1) Incomplete support of Dual-shock on the platform (a point still in debate)

for me its not... it was a dumb point from the beginning imo

i can personally remember playing ps1 with my friend and playing just about every game with analog control, i'm not really sure where you're getting this incomplete support idea from but whatever

"The Super Nintendo has relatively small total sales as compared to the PS2, yet it and the Genesis introduced 16-bit gaming to the masses. If another console 10 years later, also 16-bits (think GBA), managed to sell much more and also offer 16-bits, will you say the new system brought it to the masses?"

the thing you haven't yet realised that makes this irrelevant is the time period between the consoles in question... the n64 and ps1 were direct competitors, how can you compare that to consoles decades apart?

as to the rest of your post as i said before your point is completely unrelated to mine and i never questioned that the n64 came out or that it ( obviously ) had a userbase before analogs were supported on the ps1 

my point from the beginning is how can it be said that the n64 is more mainstream or made a feature more mainstream than its direct competitor that outsold it by a huge margin with the same ( or even a better arrangement of the ) feature

i may be wrong but i'm pretty sure that the ps1 sold more software playable with analog technology than the n64

Okay, I'll agree this is motion gaming (as I said I've done one of these in College). But it didn't come before the N64. These games required flash (as most Webcam applications do), here is the history of it and here is the snipped:

Webcame usage over the browser would be in fetal stage in 1996 on use over Netscape as a plug-in. Odds are it began actually used by a fair amount of users, and then for games, a few years later. The N64 was released in 1996. Close one though.

1) Taking a close look at my point 1), notice I was clear to point out my gripe with the vectrex, I'll just quote myself k, and I'll bold the important part. I'll address the directionality in point 2, hoping that's fair and covering all points.

 "The Vectrex is a poor example to use. You need yet to prove to me the unlikely: that ppl used it with their thumbs."

2) Okay, I understand other devices used analog controls for direction before. I used to play tie fighter with my gravis joystick back in the day, way before the N64. But the gravis joystick was digital joysticks, and didn't provide the same level of precision. What I'm trying to say is that there were two types of joysticks: analog joysticks, and digital joysticks. The analog joysticks used a potentiometer ever since the first one.

Here, read this when you have a chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_stick

One thing is true, is that the Vectrex did offer analog technology prior to the N64, but there was even one before it.

"In 1982, Atari released their first controller with a potentiometer-based analog joystick for their Atari 5200 home console."

The proof that Nintendo didn't use the vectrex as a basis for their controller, lies here: the N64 control isn't an analog stick... It's digital!!!

Not only that, but the N64 truly is the first true bona fide thumb stick we've ever had.

So, I can't say the N64 is the first analog controller, since it isn't even analog! But I'll claim this:

Claim 1) The N64 controller is the first video game input device to have a thumbstick which provides varying levels of movement and near-360-degree control.

Claim 2) The first analog stick is credited to Atari.

@bold. I'm starting to have more faith in you. Yes, the total n64 library may be greater than dual-shock supporting PS1 software. Since we're not sure, let's just put this aside for now.

It can only be said by using the supported software argument, but as I said above, I'm putting it aside for now.

Let's just go on your end of the argument for a second: "which sold more in HW sales and just total SW sales?". Obviously it's the PS1. But the point I was trying to make is that, by the time the PS1 began supporting analog controls via DualShock, Nintendo had already exposed a considerably large userbase to the technology, much differently than say the Vectrex would have. Their flagship, Mario, made heavy use of it as of launch. Its sales amounted to 11.89 million, the bulk of which was sold in the first two years.

Mario 64 release date: Japan: Jun 1996    NA: Sep 1996   EU: Mar 1997

Dual Shock release date: Japan: Nov 1997  NA: May 1998  EU:  ?

Mario 64 Sales by region: Japan: 1.91M  NA: 6.91M  EU:  2.86M

Time diff Mario 64 vs dual shock: Japan: 17 months  NA: 20 months  EU:  ?

So, by the time the dualshock came out, just Mario 64 was already in the hands of roughly 8 to 9 million users out there. I consider that in this case Nintendo was the first to market and to a wide audience.

Cheers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFlHdlfZQgI  Look at the 8 min mark and you'll see the guy playing the controller in the video, and from what I can tell whenever he uss that stick he uses his thumb.  It may not have been as well designed for that particular application but it's clear that's how it's played by some at the very least.

Kudos for the video, it was informative. But Tor, lol at attempt at using the thumb in 4:29. As of there he uses thumb and index as I mentioned many posts ago. I understand he uses only his thumb at 8:00, but alot of the time he wasn't holding it from the top and the position didn't seem comfortable at all. But I'll concede even this.

Even then... All the other arguments brought up, the fact that Nintendo did not use potentionmeters they actually had a digital joystick (so it's not even an analogue stick), this proves they didn't base their design off the vectrex or any other analog stick out there. And then, as I demonstrated to o_O.Q, they didn't succeed in bringing it to the masses like Nintendo did, 1.5 to 2 years before the Playstation. This argument holds much stronger for the american public, but roughly 2 Million japanese users (total japan Mario sales) is also considerable as a threshold.

So, in summary,

1) The Vectrex was preceded by the Atari 5200 joystick.

2) The first thumbstick, as far as we know, was the Vectrex, but it was a poor one, and very incomplete as a thumbstick. In contrast, the N64 digital thumbstick was fully functional, ergonomic, and designed for use with a back trigger button. The design was solid. The dualshock did not drastically improve the N64 design, it simply refined it.

3) The N64 controller was not an analog stick, it was digital. Hence, its design is not based of the Atari 5200 technology (and Vectrex for that matter). Same cannot be said about the PS1 design.

4) The game Mario 64 gloriously demonstrated to the public how this HW technology was to be properly used, within video game software.

5) Last but not least, the N64 was the first console to bring this technology to the masses, in a mediatically explosive way. In terms of cultural phenomenon, we can accredit Nintendo for its marketing and software interactivity efforts: it made noise. Hence why, in my view, it is the one to win the credit on this point.

If any of these points are still up for debate (point 4, maybe. Flight simulators had their place with this too I think), let's get to the bottom of this ;)

All those points are fine, because you've taken out the bit about them being first.  Nintendo can be the first to make it popular, the first to make one that was really comfortable for your thumb, and the first to show it's potential for games, but they didn't make the first thumbstick.  

And if them using digital instead of analog means that they didn't base it off the Vectrex doesn't the fact that Sony's PS1 Dual Analog was indead analog and was based off the tech in a duel flight stick controller that they had already made mean that Sony didn't base their controller off the N64?

Yes, you're right. But one would have to be in full denial to think that the DualShock did not come business-wise from the success the N64 had from its offerings, much like the Move was a business response to the  Wii. If somebody claims that, I'm at a loss ;)

Nope, somebody else showed that it could be popular, so Sony started working on their own version of a similar technology, but the idea that Sony saved millions because they just copied what Nintendo was doing has no proof towards it and based on the fact that Sony used their own tech for both of these to solve the same problem I don't think they saved any money tech-wise.  They just weren't the first to come up with it or make it popular, and nintendo can have credit for that, but they can't have credit for coming up with the technology that Sony didn't even use.

Fair enough Torillian, they probably reused their flightstick technology and thumbstick-sized it. But they looked at Nintendo, saw what they did, liked the idea, took their flightstick tech, and compacted it to the dualshock and socketed it into the controller, like Nintendo did. The idea was birthed by Vectrex, rebirthed by Nintendo some 15 years later, and 2 years later, Nintendo's idea to bring it back to the world of gaming was used by Sony. From a business point of view, there is leader-following (I won't use the term copying as it involves too many ambiguities).

For that I would be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree. But if so, let's continue! :D