is no objective answer to the question of "which console is the best?" You cannot prove that one console is better than the other, you can only offer explanations as to why you like one more than the other.
