I see. I never had a PS1 ( I was a Saturn boy lol), I just remembered playing Ape escape on PS1 which used dual analogue prominently if I remember.

I understand your point but I would have to respectfully disagree.  Regardless of what you said between NES to Gamecube, those were traditional home consoles because Nintendo was the one that originally set the standard of traditional home consoles in the first place.  So to call Nintendo's console from NES to Gamecube different than Sony's and MS isn't right because they jumped into the market following the same path Nintendo laid out for them before they entered.

You can also say all those little things about Nintendo's controllers etc..but every console had added their own features on their controller (ie. PS4's touch pad, Sega Dreamcast mini screen) Sure Nintendo innovated with adding 2 shoulder buttons and an analog stick, but others have perfected it by adding 4 button shoulder buttons and dual anolog stick which is now the standard, and Nintendo now copies that too.  

Anyways, I'm sure many would say that ultimately a traditional home console is a system that must be hooked up to a TV/monitor and playing with a controller that you can sit down on your couch.  Any little tidbits that doesn't sway you away from playing it that exact way is irrelevant (ie whatever extra controller feature it has).  Wii was the true definition of what wasn't a traditional home console for obvious reasons.

With powerfull hardware, Blue-ray, good design, good online service, full third party support, mainline Pokemon, Mario 2D/3D, Zelda, Animal Crossing etc. games, Nintendo traditional home console would sell well (50+ mln).

But Switch is better option for them.

And why would Nintendo want to go backwards?

The question could be "are Microsoft and Sony could make a device that could be a concurrent for the switch 2?



If you look at xbox one x vs switch, I think Nintendo has choose the good way

I don't think there's much of a future in completely traditional consoles. Microsoft is experiencing that now. Eventually, Sony will feel the effects too. People don't want to be limited in how they can access their games library to TV only. I think Sony figures this out though and releases a handheld that in some sort of way can play the same games you've purchases for ps4/ps5 on the go as well using cloud saves. 

Not saying tv gaming won't be popular for a long time. In fact, I think it will be. But that's not how i think we are defining a traditional console. We are defining it by a console that uses an architecture that wouldn't be conducive to a handheld brother or sister that plays the same games. Eventually,  Nintendo comes out with a device that plugs directly into the TV that has more power than their current handheld but shares a similar architecture. 

What's the point? If you can create major successes within the Blue Ocean then why would a company ever want to touch something that's overly replicated?

Ignorant results. They definitely could. They would murder it with their own IPs and standard 3rd party support.  But they play with a handicap every time. 

Not unless they pander to casuals again.

I agree, a traditional Nintendo console could do well but likely at the cost of its handheld counterpart or vice versa so a hybrid device is just a significantly better idea for them.