So, basically, Nintendo - taking into consideration the entire basis of its new console - has overlooked certain aspects? I doubt that.

Possibly it can be done more accurately - this is suddenly entering the same realms of argument as how realistic graphics must be in order to be worthwhile/fun.

I do believe that it is possible for specialists to do it "better", but I do have some doubt that software developers have the same standard as Nintendo does for "fun" and useability within their software production.

On the other hand, although I think it's unlikely, if it's possible to beat Nintendo at their own concept (which it is, albeit, unlikely - in my opinion), fair play to them, and you better had damn-well exploit it, because you deserve all the credit you get.

Not that I doubt In2Games at what they do, just that I somehow have faith in Nintendo doing well what they say they will do well well.

That doesn't mean I have faith in Nintendo succeeding [in general] - but usually Nintendo does what they intend to do well...the best. But prove that wrong (i.e. "beat them"), and In2Games has potential to succeed very well (obviously, I suppose!) - and good luck to them! (In a respectful way)

I'm really intrigued by Fusion, the technology does sound extremely well thought out.

I just don't trust they're going to get the software support, though. Their promise of 20 titles in four years sounds extremely ambitious - even if it included other publishers.

No, I think the critical factor is the quality and appeal of the software they do release, as opposed to how many titles they release.