You lying youself if you think a lot of PS1 games were possible on cartridge that have max size of 64MB. Huge majority of PS1 games had size of several hundreds MB, how can you fit those size if you cartridge with max size of 64MB!? Some games definatly could fit even on 64MB but pure fact is that huge majority couldnt fit. Also GC had far more better 3rd party support the N64 had despite N64 was selling better, also pure fact. Actualy N64 is Nintendo console with smalest number of relased game, why do think that is a case!?

Man.... your cause and consequence relation are all messed... but let's keep going.

if you assume they had made those mistakes before (the ones on WiiU) and new ones so some of their demons for the past still haunt them.

The fact that you can't read a DVD movie on it doesn't make the drive itself much cheaper I suppose (and you are just throwing a conjecture, not an evidence) and I told you that the royalties weren't big so I'll give you the very high royalty prices

So nope, that wasn't a high fee... and that is the fee on the price of the drive not the whole assembly that contained it. So if Nintendo would pay 30 usd for the drive on the launch (let's assume) it would mean 1,2 usd on royalty for the drive and less than 10 cent fee on the disc itself (that would sell for 60 usd anyway).

And Sony sold PS2 for 100 and made profit over it, and probably could sell for 50 we may never know (PS1 was sold for 50). DVD players were expensive, more expensive than PS2, but that doesn't necessarily means the drive itself were a lot more expensive than Mini DVD, and until you bring evidence it isn't a possible point to make. Unless you think 1-4 usd royalty on launch was that much important to make the mess of Mini DVD.

Yes, PS3 costed 800 to manufacture... but the real cost of the bluray drive isn't determined but estimative is around 100,00 on launch (yes very high, but not even close to being the sole responsible for the high price... and nowhere close to the more than 600 a bluray player costed at the time).

I couldn't find very fast the cost of the drives itself... but considering Gamecube launch on 2001 (over 18 months later than PS2) and DVDs already being sold on Japan since 1996 the drive wasn't as expensive as you may think, and Nintendo certainly had room for that analysis. And you yourself gave the main reason being piracy and not cost at first, so why did you change it?

You can keep telling yourself that N64 had bad support only because of the cartridge (it certainly was a reason), but considering the good games (including Tony Hawks) that were running on N64 a lot of games were possible on the cartridge. How good of a support did GC really get besides launch? Will you say the reasons for low support changed gen to gen and Nintendo were fixing one mistake to them discover another? Because since N64 their 3rd party support is laughable.

Again, we can say that one of their biggest mistake was N64 catridge format (size of games), Wii U dont have that problem so we cant say "all nintendos demons are still haunting them till this day", beacuse that clearly inst ture, but you can keep deny that pure fact.

What is a price of fully capable DVD player that PS2 used at beginning of that gen!?

You lying youself if you think a lot of PS1 games were possible on cartridge that have max size of 64MB. Huge majority of PS1 games had size of several hundreds MB, how can you fit those size if you cartridge with max size of 64MB!? Some games definatly could fit even on 64MB but pure fact is that huge majority couldnt fit. Also GC had far more better 3rd party support the N64 had despite N64 was selling better, also pure fact. Actualy N64 is Nintendo console with smalest number of relased game, why do think that is a case!?

Ok, so you are only discussing the "all"... ok you win.

The price of the DVD player doesn't matter because you don't know how much was the premium, and you also didn't said what was the price of a capable Mini DVD at the time, not even asking for a fully capable.

I'm not lying to myself. With the right compression tools a lot the games on PS1 could fit on the cartridge. I'm not saying most, I'm saying a lot. They weren't there for some reasons, bad relationship, low sales of N64, lack of interest to invest the time to make it work, and of course for some of them, the cartridge limitation.

Price of full DVD player does matter because back then had high price, and I assume Nintendo wanted more affordable console.

Even with all those tools majority of games couldn't fit on max size of 64MB. Even with great sales, good relationship, interest...huge majority of gamers couldn't fit even if developers wanted. GC had around 50% worse sales than N64 had, but regardles GC had much better 3rd party suport.

If you relly want to know what are IMO Gaming's worst marketing/business decisions, this what I wrote:

-Sega- Releasing too many hardware in small amount of time.
-Nintendo- Staying with N64 cartridges (even back than that rely wasn't bad decision because every disk based console failed until PS1). Wii U revealing, marketing, naming, pricing, game pad, launch titles...bloody mess.
-Sony- PS3 $600 launch price, very complicated CPU. Vita, price, price of cards, 1st party content.
-MS- XB1, inital plans about DRM and block of used games, releasing console with higher price with less power than PS4.

I refuse to talk further on the price of the DVD player unless you show the price of either drive to be installed by gaming companies. Sony were able to use it and not price PS2 outside of GC price bracket and I already showed you that even though Bluray drive (which was much much more expensive than DVD drive) costed no more than 1/6 of the price of a BR player of the time, so I can't say that because there were BR players selling for over 1k that the drive costed 1k.

What are your evidences for not fitting? You were already shown that they were able to fit RE2 with all it's cutscenes on N64 and it took 2 CDs on PS1.

You listed the cartridge as their big fail, but insist on giving then a concession and refuses to recognize their bad relationship with developers from NES torwards today.

OK, you refuse to talk, but some clear facts: back than DVD player like that in PS2 had pretty high price, PS2 definitely had much higher price because of full DVD player, GC almost whole life span had around 100$ cheaper price than PS2, definitely mini dvd that plays only GC games had much less price than full DVD player that played almost every media, and that affected on lower price of GC.

You could fit some of PS1 games on N64, but not only developers would need to cut lots a thing from PS1 version of games but scaling some PS1 game from few hundreds MB to only 64MB was very complicated, expensive and requires lots a time, so huge majority of devolpers refues to do that becuse they thought it wasnt profitable. So like I wrote, reason why N64 had bad 3rd party suport and actualy is Nintendo console with smallest number of relased games (ask yourself why that is case when N64 isnt nearly worst selling Nintendo console), is very obvious very small size of N64 catriidges (max 64MB) for 3rd partys that were relased games on CD.

Its important to have good 3rd party suport, espacily today when 3rd parties are stronger than ever before, so its important to have also good 3rd party relationship, but not great 3rd party relationship didnt prevent Wii to become best selling Nintendo console ever, and thats why I didnt mentione bad relationship with developers like one of worst Nintendo marketing/business decisions.

"Some games definatly could fit even on 64MB but pure fact is that huge majority couldnt fit".