Would moving backwards be moving forward for Nint.?

If Nintendo were to move backwards with their next home console by removing Wii support and bringing back a traditional controller like that of a PS4 or X1 controller, would that benefit Nintendo?

No one likes to buy older console accessories for brand new price and most complain about the lack of traditional controller support in video games. Removing the compatibility for the Wii would finally put the accessories at a reasonable price. Bringing a new traditional controller with touch support like the PS4 controller would keep new games feeling oldschool while still keeping them new and fresh. It also doesn't feel like something is forced upon you like the gamepad or Wii Motion controls. I feel that one of the reasons why Nintendo has lost a lot of core fans in the past in favor to competition like Sony and Microsoft is because of that very reason. I personally feel that if Nintendo did do something like this, 3rd party support would look at Nintendo in a new light, maybe a breeze of fresh air even after all the years supporting Sony and Microsoft only. People claim that a lot of 3rd party publishers left Nintendo during the Gamecube era, but I think that the Wii was what really put the nail on the coffin for them. Being underpowered in comparison to the competition which is still the case with the Wii U.

If Nintendo brought their new console hardware at the same level of the PS5 and X(2) then I can't imagine that doing anything but just sweetening the deal for 3rd party publishers.

Anyway, do you think that if Nintendo decided to stop trying to change gaming like they're trying to do so much and take a step backward to follow the trend of its current competition, would this be moving forward in the right direction for Nintendo?

Uhh.... hmm. This is thread seems more suitable for System Wars.

From what I've seen, Nintendo really doesn't force the gamepad like they did with the Wii and its remotes. In fact, only a few games actually force you to use the gamepad whereas so many give you the option of using a different controller. While I'm not fond of how much the gamepad affects the price of the console, or the fact that most games don't use it to its full potential, it does give the Wii U that unique twist over the competition. It'll be pretty boring if I had to pick between identical consoles made by different companies.

It would be cool if the next Nintendo console is not as underpowered as the Wii or Wii U, but that will not necessarily help Nintendo's third party dilemma. It'll bring back some, but not much. Nintendo has had tough relations with third party developers since the N64. If the Wii U becomes profitable enough, it's possible for it to receive more third party support than the Wii because its much easier to work with the gamepad than motion controls.

I've seen many people make very convincing arguments of why they should or should not completely ditch the Wii brand after the Wii U. Part of me would not mind if they do ditch it, but the other part wishes that they still keep and improve the concept of a gamepad controller and motion control remote. Not as a way to force those control schemes on every game, but as additional methods of playing the game. There are many games that play fantastically, and arguably better, with the touchscreen or motion controls than without.

--------------------

Slightly off-topic, but I felt like sharing:

I don't understand why people keep excluding the Wii U gamepad as a "traditional" controller. What is a "traditional" controller? What qualities does a controller need to be identified as "traditional?" Every Nintendo controller have been drastically different from each other, the most drastic being the Wii remote. I would understand why the Wii remote is not considered a "traditional" controller due to the fact that it replaces some buttons with motion controls, but why does the Wii U gamepad not get labeled as a "traditional" controller even though it offers every button available from other controllers? Because of the touchscreen? Does that mean the DS and 3DS are not "traditional" handhelds? It's one of those gaming labels that irks me.

A traditional controller would be a standard controller that has been similar to that for the last 20+ years. The Wii U gamepad differs from a traditional controller due to the touch screen in the middle. I personally feel that Sony has evolved the traditional controller with the motion control in the PS3 and with the new features added into the PS4 controller. The handheld scene is a completely different category in my opinion because, you also have to put phones and tablets into play.

there is no going back for nintendo imo...traditional controllers will be nothing but peripherals i think.

That hurt my soul more than it should have.

That still does not make any sense. Okay, the Wii U gamepad has a screen. So what? Is the N64 controller any less "traditional" than the SNES controller because of the analog stick? Or does "traditional" start when the analog stick was created, completely ignoring the controllers beforehand? Is the NES controller no longer "traditional" because current "traditional" controllers offer more? The Wii U gamepad can do everything that other "traditional" controllers can do, but apparently having a touch screen is too much of a jump for it to be considered a "traditional" controller despite the fact that controllers have been constantly evolving and adding new features throughout the years, making the term "traditional" controller completely void and worthless.

No, the older controllers are still considered to be traditional controllers. The controllers just evolved over time while still maintaining its basic structure. The Wii and WiiU differ IMO because of the way they are used and even due to the shape. The Wii Remote being somewhat like a stick and the Wii U controller being that of a tablet. The Wii U controller feels more like a tablet with buttons to me.

Video game controllers have come in different shapes and sizes; therefore, to exclude the Wii U controller from being a "traditional" controller because of its screen, size and shape is equivalent to excluding the Atari 2600 and Dreamcast's controllers for similar reasons. Actually, just the mere fact that controllers have vastly changed in the past 40 years and will continue to change in the future makes the word "traditional" pointless. The Wii U controller still retains the same basic structure used in the past decade, it's just a bit wider because of the screen. For most Wii U games, you use it exactly like other "traditional" controllers. The only difference is the extra display that's occasionally used for the menus and maps. The touchscreen may be unusual now, but it's not too far-fetched for it to be included in future controllers.

Honestly. the gamepads off TV play gets the Wii U a 50% increase in play in my house. I like it and use the pro controller for everything I can when on the big TV. and BC is always good forget new buyers, I like when I can use all my old stuff with the new stuff. And while they did not market it well and failed to see how they were counting on people who bought the wii and would only buy the wii, I think they figured it as more of get the wii owners to upgrade vs bringing in new business.

I will say though Nintendo has been a little too obsessed with reinventing the controller every gen since SNES, which is funny because that controller was perfect and every other company has been making controller after controller just upgrading that basic pattern.