Two things that stuck crazy-well were the touchscreen on the NDS in 2004 and the motion controls on the Wii in 2006. In either case, they were the first to market with both ideas, but before that people would've said the idea was crazy.
Two other examples that didn't stick at all, off the top of my head: Virtual Boy and the Power Glove.
(Small aside: It's long enough ago that plenty of people seem to have forgotten, but the touchscreen on the NDS was a crazy idea at the time because that was nearly 3 years before the iPhone was released, let alone smartphones becoming common/popular. The got-to-have phone at the time was the Motorola RAZR.)
The 3DS, based on hardware/system alone, should have failed. It was tremendously underpowered, and it forced a terrible 3D technology on all its users, which never really took off or became anything other than a novelty while raising the cost of manufacturing.
The Vita was a truly next-generation portable gaming device, with a beautiful screen, incredible graphics, properly analog sticks, an extremely modern interface, and great connectivity and human-interface (camera, capacitative touch) features. Even incorporating the cost of a proprietary Sony memory card, for the amount of power you got, I think it was very reasonably priced. Comparing the 3DS and Vita was like night and day in terms of a modern gaming device. Even today, I think it can stand head-to-head with the Switch in terms of portable gaming.
But Nintendo continued to pour resources into developing top-tier games for the 3DS, slashing its price to bolster adoption, and sticking to its still unorthodox 3D screen/touch screen combo. Whereas for the Vita, Sony quickly got spooked that the Vita didn't perform as well as the PSP, pulled first-party support and general marketing support, and major 3rd party developers (particularly outside Japan) fled the device.
The 3DS is now seen as a major success for Nintendo, while the Vita died (or is still dying) a slow and unceremonious death.
Sometimes sticking to your crazy guns works.
That's a little strong, considering there's a switch to turn it off or even the option to get a 2DS.
I usually turned it off (except for Bravely Default which has gorgeous 3D art in the towns).
I own a 3DS and a Switch and you have to be on each of those platforms to buy games online. I've got a PayPal account linked to the Switch but it's unavailable on the 3DS. In Australia they never opened up ec.nintendo.com so you can't buy games in a web browser.
I'd say the 3DS is in the "dead, but doesn't know it yet" stage - killed not by a competitor, but by the Switch itself.
PS: The price of Vita memory cards is still a travesty.
...and the Wii U
It makes good business sense when you think about it; if you try to out-engineer the competition on hardware, well, any company can hire good engineers. And they're only going to be able give you the same or slightly better. But no other company can produce Mario and Zelda games, at least, as long as they defend their IP to the extent that they do, and make decent hardware and decent Mario/Zelda games at the standards they themselves set, they will make money.
That and the fact that they're sitting on a massive pile of cash means they be creative when other companies can't because their shareholders are terrified of negative numbers. Something American companies really need to learn. Lean isn't always good.
The motion stuff for the wii was a lot more insane and worked out really well, there was no major market product for that stuff prior afaik, so that's a fair point.
Nintendo is fairly secretive about their inner workings and facilities, so I doubt we'd get much info about what goes on inside.
Nintendo basically funded Rare's offices before Microsoft bought them (when they were doing N64 games) and those were full of flashy bullshit
I'm not sure how you would characterize flashy bullshit, but the Rare offices were basically based on the same premise as the old offices up the road at Manor Farm... isolated developments teams in their own buildings (or at least their own floor) with a central building containing HR etc. Yes there was a full restaurant, but Manor Farm had that too, and it's kinda essential if your offices are in the countryside. The entire office was designed to be a distraction free as possible.
True the building had a bunch of expensive environmental features to help it blend in to the existing rural landscape and to reduce carbon footprint but I'm sure it was way cheaper than building or leasing any kind of generic office space in London or heaven forbid in SF.
money