It’s 25 years since Sega of America made its biggest mistake

The Nintendo switch seems popular among kids and lots of teens on consoles + steam.

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.