Meaning no tablet controller, no over emphasis on making a super tiny console that ran at the lowest power consumption (which is where Nintendo apparently sunk a lot of their R&D into). Traditional controller + Wiimote support, maybe keep the NFC chip (amiibos are cool). Basically maybe a console about this big:

With this controller:

That $60-$70 production cost of the tablet all goes into a better chipset, maybe not quite as good as the XB1, but lets say 4GB DDR3 RAM + a 1TFLOP GPU. A pretty huge upgrade over the PS3/360 at least. 

1 year headstart, lots of restless PS3/360/Wii owners wanting a new console. 

Spend a little more money on outsourced projects to ensure no droughts for year 1 (C'mon Nintendo you made a metric ass ton of money off the Wii/DS, why not greenlight an extra 3-4 games for the launch window just in case?). Best versions of Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, NBA 2K, etc. for a year ...

RESULT: In my opinion they wouldn't win this generation, but they'd have a pretty good shot at a solid no.2 finish. MS banked way too hard on the Kinect stuff with a good first year I don't think MS would be able to catch Nintendo. 

GameCube 1.5?

Somewhat. With full year head start over the PS2 + XBox + no kiddie lunchbox design and more conventional choices with the core Nintendo IPs being the major differences. 

I'll add too I think the tablet controller could still exist -- just as an optional accessory, something that comes bundled with Nintendo Land (and later Mario Maker) like Wii Fit comes with the Balance Board for say $89.99 or something. 

well they will, they will release another console before the end of ps4/xb1's life cycle

This is built like a GameCube 2.0.

As such, it will end up like a GameCube 2.0.

You do realize that Nintendo fans have been touting how unique their platforms are lately, right? Something something Gunpei Yokoi? Something something Satoru Iwata? Something something Blue Ocean?

They would still have no 3rd party support and still be carrying the console by themselves. So no big difference really.

GameCube would've finished an easy no.2 that generation had it released a year before the other two consoles and didn't have the silly purple lunchbox design. 

That and the weird choices for virtually every Nintendo IP ... lets make a game with only tropical Mario levels, lets make a Donkey Kong platformer that plays with bongos, lets add a double rider mechanic to Mario Kart and cut the number of tracks, lets make Link look like a Powerpuff Girl, instead of a GoldenEye style multiplayer FPS we'll give you ... a Metroid FPA that you didn't ask for (albiet that game did turn out well), etc. etc. 

If the GameCube avoided those pitfalls I think it would've sold as much as the N64 fairly easily (33 million) and probably a good deal more than that. 

Even if they did none of those things but just launched the GameCube a full year earlier, I don't think the XBox ever could've caught up. Just not enough race track left for MS to gain enough ground quickly enough. 

The pad should have been an optional peripheral with the Wii U Pro as the main method of control. Doing so would have also allowed for Nintendo to sell it at a lower price. You'd be hardpressed to argue that doing so would not have lead to more sales.

I think staying at $349.99 but just making the system considerably more powerful would've been the better way to go. 

People wouldn't have complained so loudly about the droughts if games like COD, Assassin's Creed, Batman, etc. were more viable on the system and they would have been if Nintendo had tangiably better looking versions of those games. That would've helped them out a lot in the first year. 

Then they could drop to $299.99 for the second holiday, and maybe even $249.99 for this holiday. Things like DDR3 RAM and GPUs scale down in cost pretty quick.