How long did the Genesis really seem to last?

[Why-Disciple]

I was born in 1990, so I missed most of the hype for games when they came out (two years old when Sonic 2 was released), so now that I look at the facts, it didn't seem like the Genesis had a long lifespan. It came out in late 1989 and was succeeded by consoles that came out in 95, meaning it was only alive and well for about five years, maybe less, considering it didn't catch on immediately when it was released- it seems it only got popular with Sonic. And five years is how long the PS3 and 360 have been out by now, and they're still going strong. Did those five years go by quickly for you guys? Also, it seems like Sonic was just a short fad, now that I think about it. Sonic 1 came out in 91, followed by sequels in 92 and 94, and that's pretty much it. Sonic was only good for 3-4 years. But it seems so much happened in that short time, like the MK controversy and all the sequels that came out a year after the originals (now it takes at least two years for a sequel). So what do you guys think? Did the Genesis really last that long?

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Well you could still walk into just about any department store in 2000 and get a Genesis 3 in the US. So I'd say yes it did last long. Even if Saturn and PS1 came out in 1995 people were still playing 16 bit consoles for a good time after that.

[ItellYaHuat]

Well you could still walk into just about any department store in 2000 and get a Genesis 3 in the US. So I'd say yes it did last long. Even if Saturn and PS1 came out in 1995 people were still playing 16 bit consoles for a good time after that.

True. I remember still playing the NES, Super NES, and Genesis right before the dawn of the new millennium wherever I went (I didn't own any of those at that point).

[GeckoYamori]

Seems to be plenty of conflicting views on this. I've read magazine articles that practically regarded it as dying in 1993 (retrospective articles, not ones actually from 93).

[beigemore]

I played Genesis and SNES a lot up until around 1996 when N64 came out (got a PS1 soon after that). I still bought the occasional game for the SNES, but I traded a lot of my old games in for store credit to purchase the N64 (ended up hating that system). They were pretty much on a steep decline at that point, but you could still walk into any store that sold video games and have a massive library to choose from for either system.

I believe Microsoft (maybe Sony too) said they want the 360 to have about a 10 year lifespan. That's insanely long in terms of technology. They do spend a ton of money developing the consoles, though, and they want to squeeze as much use out of them as they can to give them time to make their money back from software sales and give them time to develop the next great console.

Back when the old consoles were released, they typically had sub-par hardware compared to the arcade games. Now the consoles, when released, much higher end specs, comparatively.

[knight7of7gold7]

I remember kids at school back in 1997 and 1998 still playing and enjoying Genesis for what that's worth.

[Lastcallhall]

From what I remember (my childhood was the 8-16 bit eras), Things with SEGA peaked around '93 and '94, and that's when the 32x was starting to be tossed around. I'll agree with others that I do remember seeing model 3's sitting on the shelves of KB Toys and Toys R Us around '98-'99, but they weren't the most prominently featured items (the PS1 by far had the most shelf space). They were more of a novelty item, kind of like the plug and play systems of the mid 2000's. I'd guess their actual run was more like '89-'97, with things trickling to a halt in 1998. that's 9 good years - not bad at all.

[Ecco]

Well the Genesis life-span did seem surprisingly short, even at the time.


But you have to understand the whole gritty context. Growing up, the NES was the 1st big video game system in the US. (At the peak, 1 out of 4 households had an NES, IIRC.) Sure there was Atari etc. before that, but none ever got so big as the NES. It was like videogames themselves were a new invention, as it seemed to us kids.

The NES lasted for years, like maybe 8 years? Nintendo kept it going even after the SNES came out. So when the 16-bit wars erupted between the SNES and Genesis, I expected the 16-bit generation to also last a long time, like the 8-bit NES generation did. It was a surprise when the 16-bit generation died in just a few years.

Also when at its peak, the Genesis seemed like it would just last forever. Sonic 1 was still hot and Sonic 2 brought Sega ahead of Nintendo for the 1st time ever! Sega seemed like it would make awesome games for years.

But for me the decline started soon after Sonic 2. Then came Sonic Spinball (awful), then Sonic 3 (good but short as a stand-alone game). S&K was great but never played it at the time, after those 2 disappointing titles, plus the Genesis was already in decline of popularity, at that point, and other systems were getting bigger already.

Plus the 32X was a late add-on that went nowhere, then the Saturn was out and all support for the Genesis was suddenly over.

So yeah, I was surprised how fast it was over. In retrospect Sega should have continued support for the Genesis, like Nintendo kept the SNES going a couple more years.

Strangely the Genesis' peak seemed right before its decline. At the peak Sega was pushing the Sega CD and Game Gear alongside the Genesis. Also Sega Channel was a cool late product that showed how the Genesis could have kept going, if Sega had chosen so. The Sega Channel could have easily been continued; as it was I think it only went for like a year...

[Silanda]

In my mind it lasted until '96 in the UK although it was still on the market for a couple of years after. Quality releases quickly started drying up in '95 though, and by the end of that year there was very little to look forward to on the system. The only really high profile release I can think of in '96 was Sonic 3D, but by then virtually everyone seemed to have lost interest in the system.

[QuickSciFi]

With the advent of the fifth generation (95-97), there was a big drop in the number of friends/family members I had who played the Genny anymore. Some of them still had them, but just tucked it away in the closet out of peer pressure or whatever the crap mainstream does to the lesser of mind. I know I can only speak for myself, though. I don't know how it was with you guys. It's true that well into the year 2000 you could still buy a Nomad for $50 or a Model 3 for $20 at your local Toys R Us. Kay B Toys still sold new and old genny titles well into the early 2000s and even "gamestop" (actually, it was Electronics Boutique and Babbages on my side of the world) still sold their pre-owned genny merchandise. I still have some of my 0.30 cent titles I bought there between 02-03.

But if you really want to know,

The Genesis will never die! :D

[TrekkiesUnite118]

My friends and I were still playing NES, Genesis and SNES well into 1998. My one friend and I had gotten a Saturn around 1996 or 1997, whenever they were doing the 3 Free games deal. But our 16 bit systems still got played heavily.

[salsays]

I know for myself and a few friends we were still playing the Genesis into 1999 and when the Dreamcast came out thats when we started playing it not as much. I ignored the Saturn and PS1 era to an extent only so I could pick up many of the Genesis games I could not get earlier.

[Thenewguy]

it didn't seem like the Genesis had a long lifespan. It came out in late 1989 and was succeeded by consoles that came out in 95, meaning it was only alive and well for about five years, maybe less, considering it didn't catch on immediately when it was releasedFive years isn't really that abnormal for a console lifespan to be honest, a lot of consoles had heydays that lasted around that length, if anything I'd say that lifespans are just getting longer as time goes on.


Also, it seems like Sonic was just a short fad, now that I think about it. Sonic 1 came out in 91, followed by sequels in 92 and 94, and that's pretty much it. Sonic was only good for 3-4 years.No, if Sonic was a fad then it was a bloody long lasting one, even bad recent Sonic games sell over 1 million copies.

Both Sonic Adventure games were very successful, SA2:Battle was one of the biggest selling and most popular Gamecube games during the 1st few years of the console's lifespan, and it surpassed both Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles in sales.

[kool kitty89]

I was born in 1990, so I missed most of the hype for games when they came out (two years old when Sonic 2 was released), so now that I look at the facts, it didn't seem like the Genesis had a long lifespan. It came out in late 1989 and was succeeded by consoles that came out in 95, meaning it was only alive and well for about five years, maybe less, considering it didn't catch on immediately when it was released- it seems it only got popular with Sonic. And five years is how long the PS3 and 360 have been out by now, and they're still going strong. Did those five years go by quickly for you guys? Also, it seems like Sonic was just a short fad, now that I think about it. Sonic 1 came out in 91, followed by sequels in 92 and 94, and that's pretty much it. Sonic was only good for 3-4 years. But it seems so much happened in that short time, like the MK controversy and all the sequels that came out a year after the originals (now it takes at least two years for a sequel). So what do you guys think? Did the Genesis really last that long?

It went more or less like with many other generational consoles in the top bracket of popularity:

Initially niche and in the higher-end bracket (more so since Nintendo had a near monopoly in the US at that point).

Later bursts out into mainstream with a lower price point, established library of older games, and fresh, new killer apps that sell the system like never before. (that was late 1991 through 1992 for the Genesis -sort of like the PSX in late '96 through 1997)

Followed by that you reached a peak in popularity with strong 1st/2nd and 3rd party support (albeit in the US, there was the 1993-1996 slump that had a significant impact on the market).

Then you've got declining hardware sales while software generally stays higher (declines more slowly) with high profit margins but lower volumes.

Then you've got the shift to the late-gen and eventually budget market with more moderate advertizing and few new games (especially 1st party) with lots of re-releases and the nextgen system coming to the forefront.
At least that's what SHOULD have happened . . . but Sega pulled that too rapidly in '96 and lost a lot of the late gen profits. (halted production some time in '96, ran out of stock in 1997 -and that's when Majesco stepped in to push ahead in the budget market, albeit in a weaker position than Sega could have and a bit late to the game -and also hindered by 32x and Saturn mishaps prior to that)

But in any case, it was still being sold at least until 2000, but all re-releases by that point and relatively low-key (also much cheaper than the still more expensive SNES).

And of course, you had many people who had the Genesis as their main system into the late 90s (if not later), and a fair amount who didn't get one (or an SNES) until the late 90s either at a budget price new, or used. (likely with a mix of used and new games)

My family was among the latter: got an SNES Christmas of 1996 iirc and didn't get another console until Christmas of 1999 with the N64. (prior to that it was all NES -and PC- and most of my friends were still prominently playing the NES into the mid/late 90s even if they had an SNES, Genesis, or even N64, and a few of them has NES2s so got it really late)

I think Appolloboy's family didn't get an SNES until 1997, so even later still, and I've got plenty of other anecdotes like that. (seems like almost a 1/3 of the market might be in that category -late gen/budget users-)



True. I remember still playing the NES, Super NES, and Genesis right before the dawn of the new millennium wherever I went (I didn't own any of those at that point).
Yep, same here, except we had an NES since ~1990 and got an SNES at the end of '96. (and kept playing the NES into the early 2000s when the connector wore out and it went in storage until a couple years ago -though mosft of my friends with N64s -some with PSXs or PS2s- seemed to play the NES rather infrequently at that point, but still play the SNES or Genesis a bit more -or at least have it hooked up; in our case the SNES never went away -it's been hooked up pretty much continually for the last 9 years and same for the N64 and GC since we got those in '99 and ~2003 -the NES probably would have been too if it hadn't stopped working)





Well you could still walk into just about any department store in 2000 and get a Genesis 3 in the US. So I'd say yes it did last long. Even if Saturn and PS1 came out in 1995 people were still playing 16 bit consoles for a good time after that.
Yep, the lower profile late-gen market. Not as glamorous by far, but highly profitable for almost every platform to get into that category with a strong existing userbase and library of software. (again, something Sega squandered and screwed up with decisions made from '95 onward -and made worse by the 32x/Saturn mess)

But thanks to Majesco stepping in and licensing North American distribution, the Genesis at least got half-decent late-gen support for the budget market. (as did the GG -though that shouldn't have been budget or relied on old games, it should have been fully supported by Sega . . . )






Seems to be plenty of conflicting views on this. I've read magazine articles that practically regarded it as dying in 1993 (retrospective articles, not ones actually from 93).
If by dying you mean "past its peak", then that's generally true AFIK, but far from "dead" as such. (any more than the NES died in 1991 or PSX died in 2000/2001, etc)
The articles you find in 1993 sometimes point to the "slump" on the market with rather significant drops in sales in '93 for Nintendo and Sega (and the market as a whole in the US) that deepened in 1994 and didn't recover until late 1996 with the start of the boom for the 5th gen market. (in that period, Nintendo managed to push a resurgence in the SNES from late 1994 onward -the fruition of plans starting in '93 for a strong push for newer and better software on the SNES: the same thing Sega attempted to address with the 32x in part -also an attempt to curb the threats of the Jaguar and 3DO that seemed very real in 1993 and part of 1994)

Actually that "slump" probably hurt the Jaguar and 3DO a fair bit too: the worst possible time to push out new consoles really. (especially expensive ones)

[Christuserloeser]

I remember that by the release of Sonic 1 Sega really took off. Other than what most people seem to think, this was not because of Sonic alone. Sonic did A LOT to help boost Sega's popularity, but I clearly remember that right before Sonic came there already were games like Castle of Illusion, Moonwalker, Ghouls 'n Ghosts, Thunder Force, Revenge of Shinobi, Golden Axe, Mystic Defender, Forgotten Worlds, Alex Kidd, Wonderboy in Monsterworld, Phantasy Star, etc. pp. - all of these (and the hardware itself - both in architecture and design) contributed to Sega's reputation as a quality brand in gaming.
By late 1993 though, Sega was loosing credibility rapidly - with gamers, mass media and parents equally, until in 1995 people didn't give a damn anymore. Nintendo was back and Sony the next big thing.

All in all I'd say Sega had two or three big years but that's it.

[Obviously]

Seems to be plenty of conflicting views on this. I've read magazine articles that practically regarded it as dying in 1993 (retrospective articles, not ones actually from 93).

Sheesh, sounds like a pretty ill-informed magazine.

[Christuserloeser]

Seems to be plenty of conflicting views on this. I've read magazine articles that practically regarded it as dying in 1993 (retrospective articles, not ones actually from 93).

As you might guess from my previous post: I agree with this. And in the review I agree with the magazines that claimed the same thing back in the day - although I'd strongly disagree that the hardware itself was to blame.

The problem was that from the very second they had success they did all the wrong things. Literally every decision made was wrong.

[Obviously]

I wouldn't say they were on the top of the world after 93 but they certainly hadn't left the scene yet. Popular titles like Sonic & Knuckles, Earthworm Jim and Vectorman were still down the road. People were still buying Genesis games, every store that carried video games were still selling Genesis games.

It depends on how you define "lasting." Either they were done after all of their highest grossing titles were out or they were still around when Majesco was pumping out Genesis 3's.

[Thenewguy]

I remember that by the release of Sonic 1 Sega really took off. Other than what most people seem to think, this was not because of Sonic alone. Sonic did A LOT to help boost Sega's popularity, but I clearly remember that right before Sonic came there already were games like Castle of Illusion, Moonwalker, Ghouls 'n Ghosts, Thunder Force, Revenge of Shinobi, Golden Axe, Mystic Defender, Forgotten Worlds, Alex Kidd, Wonderboy in Monsterworld, Phantasy Star, etc. pp. - all of these (and the hardware itself - both in architecture and design) contributed to Sega's reputation as a quality brand in gaming.Its hard to tell, remember that we came from a very different environment in Europe, here the SMS had already laid some groundwork, Sega arcade machines were extremely popular (at least in Britain), and generally Sega's brand name was well respected.

When the Mega Drive was released in the UK I don't remember there being any doubt from anyone that it wasn't going to be a popular, successful console, it was pretty much regarded as obvious that it was going to do well, I remember Golden Axe also entered the UK top 20 sales chart in 1990. Obviously Sonic was still a major turning point here though, with sales multiplying after Sonic the Hedgehog's release

In the US Sega would've had to have laid a lot more groundwork initially, they'd just come from a console that had been trashed by Nintendo, and their arcade licences didn't seem to have as much clout, they seem to be mainly relying on graphics, and "personalities" early on, and until 1991 industry watchers seem to think that when the SNES comes out both the Genesis and TG-16 will fade into obscurity and the SNES will take off with huge sales, they only start to change their mind after Sonic's release.

[Obviously]

Yes I was pretty young at the time but I don't remember even knowing what a Sega Genesis was until Sonic the Hedgehog appeared.

[Cornholio857]

The Genesis never died. It simply went on to a higher plane of existence! :p

But on a serious note, the last game I bought new for the Genesis was around 1996 and that game was Virtua Fighter 2. IIRC the last game I rented was Sonic 3D Blast. As Blockbuster was starting to clear out their Genesis section.

[Da_Shocker]

It was till pretty big during the late 90's I remember picking up a few games at the Funcoland from way back in the day. I don't think they were carrying 32X or SCD games.

[kool kitty89]

I remember that by the release of Sonic 1 Sega really took off. Other than what most people seem to think, this was not because of Sonic alone. Sonic did A LOT to help boost Sega's popularity, but I clearly remember that right before Sonic came there already were games like Castle of Illusion, Moonwalker, Ghouls 'n Ghosts, Thunder Force, Revenge of Shinobi, Golden Axe, Mystic Defender, Forgotten Worlds, Alex Kidd, Wonderboy in Monsterworld, Phantasy Star, etc. pp. - all of these (and the hardware itself - both in architecture and design) contributed to Sega's reputation as a quality brand in gaming.
By late 1993 though, Sega was loosing credibility rapidly - with gamers, mass media and parents equally, until in 1995 people didn't give a damn anymore. Nintendo was back and Sony the next big thing.

All in all I'd say Sega had two or three big years but that's it.
Yep, Sonic was the killer app that, along with the all-important strong marketing, brought the Genesis to the forefront of the market along with its extensive back library of excellent games and solid 1st/2nd/3rd party support. (having the best Sports games on the market was a huge part of the western -especially North American- success as well, with marketing to match of course ;))

Granted, in Europe the advertising wasn't quite as critical as you had strong magazine culture and other cultural/regional (population density is an issue) that made viral marketing far more effective than in North America; plus you had the Success of the SMS and popularity arcades in many parts of Europe to back it up. (but having good marketing certainly helped there too -and making Sonic pack-in, of course: aside from the missed opportunities of better pack-ins earlier on)













Five years isn't really that abnormal for a console lifespan to be honest, a lot of consoles had heydays that lasted around that length, if anything I'd say that lifespans are just getting longer as time goes on.

Yeah, usually 4-6 years on the mainstream and several more years (in extreme cases over a decade total) dragging on in the low-end/budget market.

I wouldn't say the life spans get logner either, but it varies by generation and by console.
If you look at the most successful systems as I mentioned above: VCS/2600, NES/FC, MD/Gen, SNES/SFC, PSX, PS2, etc the life spans are all exceptionally long with the budget market included on top of healthy/long high-end to mainstream market lives -if you cut out the initial high-end/niche market segment that will cut it short like with Genesis snot starting until 1991 or PSX not until the end of 1996, etc. (VCS was high-end/mainstream for about 6 years, NES was for about 5 in the US -at least 7 in Japan, SNES was for about 5 years as well, PSX was for roughly 5-6 years, PS2 for about 6, etc -the PC Engine was for some 7 years if you include the CD)




No, if Sonic was a fad then it was a bloody long lasting one, even bad recent Sonic games sell over 1 million copies.

Both Sonic Adventure games were very successful, SA2:Battle was one of the biggest selling and most popular Gamecube games during the 1st few years of the console's lifespan, and it surpassed both Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles in sales.
Yep, not having a strong sonic game on the Saturn at all (let alone by late 1996) was one of the things that really hurt the Saturn in the west. (along with the weak sports game support, and various non software related issues)



Its hard to tell, remember that we came from a very different environment in Europe, here the SMS had already laid some groundwork, Sega arcade machines were extremely popular (at least in Britain), and generally Sega's brand name was well respected.

When the Mega Drive was released in the UK I don't remember there being any doubt from anyone that it wasn't going to be a popular, successful console, it was pretty much regarded as obvious that it was going to do well, I remember Golden Axe also entered the UK top 20 sales chart in 1990. Obviously Sonic was still a major turning point here though, with sales multiplying after Sonic the Hedgehog's release

In the US Sega would've had to have laid a lot more groundwork initially, they'd just come from a console that had been trashed by Nintendo, and their arcade licences didn't seem to have as much clout, they seem to be mainly relying on graphics, and "personalities" early on, and until 1991 industry watchers seem to think that when the SNES comes out both the Genesis and TG-16 will fade into obscurity and the SNES will take off with huge sales, they only start to change their mind after Sonic's release.
Yes, though at least Sega had a more respectable position on the console market than in Japan and enough that it lasted up through 1991 and got the release of the SMS2. (OTOH, arcades were much stronger in Japan, so Sega had more of a name there)

The fact that NEC totally screwed up in the west (in spite of having the money, influence, and Japanese support to have a world beater) was also critical to Sega's success with the MD/Genesis. ;) (imagine if NEC pulled a Sony via the cheaper hardware/vertical integration/massive internal funds/etc) If NEC had pulled that (cheaper price, saturation marketing, investing in western software+attractive licensing and tactics to break Nintendo's exclusivity, etc) Sega would have had a very hard time in the US: if that strong western developer support happened to include getting the best Sports games and marketing to match, it would have been all but over for Sega in the US. (probably limp along in 3rd place behind Nintendo, maybe hanging in there against the SNES -but at a disadvantage from the brand recognition and with no software support advantage other than in-house Sega stuff -maybe not as weak as the Saturn or SMS, but nowhere near that of the Genesis historically)















But you have to understand the whole gritty context. Growing up, the NES was the 1st big video game system in the US. (At the peak, 1 out of 4 households had an NES, IIRC.) Sure there was Atari etc. before that, but none ever got so big as the NES. It was like videogames themselves were a new invention, as it seemed to us kids.
Market Saturation of the NES wasn't THAT much more than Atari, but worldwide is where the NES really differed. (it was the first massive international success)

But even still, it was NOT the start of games and Atari Inc really established that in the US (in Europe it was home computers, and in Japan it was Nintendo -the Famicom in '83 for Japan was more or less like the VCS in '77/78 in the US or the Spectrum/C64/CPC in Europe).
It also remolded the industry, but most definitely did NOT bring it out of the crash. ;) (strong 2600 sales in late 1985 -while Nintendo had a poor test market considered a failure by market analysts- was proof of that -Nintendo was considered a small fish until mid/late spring of 1986 when the expanded test markets and release of the core Control Deck bundle with the newly released SMB proved successful -and then solidified in a very successful holiday sales season in '86 -and with Sega mismanaging the SMS and Atari Corp short on funds and locked out of all Japanese arcade licenses, Nintendo was quickly able to gain enough momentum to enforce anti-competitive licensing policies and have enough clout to get away with it -and further solidifying their monopoly well beyond what Atari Inc had ever done and not broken until the early '90s)


You could very well say the same thing for Sony though: the market expanded dramatically in the 5th generation with massive popularity an changing the market in general. (more mainstream, more multimedia emphasis, much higher production values, etc)



The NES lasted for years, like maybe 8 years? Nintendo kept it going even after the SNES came out. So when the 16-bit wars erupted between the SNES and Genesis, I expected the 16-bit generation to also last a long time, like the 8-bit NES generation did. It was a surprise when the 16-bit generation died in just a few years.
Yep, rather like the VCS: launched in 1977, went big in 1980 with Space Invaders, expanded further through '82, had the crash in '83 but kept selling and getting new games in '84, changed ownership to Atari Corp who continued to sell it and completed the Jr project with the Jr released in late 1985 (might have been early 1986) due to a strong increase in sales during Summer of 1985 that led through a strong Christmas sales season (to the point where production and stockpiles couldn't keep up with demand).
And they kept it supported with new games (more new games than the 7800 in several years) up into the early 90s where it was finally discontinued in 1992. (albeit it was also discontinued with the 7800 -the ST computer line would be discontinued the following year with the dropped Lynx around the same time with only the jaguar remaining until Atari Corp was liquidated in early 1996)

The 2600 was the definitive budget console of the late 80s in the US (and to a small extent in Europe) and could still be found in retail stores up until '91/92 when it was finally displaced by the NES in the low-end market. (and obviously a wealth of used consoles) The Intellivision was the only other console in that price range in the late 80s, though it only sold some 3 million units under Intev compared to something on the better half of 10 million of Atari Inc/Corp post-crash. (under Atari Corp alone it should have been at least 5 million total, probably a good bit more than that -especially including Canada and Europe)



Also when at its peak, the Genesis seemed like it would just last forever. Sonic 1 was still hot and Sonic 2 brought Sega ahead of Nintendo for the 1st time ever! Sega seemed like it would make awesome games for years.
It depends what you mean: if by "ahead" you mean SNES+NES total sales, than problbaly not, if you mean SNES OR NES sales, then yes, Sega was almost certainly ahead from 1992 through 1994 (I think the SNES pulled ahead in '95). However, combined Nintendo market share of hardware sales seems to have been higher (on an annual basis) for the entire generation in the US. (NES sales made up the slack as the SNES transitioned in through 1994)

Of course, there's also software market share separate from that. (but that would favor the NES late-gen even more)


But for me the decline started soon after Sonic 2. Then came Sonic Spinball (awful), then Sonic 3 (good but short as a stand-alone game). S&K was great but never played it at the time, after those 2 disappointing titles, plus the Genesis was already in decline of popularity, at that point, and other systems were getting bigger already.



Plus the 32X was a late add-on that went nowhere, then the Saturn was out and all support for the Genesis was suddenly over.
Support was less than it should have been, but the system was on the shelves with new games (newly produced and newly manufactured re-releases) up through 1999, albeit dropped by Sega in 1997 with Majesco licensing distribution in North America.

The last Sega published releases came out in 1997 with Jurassic Park: the Lost World, World Series Base Ball '98, and Sega Sports NFL '98, along with EA's FIFA '98, NHL '98, NBA Live '98, and Madden '98

Like the VCS/2600, NES, SNES, PSX, and PS2, it had a very long life and a fairly strong late-gen/budget market position: except it's first couple years were spent building up hype and breaking through Nintendo's stronghold, and Sega didn't push it nearly as well as they could have from '95 onward. (the 32x/Saturn mess was part of that)
Even so, it was on the market in the US from August of 1989 into 2000 (I think Majesco discontinued it in 2000, so it would have been back-stock sold off at that point) compared to the VCS/2600 from 1977-1991/92, NES from 1986 to 1995 (Famicom much longer), SNES from 1991 though 1999/2000 (or 2003 in Japan), PSX from 1995 through 2006, PS2 from 2000 to present, etc. ;)

Not to mention how long people kept playing the systems at home (non retro gamers mind you). ;) (albeit that's separate from mass market lifespan)




Strangely the Genesis' peak seemed right before its decline.

What??? :daze: Don't you see a problem with that statement?
What comes right after a peak of something? Oh, yeah, the decline. ;) (like the falling action after the climax of a book/film/etc)



At the peak Sega was pushing the Sega CD and Game Gear alongside the Genesis. Also Sega Channel was a cool late product that showed how the Genesis could have kept going, if Sega had chosen so. The Sega Channel could have easily been continued; as it was I think it only went for like a year...
It also didn't come out until 1996, so pretty late and probably a rather poor investment as such.

[Ecco]

kool kitty: Market Saturation of the NES wasn't THAT much more than Atari, but worldwide is where the NES really differed. (it was the first massive international success)

But even still, it was NOT the start of games and Atari Inc really established that in the US (in Europe it was home computers, and in Japan it was Nintendo -the Famicom in '83 for Japan was more or less like the VCS in '77/78 in the US or the Spectrum/C64/CPC in Europe).
It also remolded the industry, but most definitely did NOT bring it out of the crash. (strong 2600 sales in late 1985 -while Nintendo had a poor test market considered a failure by market analysts- was proof of that -Nintendo was considered a small fish until mid/late spring of 1986...

I was really describing the impressions I had in the 80's; the NES seemed like the first video game system that everyone had. It was assumed that almost every kid in almost every class had an NES, and it seemed like there was nothing before it!

I know before that, the Atari and others had a presence, but born in the early 80's, I only got to see the NES sweep the nation.

Also those other systems never seemed to have become so popular. I only glimpsed an Atari twice; my older neighbor showed me the horrible E.T., and my older cousin had Pitfall, but soon got rid of the system. Atari always seemed like a fossil, and rare. Then again, maybe it was more popular than I realized, since it was before my time...

Still, I thought the NES far surpassed the popularity and sales of the Atari and all other previous systems in the US...


Ecco: Strangely the Genesis' peak seemed right before its decline.


kool kitty: What??? Don't you see a problem with that statement?
What comes right after a peak of something? Oh, yeah, the decline. (like the falling action after the climax of a book/film/etc)

Haha, yes, a decline does follow a peak by necessity. :p

I should have said:

Strangely the Genesis' peak seemed LIKE A FLASH, right before its RAPID decline. :p

^There was the flash of huge success brought by Sonic 1 and 2 (and I expected Sega to overthrow Nintendo and make awesome games for years!). Then suddenly Sonic Spinball ripped out my heart, and showed me that Sega also makes shitty games. Sonic 3 was good but short (and it was disappointing at TWO separate birthday parties at the time!). And by then it was all over, the Genesis had fewer and fewer games coming out, while other systems gained in popularity rapidly. The coffin nails were the 32x that got killed almost instantly, and then all Genesis support was over, in favor of the Saturn!

Ah well, the bottom line is that the Genesis is still going strong for 20 years now. :cool:

[cowboyscowboys]

For when I was growing up the Genesis stayed pretty relevant until mid 94. I remember even Sonic 3 wasn't that big a deal and Sonic and Knuckles even less so. I still remember the midget Christmas commercial for SK's funny stuff. Vectorman was the last push and had no relevance at my school. The SNES almost seemed like a next gen console after DK, well when your 7 like I was you don't know any better I guess.

[Aarzak]

Once SoJ released the Saturn in November 1994, Japanese third-party support for the Genesis dried up quickly as third-parties instantly hopped on board the Saturn. So did SoJ's support to a lesser extent ("Ristar", "Phantasy Star IV" and "Beyond Oasis" were released in early '95, and "Light Crusader" in Fall 1995 marking the last big Japanese-developed Genesis games). Third-party support on the U.S side was still strong, though past its peak in 1995, with developers such as Midway (Jam T.E, Mortal Kombat 3, the latter being the last million-selling Genesis game), Sega of America (Batman & Robin, Comix Zone, Vectorman), Acclaim (blech), EA and others holding down the fort. Things started drying up in the U.S in 1996, with the Genesis barely making it through the year with a scant lineup of mediocre games (i.e X-Perts, Bugs Bunny In Double Trouble, Time Killers, Marsupliami), with the last batch of worthwhile games (Vectorman 2, Sonic 3D Blast, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, Virtua Fighter 2, NBA Hang Time) being released later that year.

I recall 1996 being the last year in which the Genesis was relevant in the market, and as I said it barely made it through that year. From 1997 on, it along with the SNES fell into the "budget console" category.

[Enternal]

I have early memories of the Genesis with Altered Beast and even playing games on the SMS and thinking they were so much better than my Nintendo... Double Dragon sms vs the nes 2 players! :)

Early in the 90's my Christmas Presents were, Snes then Genesis, then a gamegear. I fell for the ploy of blast processing commericals... I had no idea what I was saying, neither did my parents who I remember saying it to. Early on I preferred the snes because I mostly compared the graphics and music. Now I sorta respect each for what they provided.

As far as my perspective on how long it lasted, was around the mid 90's with it being still dominate. The emerging systems, 3do, cdi, saturn, psx,32x, jag, were expensive. I sold my systems for a guitar and a jag...bad choice on the jag which I sold to get a psx. Also during that time Phantasy Star IV, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, and Final Fantasy 3 were the popular games. So the next gen systems didn't make a dent to the 16bit hold for a little while. Eventually more and more kids got them in school and the talk of the prior games gave way to Tomb Raider, Tekken, and Street Fighter Alpha. Then once games like Metal Gear Solid, FF7, Mario 64, Star Wars shadow of the empire hit. I really didn't know anyone who was still playing those games.

Now as far as adults gamers go idk. Also the systems have been lasting longer even though technology is improving at a faster and faster rate. And with Sega, the Genesis was one of their longer used systems. SMS-Gens-Saturn-Dreamcast

One popular belief which I support is that the Wii caused a shift in the Stonger/Faster mindset of new gaming systems. Nintendo did a 180 in sales from the GC to the Wii and both Microsoft and Sony responded by focusing on addons instead of a new system. Too bad Sega didn't do as well with the CD and 32x.

[Christuserloeser]

Once SoJ released the Saturn in November 1994, Japanese third-party support for the Genesis dried up quickly as third-parties instantly hopped on board the Saturn. So did SoJ's support to a lesser extent. Third-party support on the U.S side was still strong

It was the nail in the coffin to loose the Japanese market to Saturn and PlayStation in 1995. By 1994 the Mega Drive / Genesis had already lost its momentum. 1994 was the year 32X was released. It was the year Donkey Kong Country was released. It was the year after Sonic Spinball and Jurassic Park. The year after they've introduced the model 2 (and the new packaging for their games). Two years after the Sega CD was released in the US (and one year after it was released in Europe) - That's two years of FMV. One year after the release of the activator, and one year after Sega VR was announced. 1993 and 1994 also had been years when any decent game released was drowned in a flood of uninspired shovelware trying to cash in on the phenomenal success of the console during the previous years. This was a time prior the internet so it wasn't as easy to tell the good from the bad as it would be today. But I think for the average player it was obvious by 1994 that if you wanted quality console gaming without much hassle you were in the wrong boat.

[Melf]

1994 was one of the best years the Genesis had in terms of hardware and software sales. The games were selling, the console was outselling everything else for the third year in a row, and people were still choosing Sega over Nintendo. I don't know where anyone sees any evidence to the contrary. Personal tastes and perception do not trump simple sales numbers. Sega announced its sales numbers in January of 1996 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_Jan_10/ai_18001580/), and while the Saturn figures weren't good, the Genesis sales were rock solid. You can say what you want about Sega's executives, but I doubt they went all Enron and deceived the board of directors, SOJ, shareholders, and the press by lying about their sales in their press release.

It also sold more in 1994 than every other hardware maker COMBINED and beat the SNES at Christmas for the third year in a row (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Jan_6/ai_15997617/). Hardly, signs of a company already in decline. Even the 32X appeared to be doing good, having sold half a million units in 2 months.





Based on independent sales figures, Sega captured 55 percent of the overall market in October and 53 percent in November (most recent reporting period), and preliminary indications from retailers point to a widening lead for Sega at the close of the holiday sales season.

For all of 1994, Sega had 58 percent of all 16-bit hardware sales. Sega also beat Nintendo, and Atari, Phillips and 3DO combined, in overall annual video game hardware sales, with 56 percent of the market.


Hell, even Nintendo itself admitted (http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b335962.arc.htm) in 1994 that Sega was beating it.

Anyone who thought Sega was in trouble in 1994 had a crystal ball. It wasn't until much later that the company began to tank.

[KnightWarrior]

It seems like every topic...kool kitty has replys like a book

But to me the 16 bit era will never die

[villahed94]

Here the Genesis lasted well until 2001 or so

[Christuserloeser]

Anyone who thought Sega was in trouble in 1994 had a crystal ball.

or a Super Nintendo or PC ;)

Seriously, aside of there being better alternatives available, Sega was actively digging their own grave: bad software, model 2, Sega CD, FMV, 32x, activator, Sega VR, Mortal Kombat / Night Trap controversy - there were countless signs and you didn't need a crystal ball to see that they had no idea what they were doing and that it was a matter of time until Nintendo would take over again. Or the PC. Or Sony. Or all three.

Let's not forget that while it is undeniable that they were still selling an awful lot of hard- and software in 1994, Sega of America spent waaaaay more money than they earned. This would proof fatal in 1995 when the 16-bit market collapsed. They'd never recover.

[Silanda]

Mortal Kombat / Night Trap controversy

The same controversy that actively drove sales for Sega?

[BLAST PROCESSOR]

I bought my Genesis in '89, but it really didn't catch on until Sonic came out and the SNES was released, like Christuserloeser mentions. I knew a lot of friends who were waiting to see what the SNES would be like before deciding for or against the Genesis. Most people I knew weren't that impressed with the SNES' initial offerings and preferred the Genesis' already established library.

I disagree with the thinking that the beginning of the end for the Genesis was the Sega CD, in 1993. It was a natural progression for the Genesis, as the Turbo had their CD attachment for years. Had development been stronger, I think the Sega CD could have easily been a success, or at least more of one than it turned out to be.

For me, and folks I knew, 1995 was really the downfall of the Genesis. While things started going downhill in '94 with the 32X being announced and released and with rumors of the Saturn already at a high pitch.

The arrival of the PlayStation and early, rushed launch of the Saturn in '95 just ended things for the Genesis in my mind.

[Kamahl]

Totally agree with Blast Processor, sega ending all support for the genny was the biggest mistake in my mind, right after the 32X.
But really, things were bad right at the beginning, the only console that was well designed by sega was the DreamCast (That lack of a dvd drive was due to monetary issues).

If not for the heavy marketing the genesis wouldn't have done nearly as well.

[Obviously]

While I agree that Sega was setting itself up for the fall in the mid nineties I don't think consumers were thinking this way yet, especially not in the United States. Sega was still viewed as hugely successful until after 32X came out and the Saturn was KO'ed. We didn't know how dumb they were being until they up and nuclear exploded.

[Melf]

or a Super Nintendo or PC ;)

If you had a SNES at the time, you were watching Sega outsell it, out advertise it (SEGA!), and release just as many games to play. And not all the SNES library of the time was so great compared to what Sega was producing. The Nintendo article I linked to explains Yamauchi's displeasure with the SNES games being released.


Seriously, aside of there being better alternatives available, Sega was actively digging their own grave: bad software, model 2, Sega CD, FMV, 32x, activator, Sega VR, Mortal Kombat / Night Trap controversy - The problem is that you're thinking in hindsight. At the time, back in 1994, no one knew that Sega was headed down a bad road. At the time, the examples you mentioned were not considered mistakes.

* The model 2 was actually considered a good thing, as all consoles are eventually redesigned and slimmed down. This allows for cheaper manufacturing and a lower sale price, which results in more hardware being sold overall. Atari did it with the 2600, Nintendo did it with the NES, and Sega did it with the Master System and then Genesis. Just about every console since has done it, save for the N64, Jaguar, and Xbox.

* The Sega CD was still being pushed actively. I think this situation more closely resembles the Master System - hardware that's not selling but Sega keeps pushing anyway, hoping people will come around. The door was still open on the potential sales of the CD at the time.

* If the Activator and Sega VR (which never made it past testing) were signs of Sega's death, then the NES should have tanked as soon as the Power Glove was released. Peripherals, as crazy as some of them are, are actually a sign of healthy hardware. Since most hardware owners didn't buy more than a second controller, it took a large user base to make special peripherals viable. Consoles that have really low sales don't tend to have a lot of peripherals.

* Mortal Kombat/Night Trap actually did more for sales than anything Sega could have done itself. Those two games were actual boons for Sega, and I believe the Genesis version of MK actually outsold the SNES one by 2 to 1 upon release and then 3 to 1 after the Senate hearings.


there were countless signs and you didn't need a crystal ball to see that they had no idea what they were doing and that it was a matter of time until Nintendo would take over again. Or the PC. Or Sony. Or all three.
Let's not forget that while it is undeniable that they were still selling an awful lot of hard- and software in 1994, Sega of America spent waaaaay more money than they earned. This would proof fatal in 1995 when the 16-bit market collapsed. They'd never recover.But the results of having spent more than they earned wouldn't be apparent for a few years. Hence, Sega, in 1994, was doing quite well financially with a great-selling console and hit games, and in the public eye it was the better choice. You can argue that this success was a house of cards that came crashing down later - and you'd be right - but in 1994, Sega was still #1.

[Obviously]

I just read that article with Yamauchi. I like how he passed off the blame for why SNES wasn't doing as well to the 3rd party developers. That couldn't have won them any popularity points.

All of their doubting of the CD format was interesting as well.

It's really interesting to read it in hindsight seeing as how waning third party support and lack of CD media are the two things that really came back to haunt them when during the N64's lifespan.

[villahed94]

Totally agree with Blast Processor, sega ending all support for the genny was the biggest mistake in my mind, right after the 32X.
But really, things were bad right at the beginning, the only console that was well designed by sega was the DreamCast (That lack of a dvd drive was due to monetary issues).

If not for the heavy marketing the genesis wouldn't have done nearly as well.

Me too, i think if Sega of Japan hadn´t discontinued it so harshly, i think Sega would still be alive, and the Genesis would have survived well into the 2000´s

[BLAST PROCESSOR]

Totally agree with Blast Processor, sega ending all support for the genny was the biggest mistake in my mind, right after the 32X.
But really, things were bad right at the beginning, the only console that was well designed by sega was the DreamCast (That lack of a dvd drive was due to monetary issues).

If not for the heavy marketing the genesis wouldn't have done nearly as well.

Hey, thanks Kamahl. I agree also - marketing played a huge role in the success of the Genesis.

While the Genesis wasn't the most well designed system (especially the limited colors available - as has been mentioned in another thread recently), I think Sega was able to leverage the hardware and develop quality software that played to it's strengths.

Branding Sega as the "cool" company definitely was genius, though.

Sega pulled support for the Genesis in 1996, right? There was so much potential left, I think it could have coasted at least a couple more years if SOJ had given it a chance, possibly living on through the Nomad - maybe similar to what Sega did with the Master System and Game Gear years earlier.

Some type of backwards compatibility option on the Saturn would have helped both the Genesis and Saturn platforms, also.

[Tasuke]

Did the Genesis really last that long?

for me it certainly has.

parents got me a 1st edition MOD. 1 for X-mas 1989, right at the console's U.S. debut.
i was like 8/9 at the time. i've had that very same console, as well as
most of the games purchased for it, for all of these two decades now,
and it all still works perfectly. a few games i traded off long ago in the early
nineties, but i had later lived to regret it, and have been working getting them all back lately.

i've had (and retain to this day) most every major VG console released
since 1989, as well as the 1985 NINTENDO NES, but my very first ever VG
was the good old SEGA Genny, and has remained a loyal friend since day one...

[Aarzak]

While (Japanese) third-party support for the Genesis dwindled beginning in 1995, it continued strong on the SNES well into 1996, which along with the DKC phenomenon is what helped the SNES pull ahead of the Genesis during their latter years IMO (though the Genesis was still selling well). Capcom, Konami, Square and Enix held on to the SNES until 1996.....before jumping over to the PS1. :D

[j_factor]

I perceived the Genesis as being still very 'alive' in 1996, albeit dwindling.

1998 was the year that Genesis games were discontinued at Blockbuster (in the fall), the year the Sega Channel was discontinued, and the year the last official game was released (and it was the sole new release all year). However it still had a solid presence in stores. I always thought of Christmas '98 as a sort of final mini-hurrah for the system. The following year, it was still technically available but its presence in stores was spotty and selection was iffy.

[bohokii]

yea late 1989- 1996 was its lifespan to me even though i stuck with it even to today

the nes was dead to me in 1991

[kool kitty89]

The same controversy that actively drove sales for Sega?
And the same one that ended up formally establishing a (long overdue) industry-wide ratings system? (albeit that could have been done without the litigation if Nintendo had been proactive along with the rest of the industry in establishing the system rather than fighting it and pushing against Sega in court to maintain their tried and true censorship -which admittedly served a purpose, especially after some early controversy on the NES, like with Pro Wrestling)




1994 was one of the best years the Genesis had in terms of hardware and software sales. The games were selling, the console was outselling everything else for the third year in a row, and people were still choosing Sega over Nintendo. I don't know where anyone sees any evidence to the contrary. Personal tastes and perception do not trump simple sales numbers. Sega announced its sales numbers in January of 1996 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_Jan_10/ai_18001580/), and while the Saturn figures weren't good, the Genesis sales were rock solid. You can say what you want about Sega's executives, but I doubt they went all Enron and deceived the board of directors, SOJ, shareholders, and the press by lying about their sales in their press release.
Sega and Nintendo both had significantly declining markets following 1992, Sega's market share was strong, but the entire market had entered a "slump" that wouldn't recover fully until late 1996.

OTOH, volumes and revenue going down doesn't mean less profitability, and since the Genesis (and SNES) were entering the later portion of the generation, potential for profits was massive.

That's one thing Nintendo got right and Sega screwed up with: making the most of the late 4th gen market all the way into the budget years through the end of the decade. (some would say "milking" and many market analysts criticized Nintendo for continuing to push old hardware, but it paid off just as with every other popular console out there)


The 32x didn't help things unfortunately: as had happened before (though often for good reason) Sega went with hardware rather than software and they lost out. (Nintendo took the all-software route to combat the slump, and you see the results in the 1994 holiday sales -and 1995 as well)
What was worse is that the 32x conflicted (more or less) with the already substantial MCD hardware and (definitely) the Saturn as well as distracting from the MD. (a cheap add-on, perhaps a low-cost SVP/DSP+RAM+maybe DMA sound lock-on module, might have worked out well, especially if released in place of the standalone Virtua Racing, and more so since something like that could have been cheap enough to add to ALL new Genesis consoles at reasonable cost and be more likely to have crossovers with CD games -but this has been discussed before -of course, you could argue that stickign with stock MD hardware and lower cost embedded enhancements -various sound chips, decompression ASICs, perhaps RAM expansion, but tempered to be cheap- would have been a much better/safer route overall -a unified low-cost add-on integrated into later models could be better but require more careful marketing to pull off)

Of course, the Saturn also would have detracted from those healthy late gen sales if Sega hadn't managed it better in the west. (whosever fault that was historically)
Keeping an eye on Sony was important, of course, but loosing sight on the REAL market at hand against the SNES was a critical mistake. (mid/late 1996 was when the 5th gen was do or die for Sega, all they had to do before that was not screw things up and maintain at least reasonable competition against the PSX in the high-end niche market -temper spending, keep things in reserve, and make sure the right software was being developed for the west, and probably working on getting better dev tools together, etc -in hindsight, it's obvious that the major build-up would be in 1996, much like the MD in 1991 -except back then, Sega didn't have the SMS to worry much about supporting in the US, so they needed to be more tactful with the Saturn/MD transition as such)

It would have been OK if they lost ground to Sony early on if it meant retaining more of the overall market share with the Genesis and thus having a stronger brand name and userbase overall. (and there so many other areas they could have done things right with the Saturn without resorting to expensive saturation marketing and selling below cost -those tactics would pay off much more if held back until mid '96, what they really needed earlier on was more of the right software -key franchises like Sonic and Sega Sports among others- and better software tools would have payed off greatly in the long-run, especially if they'd pushed for tools facilitating Genesis/CD/Saturn cross-platform development -allowing beefed up 32-bit versions of the better late gen Genesis and CD games -or 32x for that matter, if it was released: they needed every advantage they could get for a smooth transition away from the 32x, so why not take advantage of all software in development and help that boost the Saturn?)



It also sold more in 1994 than every other hardware maker COMBINED and beat the SNES at Christmas for the third year in a row (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Jan_6/ai_15997617/). Hardly, signs of a company already in decline. Even the 32X appeared to be doing good, having sold half a million units in 2 months.

Yes, though the European market was in a bit of a different situation (a bit ironic since they had previously held onto old hardware much longer than other regions -ie the 8-bit computers).

And again, Sega may very well have been ahead in market share compared to the SNES, but the entire market had declined in 1993 and deepened significantly in '94.

Plus, I wouldn't be too sure that Sega was the market leader: the NES still had substantial sales in 1994, quite possible enough to push Nintendo into the lead. (of course, it depends if you compare hardware sales, software sales, or revenue -the "slump" was mainly defined by a drop in revenue iirc, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to profit)

Of course, including the NES is looking at things a bit differently in general: like comparing Sony's market share with the PSX in the early 2000s or the PSX a couple years ago. (success of an old system lingering on -as the Genesis could have but wasn't pushed nearly as well as Sega could have -ie typical late gen market with limited new games, tons of re-releases, possibly some compilations, ever dropping prices, etc, etc)






Sheath brought up the "slump" issue several times in some discussions last fall (and summer), especially quoting from Kathleen Morris, "Nightmare in the Fun House," Financial World, February 21, 1995
detailing some of the issues going on at the time. (and some related quotes -tied together in Kent's book, best for quotes like these and not for additional commentary unfortunately)

I'll have to dig some of that up again (or find a post by Sheath), but it brought up how the 32x was a direct response to the slump (on top of whatever else it may have been -ie combating Jag/3DO hype, etc), while Nintendo opted to push for a strong investment in new 1st/3rd party software instead. (something analysts criticized as "milking old hardware" as I mentioned above, but that's BS and a staple of all successful game consoles -they said the same thing about the NES in 1990/91, but those were its peak years and it would have been idiotic to shift focus -as it would have been to not keep pushing the NES in '92-95 as it shifted from late gen mainstream to budget niche as the Genesis should have from 1995-1999)


Ah: here's a good one of Sheath's posts:
http://sega-16.com/forum/showpost.php?p=290163&postcount=113

However, there is some conflicting information, namely the revenue figures Pimpuigi posted, sourced from here:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/11Videogames.pdf












EDIT


* The model 2 was actually considered a good thing, as all consoles are eventually redesigned and slimmed down. This allows for cheaper manufacturing and a lower sale price, which results in more hardware being sold overall. Atari did it with the 2600, Nintendo did it with the NES, and Sega did it with the Master System and then Genesis. Just about every console since has done it, save for the N64, Jaguar, and Xbox.
The N64 did do it too, but less dramatically, I'm sure the Xbox did to some degree as well, but was fundamentally limited by off the shelf components. (the N64 because it was extremely consolidated from say 1, like the Famicom -which got its biggest savings from the AV Famicom dropping RF)

There's a big difference between consolidation and change in form factor: the VA7 model 1 was probably almost the same cost to manufacture as the VA0 model 2, and the Genesis had gone through fairly dramatic consolidation even prior to the VA7. (just like the modle 2s went through dramatic consolidation later on with the VA4 being basically a Genesis 3 without the removal of stereo, RGB lines, some cart connections, the expansion port, etc)

And, of course, by 1994, the Model 2 had already shifted to having better sound (I believe the VA3 was introduced that year), and in some cases better video. (VA3s with the CXA1645 -though it's somewhat TV dependent)



* The Sega CD was still being pushed actively. I think this situation more closely resembles the Master System - hardware that's not selling but Sega keeps pushing anyway, hoping people will come around. The door was still open on the potential sales of the CD at the time.

Yes, and while I agree FMV was pushed too hard (ie not balanced enough), there was only so much SoA could do: the CD's library would still be limited, and cost effectiveness would be as well. They could invest in porting cheaper (a la media) and enhanced (to varying degrees) versions of SoA published games (boosting the library and allowing the system to pay for itself via cheaper games -that still had higher profit margins than the carts due to the dramatic low cost), and they could have pushed for cart games with CD expansions pack-in to attract interest (tricky to program, but very significant), and the pack-ins could be better (Sonic CD really should have been there from fall of 1993 onward)
But the best they could have done otherwise was try to convince SoA to push cross-platform CD versions of MD games, and push for arcade ports taking advantage of the hardware -or at least allow SoA to outsource some of those to STI or western 3rd prties. (rather odd that Space Harrier and Afterburner got near immediate 32x ports by comparison -though they really needed to push newer games in those categories too, like later entries in the outrun series, Thunder Blade, Galaxy Force, etc)

Same for a duo system: having a $300 duo out in parallel with the 1993 model 2 release would have been very significant (and given the $100+150 MD+CD price in late '94, it probably could have dropped to $200 by then), but again, the best they could have done is tried to convince SoJ to push for that. (outsourcing hardware to SoA would make even less sense than outsourcing SoJ arcade games, especially since all they needed to do was design a new PCB merging the model 2 Genesis and model 2 CD chipsets with same lower cost CD drive used in the model 2 -and minimalistic, not so compact as to make manufacturing more complicated -putting chips upside down on the other side of the PCB complicates that considerably as the CDX did, on top of using a copper RF shield, etc- and no special features like the X'Eye or CDX added for a system that was significantly cheaper than the MD+CD to manufacture, package, distribute, etc)


* If the Activator and Sega VR (which never made it past testing) were signs of Sega's death, then the NES should have tanked as soon as the Power Glove was released. Peripherals, as crazy as some of them are, are actually a sign of healthy hardware. Since most hardware owners didn't buy more than a second controller, it took a large user base to make special peripherals viable. Consoles that have really low sales don't tend to have a lot of peripherals.
Plus, at least Sega was smart enough to actually realize the flaws of stereoptical 3D "VR" were too great to practically overcome and dropped it, vs Nintendo who pushed ahead with the Virtual Boy. (Sega discovered the very same flaws of the virtual boy's headaches and disorientation -aside from the monochome display native to Nintendo's design- and thus scrapped it in a rather wise move)


But the results of having spent more than they earned wouldn't be apparent for a few years. Hence, Sega, in 1994, was doing quite well financially with a great-selling console and hit games, and in the public eye it was the better choice. You can argue that this success was a house of cards that came crashing down later - and you'd be right - but in 1994, Sega was still #1.
And the bigger problem was that they didn't reap their rewards: all that spending would have paid off big time in the late gen, lower-intensity market where they could recoup all that in profits. (plus, I believe Sega was not consistently deficit spending, but did so intermittently, and was not in debt until much later -ie Saturn years-)
I thin Katz probably could have balanced the budget far better while maintaining a competitive (if not as prestigious) edge on the market, but it's unclear just how Kalinske's spending was managed. (and some spending, like the investment in STI -including the multimedia studio- were only money pits as they were squandered in the Saturn years when they could/should have paid off big time -especially given how much multimedia/FMV eye candy sold the PSX)

[j_factor]

Is anybody actually reading all these links? And I don't meant that in a snarky way. There's a lot of interesting stuff.

[Enternal]

I read everything and found it interesting

[JCU]

Sonic did A LOT to help boost Sega's popularity, but I clearly remember that right before Sonic came there already were games like Castle of Illusion, Moonwalker, Ghouls 'n Ghosts, Thunder Force, Revenge of Shinobi, Golden Axe, Mystic Defender, Forgotten Worlds, Alex Kidd, Wonderboy in Monsterworld, Phantasy Star, etc. pp. - all of these (and the hardware itself - both in architecture and design) contributed to Sega's reputation as a quality brand in gaming.

Good observation! The Genesis was a powerhouse in terms of games even w/o Sonic. To your list I'll add Ghostbusters and Dick Tracy as being games worthy of a mention.

When the SNES was released, it was a momentum swing and it seemed as if Sega was nerved. Maybe my memory is failing me but the Genesis seemed to lose the effect it once had. The games (not all) and the advertising suffered and didn't have the same effect like during the pre-snes days.

[ItellYaHuat]

To your list I'll add Ghostbusters and Dick Tracy as being games worthy of a mention.

Dick Tracy is a great game, especially when using the machine gun.

[Melf]

Cool. I thought I was the only one who liked Dick Tracy. :)

[Obviously]

Definitely not. The Genesis Dick Tracy is a lot of fun. Flipping out on people in the background with the Tommy gun is a really memorable experience.

[108 Stars]

The MD seemed to be doing well till 95 in Germany, then the software support decreased and came to an aprupt stop in 96, save for a few late games and EA stuff.

The best years were probably 91, 92 and 93; a lot of good TV ads, 3 or 4 Sega-only magazines, and lots of merchandise.

However, it never felt like the MD could top the SNES. The SNEScame in late 91 or early 92 and immediately became no.1 with kids. I remember it was the best time of the WWF (now WWE) in Germany, and kids were amazed by the graphics of Super Wrestlemania. The later MD-version... not so.
And the SF II-hype... the MD went along and did okay, but never had the momentum of the SNES here. So as the SNES spread, the MD's glory slowly sank.

[Arcade Legends 3]

In Bulgaria the only popular game console till 1995 was the NES! Atari 2600 lasted only for two years.
In the '95-99 period the Genesis was extremely popular, again the only popular console. Arcade halls were also extremely popular in the whole '92-99 period.
Later, from '99 and up, PCs killed the console. Along with the arcade halls. Everywhere there were computer clubs, where one was paying for every hour of playing.
These halls lasted till 2007.
Nowadays almost no one pays attention to the Genesis. 3-4% of the gamers even play it(via emulation), being no more than one percent playing regularly/solely.
All those clones, while often being with mediocre quality, still help of that the Genesis to not be forgotten.

[kool kitty89]

In Bulgaria the only popular game console till 1995 was the NES! Atari 2600 lasted only for two years.
In the '95-99 period the Genesis was extremely popular, again the only popular console. Arcade halls were also extremely popular in the whole '92-99 period.
Later, from '99 and up, PCs killed the console. Along with the arcade halls. Everywhere there were computer clubs, where one was paying for every hour of playing.
These halls lasted till 2007.
Nowadays almost no one pays attention to the Genesis. 3-4% of the gamers even play it(via emulation), being no more than one percent playing regularly/solely.
All those clones, while often being with mediocre quality, still help of that the Genesis to not be forgotten.
Was that still the Dendy, or were they selling licensed/official NESs in the mid 90s?

[Bastardcat]

It had a very long run. 1989 to 2000.

[Mista_Ed]

The MD seemed to be doing well till 95 in Germany, then the software support decreased and came to an aprupt stop in 96, save for a few late games and EA stuff.

The best years were probably 91, 92 and 93; a lot of good TV ads, 3 or 4 Sega-only magazines, and lots of merchandise.

However, it never felt like the MD could top the SNES. The SNEScame in late 91 or early 92 and immediately became no.1 with kids. I remember it was the best time of the WWF (now WWE) in Germany, and kids were amazed by the graphics of Super Wrestlemania. The later MD-version... not so.
And the SF II-hype... the MD went along and did okay, but never had the momentum of the SNES here. So as the SNES spread, the MD's glory slowly sank.

exactly

[StarMist]

4 years. Died to me somewhere in `93. Its later quality stuff didn't surface till years after.

[Barone]

The MD seemed to be doing well till 95 in Germany, then the software support decreased and came to an aprupt stop in 96, save for a few late games and EA stuff.

The best years were probably 91, 92 and 93; a lot of good TV ads, 3 or 4 Sega-only magazines, and lots of merchandise.

However, it never felt like the MD could top the SNES. The SNEScame in late 91 or early 92 and immediately became no.1 with kids. I remember it was the best time of the WWF (now WWE) in Germany, and kids were amazed by the graphics of Super Wrestlemania. The later MD-version... not so.
And the SF II-hype... the MD went along and did okay, but never had the momentum of the SNES here. So as the SNES spread, the MD's glory slowly sank.

Momentum... Yeah, Sega lost it after Sonic 2 IMO.

[kool kitty89]

Momentum... Yeah, Sega lost it after Sonic 2 IMO.
There was also the issue of the North American market wide slump that began in 1993 (ie directly following the Sonic 2 hype/sales of '92). Nintendo and Sega responded differently to the slump and Nintendo's (mainly "push more/new software") approach seemed to be far more effective than Sega's mixed approach (especially with the 32x being part of that -32x was, of course, spurred by a number of different factors from Japan and the US -I don't think Europe had much of anything to do with that), not to mention having the Sega CD in the mix further complicating things. (especially with the way the CD was being managed overall -in multiple regions with different problems in each, some overlapping- . . . albeit, if the Sega CD -for whatever reason- had actually gone mainstream, that probably would have avoided many of Sega's other mistakes in trying to compete in the late-gen market -and premature shift to 32-bit -not that they couldn't still have done that without the Sega CD in general had they taken a much less hardware-oriented approach to competition)