Nintendo's? Or
Sony's?
The original Play Station has always intrigued me, just to see if it could've been a better add-on both in combined performance (with SNES) and market performance/sales than the PC-Engine CD, SEGA CD, and 32X. Which, considering the companies involved and their respective positions in gaming (Nintendo) and tech (Sony) at the time, leads me to think it very likely would've outperformed those others handedly, for an add-on anyway.
I mean it was inevitable that Sony were going to get into console gaming since it was an emerging tech/entertainment space and Sony already had footprints in both, so I can understand why Nintendo were hesitant to a degree (same with SEGA, when Sony approached them later for a joint system). But they definitely could've leveraged that likelihood in a better, more embracing way, keeping Sony as an ally instead of turning them into a rival that'd eventually push them out as the leader of the home console market.
OTOH, maybe there was some calculated risk that if Sony entered, it'd eat enough into SEGA's market share to basically make them irrelevant (which happened), but not so much Nintendo's own to cause the same (50/50; PS1 definitely ate into Nintendo's market share in Japan, but N64 held pretty well in the US & Europe, and if you include the Gameboy then N64 market losses were more than offset by GB success, plus Pokemon of course). That would've been a bad bet, but things worked out for them pretty well, even if they were no longer the leaders in the home console segment.
EDIT: Okay maybe the Play Station wouldn't have outperformed the 32X in terms of technical capabilities; I had to re-watch your video to remember that it wasn't designed as a processing enhancement to the SNES. Just another physical delivery medium for games (on CD).
Still though, all interesting stuff!