Why, hello there. 

The SNES was also in a completely different time. Now we have to huge red ocean consoles and one that's trying to pick up the scraps. Red ocean doesn't work as well for Nintendo as it used to.

Funny thing is, a year or so ago I asked similar question - result was some 2:1 in favor of WiiU over SuperWii concept...

I guess abysmal sales of WiiU are slowly starting to change at least some of those hardcore fans who back then didn't want to see how terribly wrong WiiU concept actually is.

To be honest a one year head start should be a blue ocean if used properly. Your console is automatically unique by being the first next-generation machine, Nintendo screwed that up by giving people a last generation machine (PS3/360 sold 150 million consoles already -- if that ocean is any redder, you'd be swimming in pure blood) and rolling the dice on a gimmick controller again. 

Nintendo and MS honestly overcomplicated this whole console generation, it's like three guys who are all trying to get one girl's attention, but two of the guys resort to showing off in front of her and trying gimmicks rather than just approaching her, whereas the third dude (Sony) just walks up to her, starts up a conversation, gets her laughing and ends up being the guy that takes her home while the other two guys (MS and Nintendo) look on dumb founded. 

The PS4 is more of a blue ocean product (a genuine next-generation leap above the PS3/360) than the Wii U is (another 360/PS3 level console with a giant screen on an otherwise traditional controller). 

Would flop just as hard.

So, instead of making another N64 they'd have another Gamecube on their hands? Neither strategy seems great for them. The issue with Nintendo is their biggest success stories (NES, Wii and every handheld they have ever made) are hard to reproduce. The NES was the only game in town, the Wii was a phenomenon and the handheld market is shrinking due to tablets and phones.

Their best bet was to try to find something close to the Wii again (hence the naming) and it failed for them because that market is fickle.

Honestly, of the three Nintendo has the hardest path to success. Sony and Microsoft are allowed and even celebrated by making steady progressions; Nintendo has to do something different or the N64, Gamecube and now Wii U pattern of being nowhere near the top continues.

It would be selling less than the Wii U

The Wii is the definition of a blue ocean console. That's why it did so well, it wasn't trying to be traditional, it wasn't trying to be too new. It came at the right time and it didn't go after the "hardcore" market. 

The PS4, despite it's success so far, is not a blue ocean console, full-on-full. It's going after that "hardcore" market, it has a traditional controller (albeit, with a new addition), and it has a lot of the same franchises from the PS3.

A lot of the problem with Nintendo's home consoles seems to happen when they try too hard to emulate past success, though. (i.e. GameCube trying to be a lot more "hardcore" when trying to attract third parties, Wii U trying to be too much of a GameCube while throwing in some really awkward Wii spices into the mix.) Wii was different, NES was an all new thing (even though it was a different market then), and N64, even though it's not all too successful, innovated in 3D graphics and new directions with franchises.

Some people seem to be so certain that most of Nintendo's problems in the console industry would be completely fixed if they made a system with similar technical capabilities to the competition. The last time that was successful was the SNES, when Nintendo's only real competitior was Sega who had their own problems. The N64 had the problem with  cartridges and GC had the problem with limited storage space, but it's not as if the other systems never had their own problems.

I think the problem runs deeper than hardware. The GC actually had  more third-party support than people seem to remember but few games sold very well, outside of third-party exclusives and games with exclusive content. The GC was stereotyped as the "kiddy console", not only beause of its design but because of the biggest franchises on it. That perception still remains despite all the efforts that were made on the system to branch out with more mature games and new IPs. Despite its good performance, the Wii exacerbated the problem with the image that NIntendo only cares about casual games and gimmicks. 

While a traditional console would likely perform better, it would still likely be significantly behind its competitors in terms of commercail success. It would likely become something like the Dreamcast, the Xbox, the PSV, or the N64 - powerful systems that didn't perform all too well. Something that is ripped on unfairly but has become such a sensitive topic that you can't say anything slightly negative about it without been  made out to look like you have bad taste. Hardcore gamers would make it out to be a "great console" regardless of how much money it actually makes.

While the Wii U is a somewhat poorly-conceived console, it's understandable why Nintendo took the route that they did originally. It would take quite a while to fix their perception among the core gamers that a traditional console would have targeted, force them to radically change their business structure with much higher spending and not much of a safety net, and might mot even be succesful in the long run due to the rapidly changing console market and their history. Whether you or I or anyone else would like such a console doesn't affect how well it will do.

I don't think it would be market leader, but it would definitely do better then the wii-u.