Well, it doesn't take twice the effort to make docked + portable modes; in most cases all assets are shared, devs just get it running on portable then use docked mode for a resolution boost on the TV, not much extra effort required there at all.

And I expect if Switch was a traditional x86 console it likely wouldn't have sold well enough for third parties to support it anyway. There's no room on the market for another PS4.

But yeah, I think Nintendo are learning, Switch is definitely more third party friendly than say, Wii U.

If you don't go into too many details it would mean Squaresoft would have remained with Ninty and they would have obliterated Sony everywhere. Even in Europe.

N64 won regardless what format it used. I had both PS1 and N64 and the N64 destroyed it when it came to quality games. PS1 was a pirates dream and basically sold so well because of the piracy in my opinion.

For me, I am glad Nintendo stuck to its roots and it paid off for them since Nintendo weren't losing money due to piracy issues or flooded with poor games. Don't get me wrong, I still loved my PS1 and I played it often however when it came to multiplayer games and big AAA games, the N64 is up there as one of the best consoles I have ever owned. I have mentioned many times sales don't matter, not to me and the N64 vs PS1 is the perfect example of that to me.

Replying to me is always right =]

But I get why you are in doubt on it, because I agree with what you listed.

And it is funny that all around we have people still thinking PS1 and PS2 sold well due to piracy. Devs wouldn't support the system if they couldn't sell they software on it. Looking at a system that sold almost 1B SW on a little over 100M HW and saying it sold well due to piracy is lunacy.

Yet Devs also supported games on PC which was also heavily based around piracy back in the 90s.. what's your point? 

Oh, they do.Even if only on a small level.Square had been wanting to leave Nintendo for a while back in the day, and while the business decision is the one that really made them jump over to the PS1, their grudge against Nintendo not only helped, but probably incentivized them on trying to find a better deal somewhere.In a way, having good relations with developers is like having good customer support in a supermarket.Good customer suport can win over new buyers because its less of a hassle to go shopping there.But yeah, as you said, if the competitor has better prices, then they will go to the competitor, no matter the situation.

A classic example of this was RE 4.Shinji Mikami hated Playstation.So much so that he tried his hardest to keep RE 4 away from the PS2, and the game only came over because the PS2 was a roaring sucess and the gamcube a giant failure.

People saying Playstation would have still won are using hindsight.

I bought a PS1 (and every iteration afterwards), but the fact was that Nintendo was the king before that generation. It had 3rd party support from all the big publishers (usually having the superior iteration if comparing a multiplat to Genesis' console). All the games that made PS1 so great would have probably been on Nintendo's machine had they used CD (aside from the Sony first party exclusives, which, albeit great didn't have the impact that Nintendo first party exclusives did).

What killed the N64 was staying with cartridges. It lost them the big games like Final Fantasy (which were on Super Nintendo), and other more cinematic style games that relied on assets it couldn't fit. Of course, if they went with the CD format, they wouldn't be able to make games as responsive as Super Mario 64 and LoZ: OOT, because CD loading times took too long to be so quick feeling. But knowing Nintendo, they would have found solutions to make great first party games whether on CD or cartridge. But the N64 was the beginning of Nintendo losing big 3rd party support, and it's pretty much all because of the cartridge.

The N64 would have won hands down. There's no question about it. Nintendo would have kept the Japanese support, especially from Squaresoft, Enix, Konami and Capcom and the N64 would have murdered PlayStation in Japan. Also, a lot of people were forgetting that even though the Nintendo brand was aimed at a younger demographic, Nintendo did push hard to get mature content on the N64 especially since they were just coming off the Play it Loud campaign for the SNES. That's the reason the N64 got games like Turok and Goldeneye. This meant that the N64 would have gotten Resident Evil and Silent Hill. Now tithe being said, first party games like Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time would have been drastically different because back then, both cartridges and CDs had their advantages and disadvantages and this affected how games on both the N64 and PlayStation were designed. For example, we probably would not have seen a very open Hyrule Field in OOT. It probably would have been more like A Link to the Past's over world only in 3D or possibly pre-rendered. They actually would have been worse in my opinion.

With PlayStation, I think everything would have played out similar to the Sega Genesis. PlayStation would have underperformed in Japan just like the Genesis did but probably would have done very well in the west and would have relied a lot on western third party games, much like the Genesis did. The aggressive marketing still would have been there. PlayStation still would have killed Sega Saturn in the west. In the end I think worldwide sales between PlayStation and the N64 would have been similar to the difference between Genesis and SNES. The only major tossup would have been the European market. Nintendo wasn't as popular in Europe as Sega but I'm not sure if PlayStation would have had the software output to take Europe.

Some people also bring up the fact the N64 launched very late. That would not have made difference. The N64 actually sold faster at launch than both the Sega Saturn and PlayStation did when those systems launched. There was a lot of hype for the N64. The problem is the hype died down after the launch because of the lack of software available which wouldn't have been a problem if they went with CDs.

Guys, despite the fact that I am a hude Nintendo fan, I can't but see the reality. By recognising that Nintendo was the king before Playstation arrived, you underestimate Sony. First of all, the greatest factor I believe that Nintendo would still lose to Sony this generation, is the fact that her relationship with 3 Parties were as you all know not the best. The basic reason why 3 parties had their games on Nintendo platforms, had to do with the restricted policies Nintendo had towards to them and of course because Nintendo had the biggest market shares. Why do you think that even with a CD based N64, all these companies would still stick with them, when it's more than obvious that Sony tried and succedeed to have much better relations with them.

I still think that it's not about the cartridges, is something more. It has to do with the fact that developers after ten years of complete domination of the policies of Nintendo really felt that it was time for a change. And this is the reason why till today Sony dominates in this market, because they have more collaborators. Despite that, remember that Genesis really achieved to make a come back for SEGA in America. You can't ignore the fact that the console sold 17 millions (VGC) just 5 millions behind SNES. It was more than obvious that Nintendo had already started losing her reliability both to developers and to customers, with a rival console using the same format.

So, to conclude. It was just a matter of time. Nintendo didnt ever think to change their policies, they never did and this cost them a lot. And again, even with more games, in regions like Europe, N64 would never achieve such huge numbers. Why from 8m NES and 6m SNES to move suddenly to 30or 40 million N64? In America it would achieve numbers close to 30 million and in Japan the NES Numbers, but ROTW wouldn't have any impact. N64 limit would be around 50-60 million install base. And Playstation would be around 70 to 80. 40m in Europe, 10m ROTW, at least 20m in America (but I can say 30 too, it would be close with N64). In Japan is hard to calculate, but if we take into consideration that N64 would have the big japanese hits, then I would see for PS the same numbers as any other failed console had done untill then (close to 5 million). Overall, 50-60 for N64 and 70-80 for PS1.

And I telll you this guys. I would really really like these numbers to be the real ones. And why I tell this? Because, PS1 was groundbreaking for the time it came out, a very good investment from Sony and they deserved to get the victory.

The N64 had a record setting start in sales. Lack of games and pricey carts hurt the system sales afterwards. All of these could be blamed on Nintendo being stubborn and going with Cartridges. The N64 was a powerhouse of a machine, it delivered arguably the better more ground breaking games of that gen (Mario 64, GE, Ocarina of Time). FFVII was a big reason for Sony's success in the mid to late 90s, had Nintendo gone CD Square might have remained with Nintendo. All things considered it is likely Nintendo either wins that race or at the very least goes even up with Sony had they gone CD. Apart from the obvious Memory limitations of cartridges, Nintendo had the better machine, and in those early days of 3-D graphics, that gap in horse power would have made a huge difference for consumers.