Oh, I see. That must be why the Switch could potentially be the best-selling console of all time when it's said and done. That must also be why it keeps getting ports of games releasing on much more powerful hardware, despite being a lame Xbone knockoff.

I keep my Switch docked most of the time tho I admit I have it hooked up with a MClassic. It's not a miracle working but does clean things up somewhat. I also maybe the wrong person to open up since I still have a Dreamcast with HDMI hooked up to a 4k TV.

I wouldn't say "GameCube was what everyone asked for".

Who asked for a purple lunchbox console with a kiddified Zelda and losing a lot of the N64's strengths like GoldenEye? Not to mention a Mario game that a lot of people felt wasn't a real successor to Mario 64. The controller while comfortable had all kinds of weird aspects too ... terrible tiny d-pad, one weird Z-button, awkward button shape, secondary analog nub, etc. There's a reason why when you look at Nintendo's pro controller designs since, they've basically ditched all of those elements.

I still maintain the N64 would have outsold the Playstation 1 if Nintendo had just chosen CDs and protected their existing relationship with Squaresoft. N64 destroyed Playstation 1's launch window sales and the PS1 really did not take off that largely in the US until about FF7's release, until then even with a crippled library of games, the N64 was keeping pace.

PS2 is trickier, by that point Sony had entrenched itself into a position where they would have been hard to displace. It was made worse by Microsoft stealing Nintendo's FPS shooter advantage the N64 had (GoldenEye, Turok 1/2/3, DOOM 64, Perfect Dark, etc) with Halo, so they got into a dog fight just for 3rd place.

After that they never really tried to compete directly again. So N64 I think they could have won, GameCube is a lot more difficult. If they accepted a deal from Microsoft to use Windows to basically keep them out of the hardware business and MS agreed to make Halo exclusive for the GameCube ... in that kind of situation, maybe the GameCube sells like 40-50 million units because they'd have gotten the XBox sales mostly and had no competition for the no.2 spot.

Nintendo's marketing wasn't very good in the past either. It's not easy to beat Sony on their turf, and frankly gaming has gotten very violent, lets just say Nintendo had retained their no.1 position. Would they be doing things like Call of Duty bundles today? GTA cross promotion? Alan Wake II where the game starts you off a naked fat man in the woods? Like I dunno ... I kinda feel like the direction the broader development community has gone is too dark/violent that it's kind of awkward with the kinds of games Nintendo makes.

I'm sure Switch 2 will have plenty of theses games of course, but it just feels like maybe Nintendo is not the right company to be leading that part of the industry (the traditional "big box" stationary home console) given the direction of more violence and darker subject matter that the majority of the development industry seems to be interest in today. 

Acshually... I would argue games like Dwarf Fortress utilize the specifics of PC hardware very well. It has no graphics at all (the original, the Steam version now add graphics), but very involved simulation mechanics that can even bring powerful PCs to their limits. Consoles would be even more in trouble, as Dwarf Fortress barely uses the graphics card, but relies heavily on CPU computation and lots of RAM.

Tbh I'm tired of people always referring to Xbox & PS as being the console for more hardcore gamers and referring to Nintendo for more casual experiences when the most popular games on PS & Xbox are brain dead easy to understand games like COD, Fifa, and a ton of other simple shooters and sport games. Those games have such simple, easy to understand objectives cause literally anyone could understand the objective of sports and shooting games. These games are so simple and in fact more simple to understand than many of the most popular Nintendo games.

I see these same "hardcore" Xbox/PS gamers play a Nintendo game for the first time and end up confused and lost as hell on even the more simple Nintendo games.

I bet if you were to put a grandma who's never played video games in her life in front of Zelda/Mario Odyssey/Smash/ and hell even Animal Crossing against a game like Fifa or Cod, I'm sure she would be able to understand Fifa & Cod far quicker than the most popular Nintendo games.

The idea that PS/Xbox are considered the more "hardcore" consoles just cause they have a more mature realistic appearance with blood and violence is some stupid logic that needs to die.

It's fine to say that PS/Xbox appeals to those who want more mature games and aren't fan of Nintendo games. But it's illogical to say that they're any more hardcore than Nintendo when PS/Xbox's most popular games are super casual, even compared to the most popular Nintendo games.

Nintendo does appeal to core gamers, many of them also happen to own a PS/Xbox as well.

Those who don't have a Switch just don't like Nintendo games, it's not cause Nintendo isn't "hardcore"

Naw I wouldn't include the switch unless you really a huge fan of Nintendo and the hardware is just really bad for a home console. To many AAA games not om switch. 

What goes as AAA games today is the epitome of ”casual”. 

Microsoft entering the industry was really the problem for Nintendo.

If it was just Sony and Nintendo left post-Sega, Nintendo could have comfortably sold as a no.2 home console for a while, but Microsoft coming in just over crowded the market.

There's really never been a time when three consoles trying to basically do the same thing had much success. The Super NES and Genesis did, but the Turbo Grafx 16 found no market in the West, in Japan, the Super NES and PC Engine did alright but Mega Drive (Genesis) lagged behind. With the Playstation and N64 the Saturn fizzled out in the no.3 spot. 

If there was no XBox, I don't think the GameCube is some massive success but it probably does considerably better just because it's the only alternative and as such it's strengths (better graphics than PS2, easier to program for, Resident Evil exclusivity, exclusive MGS remake, Tales RPG, etc. etc.) would stand out more. I think it could have sold 40-45 million units or so, not far off from the Super NES, and then they probably could've made significant inroads against the PS3 at $600.

Really in a way it's kind of too bad that Microsoft couldn't just work together with Nintendo and stay out of the hardware business but make software like Halo and Forza for Nintendo in exchange for Nintendo using Windows OS. That was the whole reason for them coming into the industry, they were scared Sony would have a bunch of devices that didn't have Windows on it, not so much that they cared really about the game business itself. But instead you have a situation where the no.2/3 spot was essentially split and really the only one that was a good thing for was Sony. 

Yes, we all know about their spectacular collapse. But that has little bearing on what SOA managed to do during the 16-bit wars. They practically invented core vs. kiddy, and as subjective as those terms are, they would persist for decades. Even today they exist, as evident by this thread. 

I think they invented trivial marketing BS, nothing more.  Core existed well before the genesis.