thing is companies took way more risks back then, because it wasn't the multi-billion pound market it is now. Like Nintendo had a stream of failures, it set them back money but they kept on doing it. Some of their stuff caught on(analogue control, rumble) and some didn't (virtua boy, that dumb gauntlet from that 80's flick).
I think Sony were the ones who kinda started by NOT TAKING ANY RISKS AT ALL and have continued down that path to major, if extremely bland success. Like playstation vs N64, the N64 had pretty innovative games that set standards (as well as some total dross) but very few psx games did anything substantially new.
Go back further, Sega with the MegaCD and 32X addons for the Megadrive. That kinda composite system was deemed a failure, but now you can get upgraded harddrives for your consoles, extended motion controllers, Wireless adaptors etc which totally change them. But after the megadrive, Sega went to p[lay safe with the Saturn and failed, then tried something new with the dreamcast (online gaming? on a console??) and failed because by then the industry and market had esentially become a bunch of people in grey suits. And the retro fandom had already kicked in.
Now every action is so carefully watched and market trends are followed that there is no risk. Like when the wii came out, they knew there would be no risk at all if they marketed it towards the pensioners and middle-aged-people-who-dont-get-out-much(ie my parents), and they did that, and low and behold it sold. There was no risk other than that percieved by 'gamers', and that is because 'gamers' generally dislike anything new unless it's a graphics processor, or a new retro game(????).
(though keep in mind, I dislike the wii)