For the record, I do think they should have at least one real face button. I wouldn't want to break the symmetry of the controller, though, so I'd put one on each side, close to the sticks. I would like to see them improve the feeling of clicky sticks, though. I like the concept of immersion they're going for where you see no buttons in front of you while your hands are on the sticks.
I point again to the Wii Remote as an example of a controller that was wildly successful yet did not play every genre as well as a traditional controller. The touch screen is the most widely used video game interface in the world right now. Every additional button added gets them more into Wii U territory, where they tried to please both ends of the spectrum and failed spectacularly.
I don't think that having more buttons was the problem with the Wii U. Marketing, branding, hardware, price and overall image/perception of the product were.
Also, i remember a pretty clear statement made by Miyamoto about non-gamer not being a reliable userbase, because they don't care about the brand (basically he almost told them to fuck off) and what they want is to expand their audience with people that would stick with Nintendo. So if their goal is to expand their fidelized userbase, i really don't think that NX is being made for grannies and dads (then of course Nintendo will always want to appeal to
families, as in parents buying the console for their kids and joining them to play the games, etc etc). I believe NX is being made with gamers in mind, both casual and more hardcore. They want a console that caters to the masses already invested in playing videogames or interested into starting/expanding this hobby/passion. Simplyfing the control scheme is not going to do that.
When I hear people say that they hope Nintendo does something straighforward without "gimmicks" I have to admit that I definitely DON'T share that sentiment. I don't see the point of three virtually identical machines (even down to being dominated by AMD guts). Sony always creates a solid console product but I'm never surprised by their hardware. It'll have a dualshock and be called PS++. That's fine, but I like having a manufacturer whose moves I can't predict and who might come up with a crazy new controller, concept (or name). Nintendo is a contradictory combination of conservative and maverick.
They take calculated risks in an attempt to disrupt existing industry patterns because, quite frankly, that's their best bet at this point. IMO, trying to compete directly with MS and Sony without offerring compelling distinguishing features has a higher chance of failure. Their strategy worked with the Wii and DS (and even motivated "knockoffs" by their competitors) but they weren't able to retain the new audience for multiple reasons. Their initiatives may still fail to gain widespread acceptance, as the the Wii U did, but I think that's the better way to fail. They learn more from that kind of innovative failure than simply having a PS4 clone tank in the market.
Eh, it's not the hardware that makes a console different. It's the LINE UP. Nintendo could literally have the exact same hardware as the PS4 in the NX, but a completely different line up that would make it a completely different machine. At the same time, they could have an underpowered machine with a weird ass architecture and share the exact same games as the PS4. Now that's a PS4 clone (with worse graphics), and no one would buy it. But if they can have their games, exclusive collaborations with both japanese and western studios AND more third party multiplatform games compared to now, and a similar and more straightforward architecture would help them getting those, that's only (objectively) better.
More choices for everyone and all that stuff. It's not like we have to choose between having Bayonetta 3 with the weird weak architecture or FIFA18 with the powerful one.
Then of course they should find a way to evolve their controllers, i already suggested they should have an improved version of the gamepad, with a smaller screen and the shape of a normal controller, but doing weird stuff like the touch buttons or other things like that (and at the expense of everything else) is wrong, and the Wii U kind of proved it. Having a normal controller with extra functions thanks to the screen is quite different than having a giant plasticky tablet that only works well with some games and ruins the experience with others. So they should stay away from the weird stuff, unless it REALLY works in ways we can't possibly imagine right now... but then it wouldn't be that weird, right? It would be a proper innovation/evolution, and i'm totally fine with those, even if it means slightly weaker hardware.
To be clear, i don't think they'll match the PS4 specs (or that they need to). I think 1tflop is the absolute best we can expect, but i hope that this choice will be matched by an interesting concept and a low price. 350$ for a "360++" with a fisher price tablet was never going to work, sadly. And a Wii U-bis (as in a different, low powered machine with a weird gimmick) would probably share the same results.
EDIT: these are the reasons I expect a touchscreen implementation with Nintendo's next hardware
1)They've proven the usefulness and convenience of having a secondary screen on the controller (additional control interfaces, off-tv play etc.)
2)They've already done the hardware R&D to make streaming work and gained experience creating software that uses both screens
3)They already have a body of legacy software that requires a secondary touchscreen which has implications for virtual console
4)Upcoming mobile software will most likely utilize touch interfaces and they'll probably desire compatibility with their dedicated devices
Despite some calls for a clean break from Wii U, abandoning a useful, if not groundbreaking, innovation didn't sit will with me.
One of the compelling things about the Wii was the resemblance of the controller to a device even the most technologically illiterate have used: the TV remote.
Applying this "familiarity bias" to the preferences of core gamers suggests that a screen-enabled controller that looks and feels more like a controller than a tablet may have a greater appeal.
This patent seems to be trying to bridge the gap between buttons and the touchscreen by integrating them more into a unified control method.
The issue of covering content with your fingers is a complete non-issue. If the area adjacent to the sticks will be used for button-llike inputs who's going to render a boss there?
Quite probably, those areas would be sectioned off and used for the HUD just as some DS games used the lower screen exclusively for screen buttons or HP gauges etc.
I think haptic feedback will be a distinct possibility since it seems right up Nintendo's lane (they've had rumble since N64) and synergizes well with screen buttons.
I'm intrigued.
Like i said i'm on board with a secondary screen, and for roughly the same reasons you're pointing out, just not with the extra stuff proposed (touch buttons in this case, but the free-form display too
if it means skyrocketing the price of the console and cutting other stuff to sell it at an acceptable price). Then hey, if they do that and they prove me wrong by actually making it work and successful i'll be happy.