I guarantee that sales would be higher if the name was less dumb than "Wii U".

Yeah.

Would the name "Wii 2" suddenly make the games 99 cents/free like casuals have grown accustomed to on their phones/tablets?

Would the name "Wii 2" suddenly make the system powerful enough to handle PS4/XB1 ports without compromise? 

Would the name "Wii 2" make the tablet controller somehow more useful or interesting? 

Nope, nope, and nope. With those three strikes, Wii U/Wii 2/Super Wii/Please Buy Wii/whatever you want to call it would struggle to find an audience outside of Nintendo core fans. 

Wii 1 was lightning in the bottle, the successor isn't. The "Wii" itself was a silly name to begin with, but it fit the plan of what Nintendo was trying to do with that system which was make it completely different from other systems and appeal to casuals. 

In my defense, I didn't say how much more it would've sold.

I really fail to understand if you are mistaking it on purpose or not. Let's do that step by step.

Basically, from the very begining, you make each point irrevelant by example of products that suceed in most of the other points. I failed to explain, or you failed to understand, so let's explain one last time.

If a product like the XBone doesn't have a good design but have a very strong advertising campain, it doesn't prove the design is irrevelant. It proves a strong advertising campain is relevant. Other products will prove the design is relevant, other companies will be sucessfull by design, that's a plain fact. Steve Jobs was known to pay extreme attention to design, and provided a few examples of success. Can you just thing for a second and agree on that ? What you are saying, and repeating from the beginning is that if a product proves something is not mandatory, then this thing irrelevant. It makes absolutely no sense, you are confusing relevant and mandatory. You are saying it again "I did say that the overall design of the console is irrelevant (Xbone sells well but it is hidious in terms of consumer electronics).". So, even if I told you multiple time it's not about having everything right, you think you have a good example here, that you are making a good argument, and that I should be convinced. It's not the case, your logic is wrong. Something can be relevant, can matter, can have strong impact on sales, can really make a product new, and still not be mandatory for every products. Design does matter, so many people and companies spend a lot and believe in the impact of the design, it's a fact, the only way you can make design irrelevant is by having deep flaws in your logic. Your flaw is to make a confusion between mandatory and relevant.

Second thing, I'm not talking about a good design, but about a new design to help make it a new product. But you also made it irrelevant in a previous answer with exactly the same trick. Some products successful in multiple areas did prove it's not mandatory. So by an example you made it irrevelant, and that's again totally wrong. Nintendo proves it's relevant : except for the Wii U that is strongly similar to the Wii, they came with a totally new design every time. NES, Super NES, N64, Gamecube and Wii have totally different designs. Because, and again that's fact, a new design is relevant, why would Nintendo and so many companies fully change the design everytime if it was irelevant ? That does make sense, design change a lot, new product have new design, new design make a product new.

If you can agree you are making a strong logical mistake here, we can talk about price, launch, marketing, PR, naming, PS Vita failure, etc. If not, OK, I'm done.

I totally agree on that.

Would the name "Wii 2" make the user base that thought it's fun and different to move arms and even stand in front of a screen ... sit and push buttons on a controller ?

The name Wii 2 or Super Wii would prevent confusion with the costumers.

The name Wii 2 would have let costumers know Nintendo has a new console

The name Wii 2 or Super Wii would have given Nintendo much better launch sales.

The name Wii 2 or Super Wii would have make it clear that the original Wii has a successor.

Would PlayStation U could have such enormous sales as the PlayStation 2 ?

No because costumer confusion would have prevent it from reaching those sales.

Just as the Wii U costumer confusion effected the sales of Nintendo.

Honestly, I may as well be speaking with a brick wall. You've constantly contradicted your argument throughout this discussion. You did not fail to explain your opinion, you failed to understand facts.

Throughout this discussion I have continually pointed out your fallacies. Instead of admitting to it you either try and put words in my mouth (to which I correct) or attempt to create another nonsensical rant that diverts from the matter that I addressed.  You claimed that one of Wii U's factors of it not selling was the design of the console. Instead of your tactics in argument, I actually provided companies that create new iterations in electronics while keeping a similar design of the previous release with some minor changes (like Nintendo did with the Wii U). I proved that they still managed respectable sales despite this. I also provided an example of the Xbox One which is nowhere near as sleak or appealing in appearance as the PS4 or Wii U, yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant . I don't think I have a good argument, I know I do.

Companies previously changed designs drastically because they were under the assumption that you need to have your hardware stand out from the previous elecvtronic iterations to have the consumer understand that it is different from the previous generation. We've seen a change in the tide over the past 5-10 years. Electronics companies have proven that this is not necessarily the case and that you can make minor changes in appearance while keeping the same design (cost cutting for them ost part). As I've stated, cellphones, tablets ,etc are fine examples. Nintendo was not wrong in using this concept. That is not the reason why the console is not selling. I will say this again to you and maybe you can do a little homework on it instead of going off opinion but the name of the console confused people, along with poor marketing that did not help either. Major news sites were confusing the console as an add one. Consumers have confused the console as an add on or are not aware of it's existence. What  else do you need ot understand that you are wrong? Is it really that difficult?

Your right, this conversation is done because I could probably give you every educated response and provide you with every article necessary that for the majority would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt my logic is correct yet you would still hold on to your pipe dreams that you were somehow right.

Slightly higher for sure. The name was a stupid move by Nintendo, and it backfired.

Well, "one of the most beautiful consoles ever" is a very subjective opinion, so I'll respect it too and I won't contest it, as criticising it too would be subjective, and in fact in my previous post I criticised only Ninty's strategy in the transition and Wii U marketing in general (although MS and Sony ones can be even worse if they are in the right mood to do marketing disasters  ). About killing Wii early, Ninty consoles' system sellers are mainly their biggest 1st party games, so it's Ninty that decides when a console of its must die.