Bottom line: PSX beat N64 because Sony beat Nintendo in the lateral advancement game. Sony, now the top console maker, then created their own game - the iterative power advancement game using much the same setup. But in handhelds, Sony skipped the lateral advancement step, and that step was taken by Nintendo - Sony lost because the PSP seemed like a more powerful Gamegear (already a losing strategy), but the DS and its touchscreens, rubbed off feeling fresh and more advanced, and with the SD Lite in 2006, looked the part with its sleek design.
Here is a more expanded explanation on that:
The N64 was when Nintendo temporarily forgot who they were. While Nintendo did revolutionize 3D and interface, they also began chasing power with the N64 and were no longer using the cheapest tech. While the PlayStation was a more expensive machine, the N64 had significantly more expensive software media. More or less, PlayStation (the PSX at least) beat Nintendo at their own game - using older technology in a better way - The PSX controller advanced on the SNES design by adding a couple more triggers, and later Sony ripped off the N64 analogs around the FF8/MGS era, and created the most used gaming controller in history - a cross between SNES and N64 controllers with Sony’s own advancements. After the PSX beat the N64 at Nintendo’s game, the PS2 beat Gamecube at Sony’s new game - iteration and power - “beat” is an understatement, PlayStation 2 flattened the Gamecube into a kindergarten doormat after Nintendo’s lousy strategy.
It’s no mystery - GameCube didn’t come off as a Nintendo hit, it came off as a kiddy version and competitor to the PS2.
Luckily, Nintendo learned, and made the Wii. And, instead of coming off as a PS-like machine, Nintendo had something feeling fresh and advanced, without the need of the ultimate power. This was Nintendo relearning what they stopped doing. But the relearning was first put into practice earlier than the Wii, on the handheld side…
Gameboy, but it had a background: the NES was a major hit because it was a lot more affordable than the competition at the same time as bringing in more intuitive/less esoteric (for lack of a better term) controls using technology that was considered older, but also much easier to manufacture despite its new uses(mainly thanks to interface) - and it actually goes even earlier than this with Nintendo’s arcade contributions, but we’re already getting drawn out 😎. Gameboy did the same thing, perhaps more effectively because no one was doing handheld consoles at the time, but the little devices with the cheap built in games were becoming very popular… and you know how the story goes - Nintendo sees an untapped market, and Nintendo tapped that like Scarface (“this town is like one great big…”). Gameboy did it better with withered tech.
The PSP might have done a lot better against the GBA because it would have come across as a more advanced and appealing device. But Nintendo went back to their roots with the DS, and nullified that notion of a more advanced Sony handheld. First, Sony had the “discman” brand, and everyone knows how that turned out - many bought them, and many ended up with skipping scratched CDs, and then MP3 players replaced them overnight in the autumn of 2001, capitalizing on a new demand created by Napster 2 years prior. Power wasn’t everything in the tech race anymore, Nintendo moved back into the lateral advancement space, and beat Sony. Unlike home consoles, the power advancement game wasn’t as appealing as the lateral advancement game.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
