As long as their "innovations" are actual innovations, that serve a purpose, benefit both the consumer and the devs, don't feel forced or like a unnecessary waste of money, then no. The Switch is actually an amazing concept that has mountains of potential, playing AAA quality games on the go is something that people have dreamed of for a long time, it has purpose beyond Nintendo devs having fun experimenting at the stake of their consumers unlike the Wii U Gamepad; which failed on its shallow purpose from day 1, and felt like an unnecessary tumor the Wii U came attached with that for some reason you had to pay for. It didn't even feel like a vital part of their console like the motion controls were for the Wii.

As long as they give the concept a lot of thought before starting developing, it should be okay, I think.

That would lead to a console market crash if they made powerful console hardware, every console (PlayStation, Nintendo, Xbox) would be the same and competing over which is more powerful. Powerful 4k systems like the Xbox Scorpio are being rumored to cost $500!!! POWERFUL CONSOLES ARE JUST UNDERPOWERED PC's! People would rather buy a PC then a high power console. If all 3 developed the same type of console I think there would be a console market crash.

However Nintendo always brings something new to the table and its not always a gimmick. Nintendo is the unique one that innovates in gaming through many different ways: touch-screen, motion controls, rumble, hybrid console, etc.

Nintendo would straight out die if they went and made a traditional console; Sony and Microsoft already own that area.

I think from a market POV I'd say no.

They simply can't compete against Sony and MS both, they just are too lazy in execution and way too far out of touch with the modern market to be taken seriously in that role today.

They needed really to get it right with the GameCube and they made too many stupid mistakes with it (beginning with making it look like a child's toy), and that basically sunk their traditional console hopes in a lot of ways.

Going with a portable-centric platform is more within Nintendo's ability these days and they're better off focusing on the portable market.

Console market is too tough and has changed too much for them to ever be a driver in that market again, especially given their traditional Japanese management. It's just beyond them.

I don't really view Switch as an innovative platform really though, it's just an extension of the Wii U concept just taken to the logical next step ... becoming fully portable instead of semi-portable. I'm actually surprised they don't really have anything that new beyond that, I mean HD Rumble is sorta neat, but at the end of the day it's just a shaking controller, it doesn't dramatically alter anything game play wise. 

No. Beyond the author's simple taste for innovation, they'd have to go third party or out of business in less ten-twenty years if they went that route.

There will be a point in the not to distant future, where a simple computer in a box game console won't be necessary. As computers and graphics cards become cheaper, as streaming games becomes a viable option, and so on. You can already play games directly through some TVs, or through a 50 dollar Rokuish device.

Sony and Microsoft are already hedging their bets with XBox focusing more on PC as a gaming platform, and Sony building PSNow. Nintendo's not really in a position to do those sorts of things. So, they have to make it so that their actual hardware offers something unique that can not be easily replicated. It's not like a company couldn't release something like the switch, but without one company being in charge of internal hardware, software, and the external hardware, it would be hard to make something that would function as smoothly and offer motion controlled gaming, handheld, and TV gaming.

Of course, Nintendo could be fighting a losing battle anyway, but they have to try and make sure that dedicated hardware is still a necessity, and part of that is building unique features directly into the hardware.

Nintendo is loved for innovation.

If I want power, I get PC.

If I want a strong console, I get playstation

If I want new ways to play, I go for Nintendo

If I want an all-in-one for my living room, I go for Microsoft

Nothing is gained from companies giving up what they're loved for.

No. Switch is the most forward thinking console I've seen for a LONG time. It may not have the horse power but the fundamentals of switch, mark my words, will be the future of dedicated gaming.

When they showed the first trailer, I got excited. It was brilliant. A console you can take anywhere, but also offers games on PS4/XB1 plus Nintendo exclusives, only slightly downgraded in handheld mode. And you could continue playing at home. That is the future. But they shoot themselves in the foot once again with the Joycons. They had to downgrade the hardware so much due to HD rumble and motion controls that most third party developers are not able to bring their AAA games to Switch besides some last gen ports. The ridiculous controller/software prices and payed online are not helping either.

I think it boils down to this. Microsoft and Sony need AAA third parties to survive. Games likes Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Battlefield/Battlefront, FIFA, Madden, and Fallout are the biggest sellers on those platforms. So those systems need the extra horsepower to make third parties happy. Thus Sony and MS build expensive systems, and should they sell them at a loss they have other divisions that can make up the difference.

Nintendo, conversely, has a stable of hugely popular first-party games. So it doesn't need third parties to survive. It doesn't need to make powerful systems because its own software doesn't require cutting-edge tech and it doesn't find much financial sense in making expensive concessions to third parties. Plus, Nintendo is a company solely focused on gaming. It can't rely on other divisions to cover losses on hardware development and manufacturing.

Making a "traditional" console would be much more expensive and risky, and it wouldn't benefit Nintendo's games (or the games of its partners), the most attractive weapon in its arsenal. It would really only benefit AAA third parties, who would suddenly have a new suitor against which they could leverage Sony and Microsoft.

A Nintendo console that sees them ....." Stop innovating"......and become a color by the numbers drone, like the pig-monkey-men at Sony have made out of the PS4, would be cool. Assuming they could still innovate. Which they might have trouble with??? Because they don't have a second screen to work with????? Or something? What could they even do without that second, innovative screen? I know I would just fold up and die if my creativity were so stifled. Third party and spec parity would also be seen as a sign of weakness by philosophy majors the world over. Shit could be better for Nintendo. And if anybody says that they can't compete with Sony and MS, I challenge you to a fistfight.

No because it doesn't benefit their approach, people only say make a traditional console because they think it would have the same situation as the PS and XB brand when that would never happen as the are other factors in play.