To be perfectly fair, Sega’s initial offerings were largely unaffected by the crash as the crash, while effecting miniscule amounts of other markets, was primarily isolated to the US market with them entering the market as it was beginning to mend itself. They were significantly more popular during Gen 3 in…

Yeah, it’s totally suspicious when you respond to a call about gunshots and find people running away and ducking behind cover.

I think it is very amusing that a police department union (A FUCKING POLICE DEPARTMENT) is asking the NFL to investigate something.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: police union spokesmen are the worst people in America.

Nintendo games were ten times better than Sega or third party games. I owned both, and the SNES is the best system I’ve ever had by a long shot.

To answer your question in simple, easy to understand bullet points:

Have you seen SEGA's marketing from the 90's?

poor launch titles, most of the genesis first 2 years of games are pretty weak sauce until you get to Sonic 2 era.

The Dreamcast also had a one-year lead over the PS2, and it got thoroughly destroyed.

Nintendo was the console that everyone had. Growing up in my neighborhood, I knew maybe 1-2 kids or so who has Sega's. Compared to kids I knew who had NES, well... damn near everyone had an NES. I always felt like I was doing something secretly amazing when I got to play a Sonic game.

The environment was a whole lot different back then. In the 1980s, Nintendo WAS video games, and even though the Master System and the TurboGrafx 16 existed, they weren't looked at as competitors. This whole idea of a console cycle didn't exist either. Some people count up to 2 cycles before the crash, but the kind…

You're obviously from the USA - in the UK it was a very different story.

Well, the Dreamcast had a head start over the PS2 as well, so maybe time isn't the deciding factor, but (Greetings from Captain Obvious) games and services. The 360 wasn't that successful because it had a head start. It was because it had a good online service, games like Gears of War in a time when the PS3 had "no…

SNES had two years worth of technology on it. The Genesis didn't stand a chance once it released.

I'm pretty sure the reasons the Xbox sold so much better went a little further than simply beating the competition to market.

I fought in the 4th System War (arguing with kids at school, and writing in to magazines). I'd say so. In those days there was only one console and it was called "Nintendo". I got a Genesis early on and people would constantly refer to my Genesis as a "Nintendo". Genesis struggled until Sonic, which wasn't that long…

Apart from the technical reasons, there is a marketing reason for the console cycle. You usually don't want to change something that it's still fresh. People were happy with their Nes. And the first Genesis games were pretty bland too.

It wasn't the one year lead that gave MS the advantage last gen; it was the absurd price of the PS3. Nobody wanted to pay $600. Once Sony dropped the price, the sales evened out, and today they're pretty well matched. To be completely precise, the PS3 has sold more consoles to date, but the 360 has sole more games.…

Sega got off to a huge lead on Nintendo with the Genesis (or Mega Drive, if you prefer). It had a big advantage having games that were practially the same as their arcade offerings.

I think that's all it was. Nintendo had the brand recognition back in the 80's, and maybe rescued video games as a medium from the '83 bust.