I thought Ed was a great idea. Controls and everything about game design should be constantly scrutinized and questioned.
Players, as people conditioned to accumulate familiarity and find winning strategies quickly, are usually resistant to change, so I don't see motion inputs going away entirely ever, no matter what new IPs come along without them.
That being said, the video sort of treaded a lot of the same arguments folks have seen before, that I dont think satisfy the criticism of the design choice. Saying "this one kid learned it" and "this dog did it in a video" are straw man arguments. Nobody is actually saying it's impossible completely, or that most people cant ever do them. It's more of "is this good in a video game" which is a lot more complicated than "can it be done in a video game".
It even does the classic gamer counter argument of "yeah but if you changed things, they'd be different", as if redesigned large portions of a game is inherently bad.
Yeah, if you change the control scheme of a competitive game, you'll have to reevaluate how that effects ever scenario and matchup. That's what design is about.
I personally enjoy motion inputs, and I really like the arcade tradition of every game having controls (and maybe even a controller) built just for it's design. I love that every game can have coherent and united design from the hardware up.
Also, I like playing SFV on PS4 and using a fight stick to bridge the gap there.
I just don't expect my friends to ever want to play with me, because of the barrier of entry to even playing in the first place that they're used to not being so high.
I don't see this changing too much in the future due to culture. So I'll just keep playing SFV online hoping for good connections, and when I'm with my friends we'll just keep playing Smash Bros, where the game has many moves, but still controls as simple as a Kirby game.
I'm sure there's folks with accessibility needs who don't like these inputs, but I can't really speak on that, as I can't personally relate.