http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/ … th-the-nx/

"At this point, true “innovation” from Nintendo would be a powerful console with a relatively normal interface that plays their incredible collection of first party games and the full line-up of multiplatform third-party megahits released every year. At this point, Nintendo has gotten so wacky that simply being normal would be thinking outside the box for them.

There are two paths forward here. Either this is fake and perhaps all this is moot (which I doubt), or that this is real, but somehow, some way, this isn’t as bad of an idea as it appears to be at first glance, though I’m not sure how that would be possible."

This has been confirmed as fake; it's even in the article you linked.

It should be clear by now that Nintendo is not interested in releasing "just a powerful console."
There will be some kind of gimmick or unique touch to it, because that's their thing now, for better or worse.
For the 3DS, it worked (but only after cutting down the price by almost 50%). For the Wii U, it didn't.

If they made "just a console," they'd have to go up against Sony and MS on horsepower alone, and although beating MS shouldn't be too hard, they're not going to beat the popularity of the PS4 at this point, even if they end up making a console that's slightly better (and that's ignoring the rumors that Sony and MS are working on upgrades for their consoles).

The best we could hope for is a gimmick that doesn't get in the way too much.
And, as has been said a million times already, they need to get strong third party support.

Honestly, if I were Nintendo, I would be working on some VR-built-in game system.

I, on the other hand, sincerely hope that at least one of the companies is focusing on ANYTHING ELSE, since I have no interest at all in VR.

Hmmmm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/ … th-the-nx/

Points for originality!

The effin' Forbes site wants me to disable my Ad-blocker to even look at the site.

If only I knew how/wasn't too lazy to figure it out.

Seriously though, what's the point of having an Ad-Blocker, if sites don't even let you look at them with it on?

I'm finding out that a lot of security software makes most mainstream sites un-viewable.

Even then, I still got hit with a browser-based attack yesterday; my machine began buzzing wildly, and I got a message (w/ phone number) to call my ISP. Suspicious, cynical fellow that I am, I looked up my ISP's actual tech support number, called them, talked to them, and figured out that said message and number were likely a Phishing scam.

Bern?

I had the same problem so I just turned it off.

Ad-Blocker lets you view sites without ads.
Sites have ads to make money.
Ergo, it makes sense for sites to block Ad-Blocker.

Adblock Plus (and probably some other blockers) works with some advertisers to allow ads that are not obnoxious, as a default setting.  I've seen websites' third party advertisers become delivery systems for malware, so if a news site requires dozens of domain names to be unblocked by ad and script blockers to allow me to read an article, I say to hell with that site and skip it entirely.