Not just Sega, but Nintendo as well. The N64 was a moderate success, but if it was a CD-based system and came out a year earlier, Nintendo would have cut the PSOne at the knees and maintained console dominance.
Sega fall was far more important than Nintendo in this era. N64 had world wide acclaimed games that Saturn couldn't even hope for. And most of those games couldn't have been created on a CD-based system at that time that imply very slow loading.
N64 fall was mostly due to:
* Lack of texture memory. Having nice looking game was hard and need tricks because you couldn't rely on big textures.
* (Very) bad developer API (actually ABI). Having being in N64 emulation, you truly see they have no idea how 3D rendering was supposed to be exposed.
* Cost heavy support (cartridge).
But even without fixing the last one, the both firsts killed the third party dev investment.
I have to disagree with your first two points. Neither of those was a reason for N64 being outsold by PSOne.
>Lack of texture memory. Having nice looking game was hard and need tricks because you couldn't rely on big textures.
So what? The PSOne hardware also had its own set of constraints that made their games pixelated and ugly. In fact, I would argue N64 games were generally better looking than PSOne games.
>(Very) bad developer API (actually ABI).
Again, who cares? If the system sold as well as the PSOne did, developers and publishers would deal with it.
>Cost heavy support (cartridge).
This is the big one. The fact that N64 was not a CD-based system, however, really hurt it with consumers, who wanted a CD-based system, because CDs were new and exciting. Third-parties also hated paying Nintendo for a license AND for cartridges because it cut into their profit margins. The fact that N64 was a cartridge-based system also shut them out from a bunch of AAA titles that used large amount of textures, voice/video and FMV cutscenes because it made straight ports impossible. It may seem silly these days, but FMV in video games was really exciting back then.
I also think it hurt them that the PSOne was released almost two years before the N64 did.
>(Very) bad developer API (actually ABI). Having being in N64 emulation, you truly see they have no idea how 3D rendering was supposed to be exposed.
I'd be very interested in learning about the N64's 3D API and ABI and the issues with it, if you'd like to expand on that. Or maybe you know of a blog post or article already covering the topic?
The N64 was so close to being even better than it was, but the field was so new.
Any of the following would have helped a lot:
* Larger VRAM cache
* Dedicated VRAM with DMA moved between it main RAM.
* Trade-off bandwidth for latency in RD-RAM configuration
* Static work RAM for the main CPU
* Splitting off audio duty into a 65c816-like DSP/cache
IMO, the cartridges saved the N64; they were a differentiating feature with their own set of pros and cons (the big pro being the lack of loading times that plagued CD-based consoles, and the big cons being the limited capacity and high unit cost).
Besides, in terms of longevity, I feel like the cartridges I've got lying around have aged a lot better than the scratched-to-hell-and-back discs I've similarly got lying around.
That was definitely the N64 marketing back then. Reinforce quality over quantity (as a way to explain away lack of third-party games), and load times (as a way combat CDs).
Nothing you said is wrong, however. Cartridges and N64 games, in general, have aged better. But at the time, it cost them the console lead. Cartridges were a key reason why third party game support was so bad. If you were a fan of RPGs, Fighting games, and Sports games - you had to get a PSOne because the options on Nintendo were so bad. People were excited about CDs and FMV in video games. Huge multi-disc games were released for the PSOne that could never be ported to the N64 - further contributing to the dearth of games on the system.
Don't also discount the fact that the system came out almost 2 years after the PSOne due to various hardware delays AND lack of launch games (the system only launched with two!!). Plus the system and games were more expensive.
I guess my overall point is that the other factors you mention (the 2-year delay and lack of launch titles even with that delay), plus a couple not yet mentioned (like some rather nasty bottlenecks in the otherwise state-of-the-art graphics pipeline, especially around textures, which made things harder for developers and therefore harder to get third-party titles) were a greater factor in why the Nintendo 64 wasn't the dominant console. And yeah, the cartridges might've contributed to the lack of launch titles somewhat, but I suspect it really had more to do with tighter quality controls (this was the cited reason why Shadows of the Empire didn't end up being a launch title; LucasArts explicitly prioritized an extra couple months of polishing over trying to force the originally-planned release date) plus the N64's somewhat more exotic hardware (this being the same problem the Saturn had, but in the N64's case it wasn't quite as extreme).
That is: I think the N64 not being the "lead" console was a foregone conclusion regardless of whether it used cartridges or CDs, and that had the Nintendo 64 jumped on the optical bandwagon it would've suffered rather than prospered, all other factors being constant. The Gamecube is evidence of this, with Nintendo's market dominance slipping further even after making the switch to optical media (though one could definitely argue that the choice of Mini-DVDs kneecapped the Gamecube right from the start, introducing the worst of both worlds re: load times and capacity relative to other consoles in its generation). Yet, even the Gamecube and the N64 before it were popular enough to be commercial successes; neither of them really "lost" the Console Wars the same way SEGA's and Atari's consoles did (or the same way the Wii U arguably did).
> the options [for roleplaying/fighting/sports games] on Nintendo were so bad
The third-party options were unremarkable, sure, but the Nintendo 64 was the debut platform for Super Smash Bros., which was a pretty massive commercial success even then (let alone in future iterations like Melee and Brawl). Can't speak much to RPGs or sports games, since I didn't play very many RPGs back then (and never really found much enjoyment in sports games, on any platform), though I'm pretty sure the Legend of Zelda games and Paper Mario all fall into the RPG genre and all had pretty great critical acclaim and commercial success.
>but I suspect it really had more to do with tighter quality controls
That was Nintendo's PR spin but it wasn't based in reality. The N64 had some real stinkers (Superman 64) - so let's not delude ourselves that Nintendo's quality standards are what prevented third-parties from releasing games.
>The Gamecube is evidence of this
It's not a valid comparison. The Gamecube was released at a time when DVD players were novel, expensive and exciting, so getting a DVD player with a console was a big deal, and of course, the Gamecube was ... not released with a functioning DVD player. It also came out a year after the PS2 (the best selling console of all time) and at that point, everyone understood that Nintendo was no longer the top-dog in consoles. They were the underdog. There was very little hype for the Gamecube. And yes, if they released a cartridge-based system, they would have been sunk. Even the most hardcore Nintendo fans wouldn't tolerate cartridges at that point.
>neither of them really "lost" the Console Wars the same way SEGA's and Atari's consoles did
That's true. Nintendo found themselves a nice niche, that was in part helped by the fact that the managed to maintain mobile console dominance.
>The third-party options were unremarkable, sure, but the Nintendo 64 was the debut platform for Super Smash Bros
That's true, the N64 had wonderful first and second party games. That was the only reason to own the N64. It's also THE reason to own the Gamecube, Wii, WiiU, and the Switch.
>Can't speak much to RPGs or sports games, since I didn't play very many RPGs back then
You know who played RPGs? Japan, the second biggest console market. It hurt Nintendo incredibly badly that the big multi-disc RPGs were never ported or released for the N64. Sports games were also critically important and the first few years Nintendo did not have the yearly EA FIFA/Madden/NHL offerings. Also top-tier sprite-based (Namco/Capcom) and polygon-based fighting games were never released for the N64. All this really hurt the N64 at the time. Basically if you were at all interested in non-Nintendo first-party games, you had to get a PSOne.
>though I'm pretty sure the Legend of Zelda games and Paper Mario all fall into the RPG genre and all had pretty great critical acclaim and commercial success.
Those were phenomenal games but Zelda was not an RPG. Paper Mario was but that's just one game. N64 did not have Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, and countless others released on PSOne. Final Fanatasy and Dragon Quest were system sellers in Japan.
Superman 64 came out in May 1999, right around when Nintendo announced "Project Dolphin" (a.k.a. the GameCube). I have a feeling most of the other "stinkers" were similarly late in the N64's lifecycle, by which point the lack of third-party games would already have been a known issue and would've prompted the very relaxation of quality controls that allowed games like Superman 64 to see the light of day.
And besides Superman 64 (which I never played), I can't really think of very many other "stinkers" for the N64. Maybe Roasters (another Titus title, even later than Superman 64), but even that was pretty fun to play (even if it reeked of being low-budget).
N64 fall was mostly due to:
* Lack of texture memory. Having nice looking game was hard and need tricks because you couldn't rely on big textures.
* (Very) bad developer API (actually ABI). Having being in N64 emulation, you truly see they have no idea how 3D rendering was supposed to be exposed.
* Cost heavy support (cartridge).
But even without fixing the last one, the both firsts killed the third party dev investment.