Why? The N64 introduced rumble pack, a mid-generation upgrade part to put in the slot with DK64, a controller that was drastically different than anything they did prior or have done since.
GameCube was originally designed to have 3d and internet (from what I've read), had wireless controllers, was disc based rather than cartridge, introduced c-stick (their first attempt at dual stick), memory cards to take your save files to another person's device, etc.
None of things separate it from its competitors. PS1 and PS2 had far more distruptive change than either of those platforms.
Actually none of those platforms were disruptive. PS1, PS2, N64, Gamecube...none were disruptive.
Disruptive means that functionality suffers so that you can improve some other aspect: reliability, convenience or price. For example Google Stadia is potentially disruptive because the games all look like they perform worse, but you don't have to buy a console. So functionality suffers but people save money compared to what came before.
PS1, PS2, N64, and Gamecube were not disruptive, because they improved the specs compared to the previous generation and the prices all went up. It's just that with Playstation the hardware was more expensive but with the N64 the cartridges were more expensive. As a whole, both systems were more expensive compared to the SNES, the leader of the previous generation. That is the opposite of disruptive.