I think Nintendo's failure is way more complex than this article makes it appear. It has nothing to do with hardware, but a lack of compelling reasons to buy into the hardware.
If you think way back to the GameCube, they were king of the hill, so to speak. They had the best hardware for gaming and even the most innovative at the time. No one else had wireless controllers for example.
The reason they lost was because they didn't take the threat of the PS2 and Xbox seriously. They ran a decade long empire in console gaming and were caught off guard.
Sony and Microsoft both knew they needed exclusive content and bought all the 3rd party gaming companies that were building AAA games for Nintendo at the time. With no AAA titles from 3rd parties Nintendo had to double-down and create their own. Zelda and Mario can only go so far.
What? Before the Wii... Nintendo hasn't "dominated" any market since 1995 or earlier.
The PS1 had 100+ million worldwide sales compared to the N64 ~30 million. The PS2 also soundly beat the Gamecube in worldwide sales, and the XBox established itself as a market leader.
The last time Nintendo had dominance in the console wars was the SNES. In fact... one can argue that the 1995 to 2005 decade was Nintendo's worst performance in the console market.
If you think way back to the GameCube, they were king of the hill, so to speak. They had the best hardware for gaming and even the most innovative at the time. No one else had wireless controllers for example.
The reason they lost was because they didn't take the threat of the PS2 and Xbox seriously. They ran a decade long empire in console gaming and were caught off guard.
Sony and Microsoft both knew they needed exclusive content and bought all the 3rd party gaming companies that were building AAA games for Nintendo at the time. With no AAA titles from 3rd parties Nintendo had to double-down and create their own. Zelda and Mario can only go so far.