Nintendo does have a tendency to test their next big thing with the previous hardware and they constantly look for new technology that could be used in games - but I don't think they're interested in bringing back their previous failures; it's quite the opposite.

In a way, 3DS makes a lot of sense, as when 3DS was out, it was at the high of the recent 3D-craze (if you can call it that), so it was supposed ride the 3D wave.  First motion controls on a Nintedo videogame, was on the NES with the power glove. 

It's not like they'd bring something back specifically because it failed, but there were sometimes ideas that were good ideas, but the technology wasn't right yet.

Great post. I have thought the same. Your last comments of the Wii U being purposely limited to buy time till Switch was ready is very interesting. I always thought of it as a test model. But it is probably all of the above. They knew the Nintendo die hard fanbase would keep it afloat and in some ways they were investing in their favorite company to allow them that time. It was still risky as all business decisions can be. Switch does feel like a realization or completion of an idea. The end of years of development and testing. I’m sure there are a lot more pieces to this puzzle and ideas than what we know too.

I'm not quite sure if the Switch was a target on a greater road map planned by Nintendo years ago, but Yoshiaki Koizumi did say he pulled in all the engineering teams and had a goal of putting the main aspects of a home console into a mobile platform. You have to figure all the guys on Gamecube, Wii, Wii-U, Gameboy and 2DS/3DS were part of that dialog.

And you can see Nintendo design DNA dating way back to Nintendo Entertainment system in the Switch.

As a company the most conventional product they have ever done was the SNES as a successor to the NES, and even then Nintendo was the only company at the time that was crazy enough to put 8 buttons on a controller.

I don't understand this paragraph. (maybe I misunderstood)

How is the Switch proof of concept of the Gameboy Advance connected to the Gamecube? you can't recreate that setup with a Switch as you don't have a second screen, like you do with that setup. The only console to recreate that would be the Wii U - it could also be said that the 2 screen setup for console has largely failed, or at least not taken off on any console that has attempted it. Wii U, Gamecube/boy, even Sony's attempt with Playstation and PSP/Vita.

The only place dual screen has succeeded from my (granted, limited) knowledge of the subject is in the handheld market with the DS and 3DS.

Utter nonsense.

There's no asyym gampelay link between Switch and Gamecube.

Screeen in console plus handle -> small form factor (Wii) -> no TV required (WiiU) -> mobile home console(docked Switch) -> 100% home console mobility (Switch) is the only line that can be drawn.

Ass gameplay is dead.

Nah, you understood it. Looks like the guy himself who wrote the paragraph did not understand the consept he wrote about. 

You know, that paragraph sounds more like an excuse. Most often the problem isn't technology, but the product being bad. The thing is, that videogames industry isn't about tech, but games. Instead of tech business, it is entertanment business. And, I'm not saying here that Virtual Boy wasn't bad hardware. 

...um interesting theory you got there..but it sounds like bs honestly

I wasn't speaking to the "asymmetric gameplay" factor.  I was referring to that being the jumping off point of merging console and handheld into a single platform.  The Super Gameboy and Gameboy Player allowed you to play your handheld games on your tv through your console.  But, connecting the Gameboy Advance to the GameCube through the link cable blurred that line between console and handheld for the first time.  It was asymmetric at the time, because the console power aspect couldn't be replicated on the go yet.

And, I was also speaking to Nintendo's dedication to local co-op and keeping gamers playing and experiencing games together in person.  

And, yes, there are times where ideas are developed before the technology exists to replicate it.  Especially when there is a need to keep price of a product low enough to maintain consumer interest.  Sometimes you have to make a choice between cutting edge tech that would price yourself into a niche market, or delivering something more cost effective that doesn't fully convey the idea you wanted to deliver.  There are pros and cons of each strategy.  But, as cost of technology decreases over time, yes you can revisit those old ideas and put out a better product that more fully realizes the potential of your original vision.

Don't forget the Game & Watch, some of those were  also a mildly successful two screen devices.

While there is no doubt a lineage between the Nintendo hardware up till this point. I say the biggest factor is that within Nintendo's own front yard, Japan, their audience was steadily moving away from consoles and buying more portables. The Game boy line was once just a side project for Nintendo's main teams, but Pokemon changed that, with each new portable the market kept growing until critical mass hit with the DS, but even then the 3DS was not a slouch in terms of hardware and software sales either. They recaptured some heat with the Wii but even in their own homeland, it wasn't putting up the same blockbuster numbers. Nintendo however it should be stated has always tried to link their home console and portable console hardware (old school Nintendo gamers must remember the Super Game Boy add on) so that the stronger system could help support the weaker one.

The move toward a portable -home hybrid was necessary as a means as the home console had become a shell of itself in Japan and they weren't getting adequate support overseas either. To recapture their homeland's audience and position themselves in a different factor for those players and developers outside of Japan, they needed a device that did everything. As they learned during the GC era, once developers and gamers choose the primary system, making another system that isn't different in some way will lead nowhere and the Wii U showed them, making it too different also leads to oblivion so they found a practical balance that people love. There was talk that Nintendo had not given up on the idea of a dedicated Handheld device before and a little bit after the Switch's release, much like their 'Third Pillar' talk around the time of the DS, GBA and GC, this was Nintendo giving themselves an out, but at this point it seems obvious that the hybrid (potentially modular which is what Nintendo has always tried to do with their devices) console is the way of their future.

I say all that to say I disagree.

While there is growth and definitely lessons learned from past consoles carrying over to the new ones, the Switch and its hybrid nature was not the original goal for Nintendo. If the Japanese gaming market had not swung so far into the portable/computer/mobile camp over the course of several years and the Wii U not been such a massive failure compared to past systems and their current competition, then we would probably not have the Switch in the current or even the next hardware generation as it would still be more profitable with two systems (including one that is obviously below the high cost of HD development line) to sell for a profit then just having one. They came to this point via necessity and the waves the industry pushed them.