I mostly agree. I'll even take something like Kid Icarus Uprising, which is a one-off. But I want something that is a fresh experience. Something with a lot of development effort put into it. Loads of content that really digs deep into the mechanics of the game.People saying that they want "EAD" games are only partially right. The stuff that EAD works on is usually high quality, which is why people are thinking they want EAD games. But that's not what they really want.
Smash Bros is on its second iteration being handled by a team outside of Nintendo's first party studios and yet people consider it to be a "Nintendo" game. Mario Party has traditionally been produced outside of Nintendo first party studios and people consider it a "Nintendo" game.
What people exactly want isn't a game produced by Nintendo EAD. They want a high quality franchise with staying power. They want a new legendary franchise from Nintendo. Something that can last a very long time and be a new feather in Nintendo's cap of incredibly successful and exploitable IPs. The last time this happened was Pikmin and Animal Crossing, back in the Gamecube era.
Monolithsoft has generally produced one-offs so far. The Wonderful 101 is probably going to be a one-off. So these don't fit the bill. People want something new, but they also want that new thing to stick around.
Sure, PushMo and Dillon's Rolling Western are fun and internally developed, but they're fairly shallow mechanically (and that's fine because the price reflects that). And granted, Nintendo owns the IP of Wonderful 101, but it's a critically divisive game that was developed and pitched by a third-party.
The real argument isn't a semantic question of "What is Nintendo?" The real argument is "Why can't Nintendo put its internal dev teams on something both fresh and substantive?"