Dreamcast displayed 480i, not 240p apart from games that had a native resolution of 320x240 (a fair few of the Capcom 2D games etc.)

This would work for various reasons mainly the required controller. You'd need to own either a 3DS or a WiiU to have a viable controller for this, and if I owned either/both I wouldn't be interested in this.

And you can't buy a gamepad without a WiiU. And it would double the cost if you could.

Best bet would be it'd come with a snap-on controller that goes over smartphones and that becomes your touch screen. In that case, yes, as it'd have a very similar and superior library of games as the WiiU at 1/3 the cost.

Why not just allow games to be synced to the Wii U through Nintendo Network instead?

Yes, day 1.

Maybe. I want to see how Vita TV works first.

I just can't imagine Nintendo ever doing something like that. That is why the 3DS is a handheld. If Nintendo thinks that a game should be on a big screen, then it will be on a console. I just don't understand why someone will want to play a handheld game on tv and not just turn on their console. I will not buy it if it was $50 dollars, absolutely not.

There was a reason Nintendo released the Super Gameboy and Gameboy Player :p

I don't think my eyes could handle 240p stretched over a TV :P

No because i buy a portable so i can move from place to place to play not be stuck to a single room playing on my TV... Seems like it defeats the whole purpose of the handheld aspect? The only way i could see this this becoming useful is if someway you could link it up to your Wii U wirelessly and stream to your TV but still no screen or way to play without your TV seems pointless to me as a heavy handheld gamer.

No because 3DS games would look horrible blown up on a giant HDTV.

I would definitely bite on a 3DS games on the Wii U running in HD resolution though.