It might sound strange but I actually think they made the right decision back then. Their thoughts were that CD-ROM was not ready (at the time of the N64's release) to be a viable gaming media. We were coming from cartridges with no load times and such. I never actually bought a PS1 b/c watching my friends play made me have violent thoughts. I've always been a big Nintendo whore, so I had to the get the N64 for all the first party titles alone. I remember that Nintendo may have lost the in hardware sales numbers, but killed Sony in software sales (mostly with the first party titles, as per usual). It was even reported that Nintendo made more money than Sony. It amazes me how they do that. Even when they lose, they win.
Gaming is only more expensive since the first price drops (after the switch to optical media). It's only natural that as things get bigger and better, that they also get more expensive. It's like me complaining that my LCD TV costs more than my old tube. I'm actually surprised Sony has kept the prices of their games at the same price point as the 360 when we all know Blu-ray media is more costly than DVD. More subsidies perhaps?
no not realy.
i bought it at launch for the same reasons as you mention here,the loading times.
but when i came home with it i was really disapointed.
don't get me wrong i enjoyed some games like mario 64 and starfox where alot of fun back then,but the graphix where a big letdown.
it was a step forwerd for ninty,but i felt it was a step back,i was glad that it wasnt too long before the dreamcast surfaced.
playstation had alot of crap and nintendo had a lack of descent(and i found it anoying)graphix.
then sega barged in and those where freaking tight graphix...really,now that was a world of difference.
i forgotten where you where from,but i know the n64 was performing very poorly around here,the only games selling well where pokemon games.
well and it would have seemed sony wanted to raise prices when they first started,but that would have really killed them.