If the N64 was an abomination, then I must be one of Satan's spawn as much as I've enjoyed playing the games on that thing.

The reason that it failed was because it used an outdated format (cartridges), and Sony did an excellent job of marketing itself as the "cooler" system to the beer drinking jocks of the world.

when u think of the n64/playstation generation all the good games that you HAD TO PLAY were on n64
goldeneye
perfect dark
super smash
mario 64
conquers bad fur day
mario tennis

playstation had
metal gear solid......


the next gen PS2 did much better and game cube... well... failed... it had some games but sony got more of what people wanted. however xbox joined in and showed the world that shooters work on console with Halo, though sales wise it was smaller xbox beat out both others in terms of quality of games.

simply put, playstation one was nothing but a "hey we exist"
PS2 was "hey we have games the other guys don't ( until xbox comes into play)"

I also think the lack of online with the gamecube killed it too, i think a few games had online but the rest were not, sony and MS had lots of online which meant playing with more people and friends.

N64 had a lot to do with Nintendo's own mistakes then Sony's good decisions, firstly it was not an abomination by any means it had games on it that practically define gaming today, PS1 only came to be because it was meant to be a Snes add on but Nintendo didn't want to sign over royalties of every bit of software released on it including their first party titles. N64 arrived 2 years after the PS1 arrived such a headstart would put any company in a strong position and as if Sony's luck couldn't get any better Sega had seriously messed up with the Saturn, the PS1 allowed an alternative for third parties so they jumped aboard, with momentum of an unchallenged 2 year head start and third parties clamouring to get away from Sega and Nintendo it wasn't really the strategy that worked but the situation, Sony just captitalized on it with good marketing.

N64 then stuck with cartridges as their alternative deal with Panasonic didn't come into play fast enough which further pushed third parties away, the market also didn't have overly high development costs so they could stick to one platform as seen with the PS2. The risk in Blue Ocean is that you're trying to capture people who were never into gaming and have to spread your approach to cater to everyone, success in the Blue Ocean approach means that you're bringing in new gamers as well as having a much larger userbase buying your product while failure in it means your product barely takes off and is left behind by the Red Ocean group.

Every approach can fail and in fact the Red Ocean approach has already crashed once before in the 80s however what makes the Blue Ocean more resilient is that it's pulling in new gamers and caters diversely across every group in the market instead of a select group essentially it aims at everyone, for Blue Ocean to eventually fail something very off the wall would have to happen like gaming just comes to a stand still or a new approach is brought out.

the comment above is ridiculous....PS1 had MUCH more than MGS.....GT, Tekken, tons of RPGs, Resident Evil.......... in my opinion N64 was much more advanced and ambitious and their games hve aged better.....i loved both but N 64 was better imo..................
As for the GC...well, it has some of the best games ever created so WHO CARES ABOUT SALES?

1) I don't, I just meant it very differently than the strategy you envisioned (get crappier, sell more, which is downstream). What I meant was, get better, more interesting, and get to the heights of Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Kart. Unless you think those games are crappier, then we have a whole different paradigm for term use. One thing is certain however, they sell much more.

2) True. Maybe 3D Mario should incorporate multiplayer and get their themes more in line with SMB and Mario Kart. In other words, 3D Mario still has lots of life. If you don't appreciate the Tie Ratio argument, then consider how much better SMG did as compared to Sunshine. I withheld this far, but since the tie-ratio argument is bifacial. Sunshine 6.31M, Galaxy 9.98M. Of course we all know the popularity of the Wii helped Galaxy, and the unpopularity of the Cube did not help Sunshine, but Galaxy put the 3D Mario branch in an upward trend (bar its sequel). So, that's what I mean by upward disruption, that the 3D Mario series will sell upwards in the long run if it's handled properly.

3)  SMB sold 30M in NA. The N64 bought 20M. At best, 10M didn't buy anything, and that's counting that the 20M that bought the N64 are mainstream, those who would buy Mario. We know for a fact that roughly 3M people bought starfox 64, and that was not a mainstream game. So we're certainly down to 17M at very best mainstream gamers on the N64. But a better indicator of how many mainstream gamers were on the N64 were the sales of MK64, a highly mass-appealing game with 4 player Coop. It sold 5.55M in NA. (If I did the analysis for Japan it would be even worse).

But then, trying to find where these gamers would migrate to with the PS, it would seem you may be half-right. Looking at the Playstation SW numbers, it would seem the following happened...

Since few of the playstation 1 games can be considered truly mainstream games (appealling to a mass), and those that do sold so few numbers, yet the PS system sold so many systems... It leads me to believe the following.

a) Gamers were buying less qties of more games (206 games sold 1M and above, if the vgchartz numbers are right).

b) Many of the NES gamers had moved on, especially the older ones who found new hobbies, new mario or not. (In my experience that's what mainly happened)

c) Those that didn't move on and continued playing video games played more in an individual experience on the PS (in general). Those who wanted multplayer went N64. The PS line was also tainted by the MS market, where more PC-like games started making an appearance on consoles, like TES and Fable.

d) New gamers were attracted on the Playstation, some on the N64, but mostly on a hobbyist level. The vast new mainstream went Pokemon/GB.

e) By the time of HD gaming, a large portion of the original NES userbase had been converted to a more PS experience, leading to what you have today: modern HD twin hobbyists, as well as a whole new crowd attracted by MS-style game tastes, i.e. the COD fame and most FPS games. Some came back with their families as lapse gamers and bought a Wii. In the meantime, the Nintendo portable line maintained a mainstream audience all along.

It's so much more complex than we make it out to be, but one thing is possible, you are likely right, but not for anything Nintendo did. It was just a matter of people moving on. They enjoyed their NES, had a try at the SNES, and decided they had better things to do with their lives. Some continued playing on their friends' PSs, some with their little siblings' N64, but all in all the NES era was revolved.

4) I will insist they are victims. SMB enjoyed a time of explosive popularity that I don't believe has been experienced by any experience other than Wii Sports this far. Mind you, both were bundled. I would laugh if Nintendo bundled a 3D Mario game for the WiiU. Obviously it's never gonna happen, but that would be pretty strong proof that it's possible given the right limelight. The only way I would change my mind is if, given that chance, 3D Mario fails in its endeavor. Super Mario 64 does not count because, though being a launch title, it wasn't bundled. (What a bad move that was...)

5) I was agreeing with you. 2D Mario is Blue Ocean strategy. It's less expensive to manufacture, and intends on targetting the Nintendo lapse gamer. It worked! Not only did it attract the lapse gamer, but it also attracted the new mainstream from the DS success. It was a great move. Super Mario 3D is expensive to produce, but as time goes by and with Mario not needing ultra-realistic graphics, it will become more and more feasible to produce, and offer better production value to its customers. I believe the series still has much potential, and Galaxy is only the begining. 3DLand doesn't touch Galaxy with a stick.

There are some points I agree and disagree with in this post.

The N64 was certainly a great system with some obviously fantastic games, so it's hardly an abomination. And having cartridges definitely did not contribute to its success. 

However, a huge aspect of the Playstation's success wasn't just in appealing to jocks. If you look at the hardware totals, the PS1 and NES are basically on par in terms of hardware sales in NA and Japan. The vast majority of the growth came from Europe and the developing markets. The most important thing that Sony did in terms of growing the gaming market was making millions of gamers in the PAL region enter the home console market through games that appealed to the market (e.g. Gran Turismo).

So this is madness??

Truth be told, some of my post might have been tongue in cheek. 

I do agree with you that Sony definitely expanded the market.  Many of it was due to it's advertising to the developing markets.  Another thing that Sony did well was  to be the first system to usher in the new generation of substantially better graphics.  While the N64 was more powerful, Sony did it first.  Which brings me to another point.  Sony used being first strongly to it's advantage.  They made it seem like their Playstation was the only gaming system to have.   

As odd as this is Wyrdness, I almost 100% agree with this, one point to clarify.

@italics. It did fail, and when the NES came in they had a Blue Ocean approach. In North America, they sold it in toy stores, did a massive campaign and ensured quality control on their titles. That was blue ocean as it opened up to a whole new market with games like Duck Hunt and a real working zapper, and tons of support for it. Super Mario Bros. was a whole new experience people never played before, so that tapped into a whole new market space. (I learnt most of this by debating with Rol, so  I take little credit for this) SMB applies to both Japan and North America. From there, Japan succeeded more on 3rd party titles, while NA continues with the explosion of Mario and some 3rd party support.

Mind you the D-Pad has very little to do with this (in case anybody brings it up), and in NA games like Final Fantasy and MegaMan only tapped into Nintendo's legwork and kept the momentum going (these were much more important in Japan, as the SNES and PS brands show). The D-Pad was created by Gunpei Yokoi for the game and watch Donkey Kong game. It has little to do with the NES' success, other than a possible effect on image, but it pales in comparison with the effect Toy R.O.B had on the NES' image, as well as its stow-away cartridge loading style look.

I want to stress that, your 2-year headstart argument is fundamental. The question begs to be asked, at that time in the history of gaming, would people have bought a whole other console with Blue Ocean strategy measures when they already bought the PS with 206 games that sold over 1M units, lots of those sold by the time the N64 was released? A few did (30M), and that's very good considering circumstance. However, the bulk of that was sold in NA. Europe was not Nintendo friendly bar handhelds at the time, and Japan completely rejected it. Look at the percentages:

Japan:

N64 sold almost 25% of total PS sales there. A joke. Compare that to all other successful Nintendo systems there, they are mostly on par if not 1.5x better than PS numbers. This had to be more than about mario. The PS brand was explosive over there, not much Nintendo could do about it, espcially not with 3rd party support. Japan never really was super Nintendo 1st-party friendly anyways post nes. SMW sold a whopping 3.54M there, and that's as good as it gets (well, except for mario Kart at 3.81M). Compare that with PS's success in Japan, and you see FF and DQ are much happier there.

In Europe, Nintendo wasn't even doing so hot at 8M at best (bar handhelds). To launch late against the PS without CD-playback ability (useful for sports games and simulators) was a horrible move. Yet it still managed to move 6.35M units. Nothing Mario could have done here to help. At best, Mario had sold there 3.75M (SMW).

Other:

The playstation made a killing in Other for its generation. Only GBA had made that much headroom. The N64 is a shame, not even 10% of PS sold. Look at how Wii and DS managed to capitalize! Nothing Mario could have done to change this. Not even 1M Nintendo units sold there even with the big M.

NA:

North America is the N64's best region! It sold only half of what the PS sold, after 1 year of PS' headstart. People were Nintendo-loyal in NA, but due to circumstance and the 1-year headstart, Sega's failure with Saturn, great marketing and 3rd party support, all went PS' way, and despite all that the excellent SM64, sold almost 7M in NA as a non-bundled title! What a feat. There was not much Nintendo could do to counter circumstance. Obviously the Wii situation was completely different, and Nintendo had the room to disrupt, nothing was going on for the 360 really and the PS3 bombed. Yes, circumstance has much to do with this.

Iny my opinion, the down fall of the of both consoles can be traced back to the past of an aging former president thats been (in office) running nintendo since 1949. He fired many people in his day; especially family members. He was the one who drove many developers away with the N64 and terminated the contract with sony that ultimately created the PS1. If he had stepped down much sooner, everything couldn't been different. Mr. Iwata could've gained more expierence, and he could've prevented most of the problems Mr. Yamauchi caused. In the end, the N64 and GC could've been more successful.