My first post explicitly cited innovation, there is no subject change.

You claimed Nintendo only innovate when they're failing. I pointed out why you're wrong with multiple specific examples. You then moved the goalposts to "but Sony innovates sometimes too".

I never said Nintendo only innovates when they  fail. I said take risk and new direction is something they had to do after they failed. As you said Nintendo keeps things interesting by taking risk and innovation, we can all agree the 3 consoles manufactures all share this. so the main reason Nintendo really keeps things interesting is because they took a totally different direction with after GC failure.

This I can partly agree with, but even before the Wii they made a point of differentiating their systems from the competition; for instance they didn't just make the N64 a Nintendo branded PS1, they leaned hard into the analog stick, rumble, and 4 player local multiplayer. Likewise, GBA was a hit but they didn't just make the DS a stronger GBA or a Nintendo branded PSP.

That's basically all 3 console makers.  Playstation didn't just make stronger super nes it was was very different from the competition and used cd's and the first system that came out with descent hardware for 3d gaming and gave developers a system which they can better tell their stories thanks having enough space on cds. Heck even the first Xbox  didn't exactly just just make a stronger ps2 which was one of the most innovative consoles ever. The controller was totally different and they took online gaming to a whole new level. Point is there are still a continuation with new and exciting features that are hit ot miss like playstation vr.

Again, nobody ever said Sony/MS never innovate.

But they don't offer what Nintendo does.

Sorry but you sounded like Sony and Microsoft just make more powerful boxes and don't  offer any innovation when that couldn't be further from the truth. I guess it was misunderstanding. 

Just like Nintendo doesn't offer what Sony and Microsoft have.

Yeah that wasn't what I meant to express. Just that they offer different things, so there's a place for Nintendo hardware just as there is a place for PS hardware.

And there would be a place for XBox hardware as well if MS actually gave a damn about XBox. MS could have taken a giant leap ahead with VR tied to Kinect, full body tracking in VR. And while Series S feels like it's holding back the X, it's the perfect excuse to turn it into the most powerful handheld rivaling Steamdeck.

MS rather competes with Steam, game distribution instead of creation. And how does MS' future not exists off their own hardware, the Azure platform... MS rather keeps their hardware to themselves and wants you to pay for using it which has been their philosophy since introducing live gold.

Nintendo and Sony are still innovating, MS is turning into a reseller.

Not moving goalposts. Just trying to explain why a Nintendo and Sony merger would probably not end up the way some may think. I dont really know what games Sony moneyhats. I know of Street Fighter 5, but thats hardly an indie game and was before Jim Ryan took over. But if you have some examples, then please share.

I've lost all interest in MS.  I owned a xbox, 360 and One.  I see no reason to get a Series.  When I look at xbox I cannot find a single game that I want to play that isn't on Steam.

And I'm curious to see what Sony does with Steam...  if they go full blown PC support like MS, next generation is an easy decision.  PC + Nintendo.