Hopefully Nintendo just rips the bandage off and we finally get the official reveal and all the details (new features, release date, price, launch window games) next month. By time the thing comes out, it will be the second-longest gap between a system and its successor ever behind only the Game Boy.

There are reasonable explanations for all of that.

Unlike the NES, the SNES had real competition. This was mainly a factor in NA (the SNES dominated in Japan, while Europe wasn't a major console market yet).  Once Nintendo's de facto monopoly ended in 1991 after multiple legal challenges and government probes, third parties were able to support Sega, and retailers were free to push Sega consoles as well. Also that year, Sega released the hugely successful Sonic the Hedgehog as an answer to Super Mario. So, unlike in the previous generation when the NES had a vastly larger library with many notable third-party exclusives, neither system had a clear advantage in terms of strength of software library (personal opinions aside). Sega also understood the importance of marketing. In the "Attitude Decade" that was the 90s in America, being highly confrontational and positioning themselves as the "cool" console proved highly successful for Sega. It didn't help that Nintendo wasn't doing anything to shake their kid-friendly image by having strict censorship policies prior to 1994 when the ESRB was formed. This reached a head with the release of the console versions of Mortal Kombat; the SNES version had the blood & gore removed, while the Genesis version had those left intact (though you needed a code to unlock the violent parts). Because of all of these factors, Sega was actually able to put up a serious fight against Nintendo that generation in the U.S.

The N64 lost a bunch of third-party support, in large part due to sticking with cartridges (and FWIW it was the market leader in the U.S. during its first 12 months; the PS1 didn't become the leader until FF7 was released). As a result, the PS1's library of games was much larger. The format difference also made the PS1 a more affordable option; while the two systems were at price parity their entire lives, PS1 games were on average about $20 cheaper than the N64's (though Nintendo's first-party titles still dominated the software charts because of their extremely high attach rates). Sony also learned from Sega the importance of aggressive marketing in the 90s and positioning themselves as the more appealing alternative.

The GameCube had the misfortune of coming after the N64 and running face-first into the massive juggernaut that was the PS2, which had already been out for over a year, as well as getting sniped from its other flank by the Xbox. It was the strongest competition Nintendo ever had to face. That generation's outcome was already settled before it got fully underway due to Sony maintaining the momentum they had gained with the PS1. Basically, it was Nintendo vs. Xbox in a race to determine who would take the spot of a very distant second place. Xbox ended up edging out the GC worldwide, mainly because of a relatively strong performance in the U.S.

The Wii U was just poorly marketed, to the point where many thought it was just a tablet accessory for the Wii. Looking at the early ads for it, it's easy to see how people could be confused about that. Nintendo tacitly admitted to this in their holiday advertisements leading up to Christmas 2013. Nintendo did do what they could to try to right the ship, but by then the damage had been done and they just weren't able to generate much interest in the system.

On the flip side, the Game Boy Advance stuck with the Game Boy name and it sold over 80M units in a very short time span, making it Nintendo's fastest-selling system at that time and is still one of the fastest-selling systems ever. So, playing it safe did work out for Nintendo there. It helps that the GBA was affordable, had a strong software library (including Pokemon, which was still near the heights of its early days), and had effectively zero competition in the handheld space.

TL;DR, Nintendo systems succeed or fail for the same reasons other systems succeed or fail. Games, pricing, marketing, the strength and nature of the competition, and even things like regional variations in consumer tastes all factor in.

The Switch 2 is filling its own niche, and as a fundamentally different experience from PS & Xbox it arguably isn't competing against them any more than their pure handhelds were competing with conventional home consoles. I doubt Nintendo will charge anything exorbitant for it at launch ($400 tops, maybe less). Nintendo moving to a single platform means they'll retain their all-hands-on-deck situation and therefore games won't be an issue (first-party titles being the main event on Nintendo systems since the N64). Having a simple "2" to make it clear this is a next-gen Switch means they've learned their lessons about messaging/marketing. While I doubt it will sell what the Switch 1 has, even that would have a 🦠clear explanation🦠 as to why, and even then I doubt it'll sell less than 120M units.

But no 16 year old is getting confused about whether something is a new system or not.

The idea that people can't tell the difference between different generation systems is way overblown (ie. WiiU did not sell poorly cuz people thought it was a Wii peripheral or whatever people claim, it sold poorly cuz it was terribly designed and didn't have compelling software).

Sure there may be some clueless parents who want to get a system for their little kid and they may not know what system is what, but that's about it. And it's easy enough with a couple minute internet search for even those clueless parents to figure it out.

Doesn't matter what Nintendo calls it. Everyone is gonna know it is the successor to the Switch. But given the fact that it will likely look nearly identical to the Switch, I think "Switch 2" makes the most sense.

If the name is Switch 2 I think it could also throw into question a lot of things about Switch 2 since the whole "b, bu, but Nintendo doesn't do that!" crowd would have a clear curve ball thrown their way.

Yes in the past Nintendo doesn't do things like that, but you're also not taking into account Nintendo has an entirely new president who is of a different generation completely too and likely has different points of views on things. If the Yamauchi and Iwata eras were dramatically different, it's quite possible things will be different under Furukawa.

But by this logic i can also say Nintendo could release a high end console as a Switch "2" sucessor. They have a new president thinking completly different than Iwata. I say it could also be possible. But before PSboys crap their pants lets leave this topic.😘

If the name is Switch 2 I think it could also throw into question a lot of things about Switch 2 since the whole "b, bu, but Nintendo doesn't do that!" crowd would have a clear curve ball thrown their way.

Yes in the past Nintendo doesn't do things like that, but you're also not taking into account Nintendo has an entirely new president who is of a different generation completely too and likely has different points of views on things. If the Yamauchi and Iwata eras were dramatically different, it's quite possible things will be different under Furukawa.

There's a possibility Nintendo has finally learned that an iterative successor again is the way to go. Kookiness and some innovations are fine, but too much or too confusing is a liability. Wii U is the textbook example, as it cashed in on the passing fad of Wii and created confusion with its GamePad. 

Switch 2 leaves little room for confusion. I'm struggling to think of any game platform with 2 or similar increased numbers in the title that wasn't a successor. Switch 2 would not make people think it's a mid-gen (late) refresh, but a brand-new system. 

A lot of the recent leaks such as the new button, shape of the tablet and JoyCons all add up. So does the name. I'm skeptical of this particular Reddit leak, though. And I'm relatively skeptical of most of the leaks. 

We have the specs for the system already and they're pretty good (1536 CUDA cores is not bad), the usual posters were hanging onto the "yeah, but it'll be on the 8nm process and they're just run a gimped clock speed cuz Nintendo". 

Meanwhile a lot of the other leaks don't even make sense within the context of "Nintendo just makes dirt cheap hardware". Why then make a larger system with a larger 8 inch screen and so on, why chose the better LPDDR5X RAM, etc. If you don't care about performance why have a second fan in the dock, etc. etc.