64 launched at $199 in the states. And I agree, CD would have made more sense at the time but only commercially. In terms of retro gaming, carts are superior not just for loading and game design but also it's just such a joy to collect for. Solid carts that just work ,don't get scratched and no disc rot.
With my specs and carts, it could have launched at $249. So still cheaper than PlayStation and a significantly wider graphics advantage with perfect sound through sequenced audio.
With just the 4x CD-ROM drive yeah I think $249 might've worked, tho IIRC Nintendo only cut the US price to $199 because Sony and Sega had already cut the price of PlayStation and Saturn to $199 by then, and Nintendo felt they had to respond with their own price cut.
Knowing Nintendo's model, that $249 was probably at a profit, so I'm speculating what their price with those specs would've been if they wanted to sell at a profit. If they just wanted to sell at-cost I think with the 4x drive and extra RAM $249 would be too low IMO, $299 sounds closer to what it'd of been, just IMO.
If using the same measuring stick (forward looking) - why? PS2 (like N64 before it) actually was forward looking with compute architecture that basically foreshadowed the next 20 years of graphics / programmable compute development. GC was mainly a reactionary design, with a featureset inherited from 1999 era PC GPUs. Powerful and easy to use - but decidedly not forward looking.
The other areas (expandability, optical-format advancement, add-ons) were also completely PS2 dominated. Hell in addition to bringing DVD playback to mainstream, popularizing motion controls and AR, PS2 was also first to deliver standalone fully functional PC from a console (and/or retail console as a devkit), introduced the world to first smart-TVs, had a DVR SKU, and even a fully functional Netflix player at the tail end of its life. It came much closer to the promise of the 'all-in-one' living-room device than anything its 'would be but never-were' successors in this area (PS3 and XB1) tried.
How was the PS2 completely forward-thinking when it lacked programmable shaders? Even the Gamecube had those, certainly the Xbox did. (
EDIT: Actually it wasn't programmable shaders, that's 360-era stuff. But it was something else GPU-related both Gamecube and Xbox had which PS2 completely lacked, will have to look into it again). And the Dreamcast was the only console for a long time with tiled rendering (which is now a common feature in GPU designs). I think you can say PS2 was forward-thinking in some ways without completely dismissing the competition for being forward-thinking in their onw ways, and in some cases having features the PS2 lacked.
PS2 didn't actually have a lot of add-on support, unless you want to call peripherals like the hard drive and modem (both of which were standard with the Xbox, even the Dreamcast had a built-in modem) as add-ons, which doesn't fit the traditional use of that term. I think it's a stretch to claim the PS2 popularized motion controls (let alone AR), because while you're referring to the Eye Toy there that peripheral was mainly used for games that didn't appeal to hardcore or core gamers, and were still pretty niche. But if the argument is that PS2 innovated there, then I think that's agreeable.
For the other stuff, again there's having innovation but phrasing it like they "completely dominated" is just not paying attention to what competitors did in that space. Gamecube had the iQue which had a lot of home media extended functionality at least two years before the PSX, and older consoles like the Saturn, Super Famicom, or even portables like the Nomad had TV tuner and satellite compatible variants. It's also a bit of a stretch to say the Linux distro for PS2 made it a "fully functional PC"; you were severely limited in what programs would realistically run on it and modification the user could make, compared to an actual PC running Linux at that time. It was basically meant as an extension of Sony's Net Yazore system, not that Sony were the first to explore that type of concept either (similar software added that type of dev functionality for stock Saturn units, and systems like the PC-FX got PC GPU cards with software to allow game development).
More people should play Dragon Force, Dragon Force II, Shinning Force III (the imports scenario 1,2,3 translated, not the US release) and Panzer Dragoon Saga.
More people should play the Sega Saturn in general.
Yeah the Saturn still gets some flak from dismissive people but in terms of overall library it's 2nd for that gen only behind PS1. I feel like it and PS1 both have more games that "hold up" (I kind of actually hate this concept of games suddenly getting worst over time simply because of when they came out, especially if they're games from 16-bit or later, tho for some fully 3D games I can kind of understand it) better and just have more variety in quality games among their library.
Sure among general popularity N64's absolute best hit higher than any single game on PS1 or Saturn, but for a lot of people they may prefer other types or specific games not on the N64 a lot more, and you have more solid, quality options to choose from with them compared to N64.
Even this is wrong the Saturn had red book audio with it's lunch games Daytona USA and the very known Panzer Dragoon had some of the best audio in the business. Sony didn't innovate that it was already here! Also, a quarter of the Saturn library was shoehorned on to the PS1 Tomb Raider & Castlevania: Symphony of the Night were started on the Saturn. (Saturn even maintained the edge on graphics and speed on this CSOTN over PS1) Sony did what MS is finally doing now, they bought companies so, they could claim they had first party titles. Namco hated Sega so, they basically became a first party without Sony buying the company. Sega VS Namco was huge back then. Wipeout was originally a multiplatform game because it released on PC and the Saturn. PS1 had a graphical edge on everyone but, it wasn't until Square committed the great betrayal of FF7 did Sony start to pull away from the others. Sega closed up shop for that gen 8 months after Panzer Dragoon Saga was released and work on the Dreamcast began.
A few things: Sony did buy companies, that much is absolutely true. But they were pretty small or not known for mega hits (in some cases being complete unknowns), the big exception to that being Psygnosis. So it's closer to what Microsoft did in buying Ninja Theory, Double Fine etc. than a Zenimax (the Psygnosis acquisition is the closest to that, and like Zenimax, they had to honor existing contracts and still port several games to Sega and Nintendo consoles).
What Sony really did was lock up a ton of timed and, later, full contract-based exclusivity deals, and they were the first platform holder to really push that model primarily due to their size compared to Nintendo and Sega. Mortal Kombat 3, for example, was a timed launch exclusive on PS1. Tomb Raider was going to be a Saturn exclusive until Sony and Eidos got to talking and forced Core to make a PS1 version (then Sony signed an exclusivity deal with Eidos for Tomb Raider 2). When Saturn was falling apart in the West, Sony signed a lot more exclusivity deals, taking away options from a still-healthy Nintendo (altho they did themselves no favors with how they handled the 64DD).
Also, dev on the Dreamcast began way before PD Saga's release; they were already in planning stages in 1996 and testing two devkit designs (Dural and Blackbelt/Katana) in 1997, internally.