Everything we've learned about the NX makes me not need to hope for anything.

When they nailed it, they had a great success (Wii). When they didn't try to innovate and make a traditional console, it failed (GC). So I don't know if innovation has something to do with the console sales. Personally I don't want a traditional powerful console, I don't want a mid-tier PC.

Nintendo isn't plural. Nintendo is one company. If you don't want to look dumb then change the title to Nintendo is dumb. If you start referring to the people that work there then you can say they are...  However, you should use is if you are only stating the company. 

As for the thread.. Take a look back to the Gamecube era.  They had almost all third party support (except a few games like MGS and GTA) and still only sold a little over 20m+.  Nintendo needs to be different.  However, they shouldn't be so behind that it makes third party companies not want to take any effort in porting.  Basically, those lazy third party companies need to be able to port a copy over to Nintendo system as cheap as possible.

Yep. Well if you look at the current generation. the one ahead is the one that went straight on without innovating too much (just adding more power basically) and they made the right choice by far.

Innovation is very risky or even trying to go too fast is risky. Look at what Microsoft did with the all digital, I mean, it is going to happen and Sony knows it very well, they just played very smartly and did not push for it at all and let it come by itself so customers did not feel forced to it.

For the NX, I have huge hopes for Nintendo. I'm sure they can come up with something new and not just another Wii+ like the WiiU. The off-screen was not innovating enough. Also re-using the same hardware (controllers etc..) than the Wii may seem to be a good idea from the customer stand point but not for the business.

They innovated which boosted the price yet made it weak so that third parties wouldn't go through the extra effort of porting their games. They chose an awful name and had terrible advertising even a year after it came out I knew people that didn't even know it was released. That's why they failed.

Your reasons might be correct, but I also think that the Nintendo userbase is simply more interested in franchises like Sonic and Rayman than Far Cry and Fallout.

you clearly have no idea whats it all about.

they didnt fail because the inovation failed

they failed because they were late to the party

meaning the tablet market was already taken

I was referring to the many people of the company so are seemed like the correct conjugation to use here. 

Since it sounds weird and I changed it, just for you. 

"Except a few games like GTA" considering GTA was the biggest franchise in that generation, along with Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid right up there; I'd say that's a pretty large exception. 

Define innovation.

I wouldn't say dumb it just feels more forced now, since the competition pushed Nintendo out and into a corner. Prior to Wii, everything Nintendo introduced felt more natural.

The main issue is Nintendo being terrified of Microsoft, and does not want to contribute to fighting against Sony in any way, since MS can handle a true 3 way fight better and would be the last one standing. Nintendo is playing "Risk" and wants Sony to survive since they can't ever face M$ 1 vs 1. This became clear to me, after the big success of Wii, Nintendo did not try to re-capture that lost market with their 1 yr headstart. Learning from the success of Xbox 360 seemed like the most obvious move Nintendo should have made, but again the big N simply will not "compete" with M$ in the picture and does not want Sony to be the first one to fold.

Nintendo vs. Sony (or other smaller entities) would be a different scenario, only then would I see Nintendo being competitive again in terms of specs, third party relations etc. As long as a mega powerhouse like M$ is in the picture, Nintendo will always be the cheaper, gimmick oriented platform.