Wii, Wii U, and the Game Boy systems were never officially branded as "Nintendo _____". They were officially refered to as just their system names. My argument, is for "Nintendo Switch" to be Nintendo's core gaming brand going forward. Especially as Nintendo expands to become more of a character-based entertainment company than just a gaming company.

They were seen as the next products from the Nintendo brand regardless of what they're referred to hence why anyone familiar with any of those platforms the first thing they think of is Nintendo and their games as they are the brand they're not expanding to be more character based they're expanding their brand in general.

While I feel they should definitely stick with the name and basic design for their next system and just make it an improved Switch 2 instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, I echo what others have said that in the longer term, say 10-20 years down the track remaining married to the Switch mechanic may no longer be beneficial.

I'd much prefer if the next system is called Super Nintendo Switch. Then they can ditch the switch name and keep going with Super Nintendo.

I dunno, I think Switch 2 would be a safer bet to avoid the naming confusion that plagued the Wii U. People might think the Super Nintendo Switch is just a Switch Pro rather than a full blown successor.

Yes, and the successor to that would be the Nintendo Switch 64.

Exactly my thinking. I thought about "Super Switch" but that would definitely make some people think it was just another version of the original Switch. People were already confused with the Wii U even though there was only one Wii. There is already a Switch Lite, I'm gonna guess there will be another Switch version (Switch XL, Switch Pro, or whatever) so we might already have 2 Switches with monikers added to them, continuing that next gen by just adding new monikers would be very confusing and not create a clear marketing and branding difference between generations.

If they are gonna stick with the Switch name the next one should be the Switch 2. Otherwise they should change the name completely, but I think sticking with Switch name next gen makes a lot of sense given the popularity of the Switch and the fact that hybrid isn't something that will become less interesting or less desired after this initial hybrid system. Only way I see them changing it is if they come up with something totally different, which I can't image what that'd be and honestly they probably shouldn't. The only thing I can think of is figuring out how to add good VR capabilities next gen and selling it with a head case, they could name that Nintendo VR or whatever but still wouldn't make sense because VR is pretty niche compared to the market as a whole (it'd be like how the 3DS was based around the glasses-less 3D feature) and Switch VR would be confusing as to whether its a Switch upgrade or a new gen. So even a VR enabled Switch 2 should still be called Switch 2 or perhaps Switch 2 VR. So yeah, basically Switch 2 ftw.

That's a terrible idea for a terrible name of a console. I already feel personally offended by it.

There was only one NES, back then if a system had a slightly different name it was an entirely different system. That's not the case now with multiple version of the same system being released with different names added on.

I wouldn't say Wii U was an update to Gamecube, don't think anyone thought that. It was clearly an update to the Wii, it was just poorly thought out. I do agree I don't really buy the idea that people were confused between the Wii and Wii U being different systems or not because there there was only one Wii, it's not like there were multiple branded Wii's. And the tablet controller clearly was a big difference between the Wii and the Wii U that anyone could notice immediately. I've never heard an actual person say they were confused if Wii U was a new system or a version of the Wii, I've only heard people say they think it confused people. The problem of the Wii U is it was an awkward console that moved from motion control to this weird giant tablet controller that you could only have one of and you needed old Wii remotes to play with more than one person. The whole idea was just kind of off-putting and was not offset by the novel idea of being able to play games while someone else is using the TV.

I think because Wii was really popular but then faded and motion controls had their ups and downs in both implementation and popularity, they were confused about whether to make motion controls the primary thing again or have a normal controller, so they did a weird asymmetric mix of the two, but also decided they needed a classic Nintendo-like ground breaking feature for the system so they made it a streaming tablet, and it was all just too awkward for the market. And of course the Switch was the correct way to do all of those things they tried and failed to accomplish with the Wii U. A system called the Wii U that was just a much more powerful system than the Wii with better motion controls would have sold far better than the awkward real Wii U that Nintendo made.

The Game Boy names are a good point, Game Boy had pocket and color, and people were fine with the next gen being called Advance. But I mean it was pretty easy back then to see the immediate difference between generations. GBA was wayyyy more advanced than GB, coming out 12 years later, moving from 8-bit to 32-bit. Nobody would ever be confused and think GBA was just another version of GB by looking at it. Nowadays all systems have incredible HD graphics. Like is the difference between an Xbox One, an Xbox One X, and an Xbox Series X going to be all that discernible to the casual shopper just by looking at the names and some gameplay briefly? Not likely. Hell I doubt it'll even be all that discernible to me!

These days, if there's a Switch Lite, a Switch XL, and a Super Switch (or whatever), it wouldn't be terribly clear if you don't pay attention to video games what the difference is there other than the XL and Super are in some way better than original and Lite. Especially if it looks fairly similar to the Switch since it will once again be a hybrid system (there's only so much you can do with a design that is a tablet with two detachable controllers on the ends). Obviously anyone who pays attention to video games will know its a new system no matter what they name it. But it just makes sense from a marketing perspective to do something really clear like Switch 2, not something you have to research first just to figure out what the product is and how it differs from several similarly named and similar looking products.

Nintendo is the brand. They're a video game focused company, so they don't need a separate brand for their gaming stuff. Sony and Microsoft do a lot more than video games. So, their gaming businesses need their own names.