Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sega Genesis

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 29 November 2015 (→Genesis sales revisited). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:05, 29 November 2015 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (→Genesis sales revisited)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sega Genesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Sega Genesis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the article's name. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic.
Featured articleSega Genesis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starSega Genesis is the main article in the Sega Genesis series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Sega video game consoles series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 22, 2008Good article reassessmentNot listed
April 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 11, 2013Good article nomineeListed
December 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
April 14, 2014Featured topic candidatePromoted
May 15, 2015Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
  1. What is the naming history of this article?
    • This article was started on November 30, 2001 under the name "Sega Genesis".
      Originally, the article covered only the North American console using the Genesis name.
      Coverage of the Mega Drive brand was added on February 17, 2002.
    • The article was split in 2003 into two separate articles: "Sega Megadrive" and "Sega Genesis".
      "Sega Megadrive" was created from a redirect, then renamed to "Sega Mega Drive" on August 21, 2004.
    • The two articles were later merged back into one in 2005, under the compound name "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis".
      A set of editors discovered in 2006 that this title did not comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding how titles should be formatted.
      At the time, a consensus decision was reached favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis", largely due to it being the console's name at its initial launch in Japan.
    • The title "Mega Drive" was frequently contested between 2006 and 2011, resulting in numerous debates and discussions. Most of these discussions have resulted in approximately half of the editors favoring some form of "Mega Drive", and the other half favoring some form of "Sega Genesis".
    • In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.
      Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.
      A straw poll was held in which several alternative names were considered. The two most-favored names at this time were "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", with a majority favoring the Genesis title.
      This led to a new proposal to move the article to "Sega Genesis".
    • The article was renamed to "Sega Genesis" after the proposal succeeded , and has remained that way since.
  2. Why is the article's original, non-stub title important?
    Because of the following title policy statement at WP:TITLECHANGES:
    " has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
    That is, when two titles are both well-supported by relevant policies, guidelines and usage, we should favor the original title as a "tie-breaker".
  3. The title was "Mega Drive" for around five years. Doesn't that mean it was stable there?
    Yes and no. The article could be considered "stable", in that its name didn't actually change during that period. But the title was frequently contested, resulting in at least three major discussions and proposals on the matter. Many editors take this as a sign of instability.
    It's important to note that most of these discussions failed to reach a clear consensus either way - while there was no clear consensus to move to "Sega Genesis" or any other title at the time, there was also no clear consensus to remain at "Mega Drive". In fact, opinions were split approximately 50/50 between the two names throughout virtually all of the discussions during this period. By default, no action was taken.
  4. So why change it to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" (the compound name)?
    This name came about as an attempt to compromise with both sides of the ongoing dispute. In particular, the name was intended to give equal weight to both variants of the console, and was proposed in the hopes of drawing the dispute to a close.
    The editors participating in this discussion at the time comprised a relatively small group compared to the scope of previous discussions. Seeing little opposition to the proposal, the group changed the article's name.
  5. So then, why did the title change to "Sega Genesis" and not back to "Mega Drive"?
    As explained above, the discussion to move away from the compound name resulted first in a straw poll to decide on and narrow down the list of alternatives (which at the time showed "Sega Genesis" as the clear favorite), then a formal proposal for that name. "Mega Drive" was considered but ultimately rejected.
  6. So that means "Sega Genesis" is the current consensus, correct?
    That is correct. It stands as the most recent title to have been decided upon via a consensus discussion.
    There was another RM discussion in June 2013, which was closed as no consensus to move.
  7. Is the new title stable?
    Yes. Although the title is occasionally challenged, no serious policy-based arguments for a change that garner significant support have thus far been made.
  8. What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive"? (Note: These reflect the primary arguments made and are not necessarily true or verified.)
    • "Sega Genesis" was the original title of the article (see the timeline above). (WP:TITLECHANGES)
    • "Genesis" was the first name given to the console in English-speaking markets. (Naturalness criterion)
    • "Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets. (WP:COMMONNAME)
    • Of all the consoles sold worldwide, roughly half of them were sold in North America under the Genesis name.
      • It is important to note that no firm sales figures have been established, and that this particular argument is heavily disputed.
    • The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)
    • The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
      • The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
      • U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.
    • While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language.
      • The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America, where the console was marketed with the "Genesis" name. (WP:ENGVAR)
  9. What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis"? (Again, these are editors' arguments and are not necessarily statements of fact.)
    • "Mega Drive" was the title of the console when it was first introduced in Japan.
    • "Mega Drive" is the name of the console in every geographic market except North America. (WP:COMMON)
      • The name "Genesis" was only given to the console in North America, and should be considered an exception.
    • Articles such as "Variations of the Mega Drive" exist that cover a broad range of topics related to the console's identity in regions outside North America.
      • To keep things consistent, those articles would also need to reflect the Sega Genesis name, which would make them inconsistent with their topics.
    • "Sega Genesis" puts undue weight on the North American version of the console. (WP:WEIGHT)
      • Sales figures are or should be irrelevant in discussions on a console's notability. (WP:N)
    • As of 2013, the title "Mega Drive" was used for the longest contiguous period of time (5 years). (Stability argument).
  10. Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article?
    Per Misplaced Pages's various policies, both of these titles are acceptable. The community generally agrees that both names for the console have roughly equal weight and notability for different reasons, but nevertheless the consensus favors "Sega Genesis" as the title for a number of reasons.
    "Sega Genesis" was favored in November 2011, though it was also generally recognized that the title "Mega Drive" would not be wrong.
  11. Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles?
    This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including:
    Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing;
    This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx-16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.)
  12. Why would it be a waste of time to debate this topic again?
    Over the lifespan of this article, there have been at least six major debates over its title. The applicable policies and the availability of reliable sources haven't changed significantly over that time, so many of the debates end up coming down to the same general arguments, usually with no clear movement either direction.
    Per consensus policy, consensus decisions are not generally changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. when the name conflicts with other uses in Misplaced Pages, or when compelling arguments are made that actually result in a new consensus). Past history has shown that discussions on this topic in particular generally result in a stalemate.
    Many editors involved in these discussions, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, agree that the title of the article is not of great importance when compared to, among other things, the accuracy of the information in the article itself.
  13. Isn't this FAQ designed to shut down open discussion and debate on this topic? What if I have something new to say?
    The intent of this FAQ is to explain the history of this article's title, to give context to the surrounding controversy, and to explain (in a nutshell) how the community arrived at various decisions along the way. It is intended to explain what has already been discussed and debated so that future discussions don't have to repeat it unnecessarily.
    Editors who have participated in multiple instances of this debate have seen many of the same arguments brought up each time, usually verbatim from prior instances, and usually with the same results. Most of the WikiProject Video Games community would prefer to avoid seeing history repeat itself again.
    That said, if you do have something truly new to bring to the table, you are welcome to do so. But please cite relevant Misplaced Pages policies and reliable sources and be sure the issue is not already covered in this FAQ.
    In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive.
Notes
  1. While the compound title Hellmann's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not.
  2. P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559:
    • "The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
WikiProject iconVideo games: Sega FA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sega task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24


This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Genesis sales revisited

There is reason to doubt the 40 million estimate for Genesis sales worldwide. Sega has provided an official estimate of 30.75 million (see page 158). It's not clear if this figure refers to the entire lifespan of the system, or merely when it was discontinued in Japan (though the former seems more probable), and the licensed versions manufactured by Samsung, Tec Toy, and Majesco are not included. Nevertheless, 40 million is an improbable and conveniently round number. In addition, while NPD data from the era is often unreliable, considering that this article currently cites NPD data for the notion that the Genesis outsold the SNES in the US, it's worth noting that a 2014 Wedbush report uses NPD figures to reach the opposite conclusion (see the figures on page 36).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I have never been happy with that 40 million figure, which was arrived at here via dodgy math and then made its way to Retro Gamer and Joe Miller's memory via citogenesis (or citomegadrive if you prefer ;), thus allowing it to be cited on the page in time to tidy things up for the FAC. We have sourced estimates of 20 million in North America, 8 million in Europe, and 3.58 million in Japan. That's 31.58. I assume both the NA and Europe estimates were rounded up to the nearest million, so 30.75 makes perfect sense in that context. Since Sega did not sell direct in Brazil, I would assume those figures are not included. Ditto Majesco. Even if we accept the figures for those two sources given here (though I have never been satisfied with that Brazil source), we are way under 40 million.
I think part of the issue is that we always assumed 29 million at the end of 1994 due to the one magazine article and kept adding on to that, which can lead to higher estimates. That 29 million figure, however, makes no sense. Adding up the figures in the magazine for the US, Japan, the U.K., and Germany only gets you to 20.4 million. That's practically nine million short! In contrast the SNES worldwide figure is just a hair over 3 million greater than the tally of the country totals. Where do those other nine million come from? Certainly not the rest of Europe, because other than in the UK, the SNES outperformed the Mega Drive in Europe, so you would see a similar large discrepancy in the Nintendo figures. And it's not Brazil. Even if they are counting Brazil in these tallies, which I doubt since Sega is not selling there direct, we have the Retro Gamer interview with the CEO of Tec Toy in which he states that it was only in 1996 that the company reached 2 million in sales of all Sega consoles combined (that's Master System, Mega Drive, and Saturn). Even if you assume Sega equaled Nintendo's performance in the rest of the world and then treat all those Brazil sales as Mega Drives on top of that (not to mention pretend they were all sold by the end of 1994), you still only get to 25 million. Get really crazy and assume that all 3 million Brazil sales sourced in the article occurred by the end of 1994, and you are still only at 26 million. That 29 million figure in the magazine has to be a mistake. In light of all of this, I would change sales to 30.75 million with a footnote stating this does not include sales in Brazil or by Majesco. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking it over, the source for "according to a 2004 study of NPD sales data, the Sega Genesis was able to maintain its lead over the Super NES in the American 16-bit console market" completely fails to support the claim. The SNES probably did take North America in the end. More importantly, the Sega CD number is also far too high. Famitsu, June 1995, gives an estimate of 2.22 million Sega CD units sold worldwide by March 1995 (lines 5 and 18, with the Japanese installed base at 400,000 versus 380,000 the previous year and the international installed base at 1.82 million versus 1.32 million the previous year), which likely came from Sega itself. This also squares nicely with a January 1994 Beep! article posted on NeoGaf, which appears to have worldwide Sega CD shipments at 2.15 million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, that New York Times article almost certainly rounded the Genesis number upwards, just as it did for the Saturn. Wedbush has US Genesis sales at 18.5 million including Majesco. (This is likely to be an underestimate—shipment data would be more reliable if it existed—but 20 million is very unlikely).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Even better: Here are Famitsu's figures for Genesis (lines 5 and 17), Game Gear (lines 8 and 20), and Sega CD (lines 6 and 18) as of March 1996: Genesis—28.54 million (3.58 million in Japan and 24.96 million elsewhere), Game Gear—10.62 million (1.78 million in Japan and 8.84 million elsewhere), Sega CD—2.24 million (400,000 in Japan and 1.84 million elsewhere). Good to know our Game Gear estimate wasn't wildly exaggerated, but how anyone ever thought Sega CD was 6 million is beyond me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
How does the above fit into Sega's 30.75 million? Well, our sources (including a Sega of America press release for the first figure) claim Sega sold 2 million Genesis units in the US in 1996 and maybe 400,000 in 1997. If we added both of those numbers to Famitsu, we would likely be double-counting many systems, as "Sega farms out Genesis" makes it clear that Sega was no longer manufacturing Genesis in 1997 and many or all of the 400,000 systems sold were likely already in the pipeline and counted in the 1996 figure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Actually, Sega of America claimed to have sold 2 million Genesis units in 1995, and only 1.1 million in 1996, so it's possible those specific SoA press releases accurately reflected sell-through data. This revision makes it even clearer that 30.75 million is the final figure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that Sega of America was only claiming there were 18 million Genesis owners in mid-1997, which is probably almost exactly the final number.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a very good thing we finally have a 1st party worldwide number. Furthermore, I think it's good that the Wedbush source shows how much the 1st party Genesis and Super NES sold head to head. But we still can't leave out the Nomad, Majesco, and Tec Toy from the "units sold" figures. The 2004 NPD source includes the Majesco sales because it still tracks them yearly; throughout 1999. On page 11/12 (4.1 Data) They get their numbers in Table 1 from the NPD. claiming there were 18 million Genesis owners in mid-1997 is a good consistency point, since we still have the source saying 400,000 more were sold that year. So that really hammers home the 18.5 million number in the Wedbush report.--SexyKick 18:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's incredibly dangerous to synthesize sources in the manner you propose, as the history of this article demonstrates. Wedbush is including Majesco in its figures, which might nonetheless be a tad conservative for both the SNES and the Genesis. Double-counting Majesco (with a PR projection of future sales in place of any actual estimate) and adding the fabled 1 million Nomads to the Wedbush number to generate the conclusion that the Genesis actually retained the lead in North America after all is a desperate reach. There is no evidence that the Nomad—a portable version of the Genesis that was sold only in North America and lasted five months before being discontinued—sold 1 million units except the same unreliable GamePro article responsible for such recent hits as the famous 10.6 million Dreamcasts sold myth. Nor is it obviously unarguable that Nomad is even the same product. (I am operating on the assumption that Sega stopped manufacturing Nomad after March 1996, when they decided to focus on the Saturn. The main Sega Nomad article suggests otherwise, but I don't trust it without having seen the source.) The biggest problem with the "estimated 36.25 million" units sold? It's your estimate!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What source says there being 1 million Nomad's out there is fabled? I read a ton of that Wedbush report, and it didn't actually say that Majesco's sales were included. Which page does it say that on?--SexyKick 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't need a source to debunk the Nomad figure. You need much stronger evidence to defend treating it as though it has equal validity with the other stats on the page, especially when we know that that GamePro article is flagrantly unreliable and was just getting its info from Misplaced Pages in the first place. NPD presumably is not discriminating against different models of the Genesis, and another source on NeoGaf who has gone through the NPD archives has confirmed this assumption.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying a guy on a forum did some stuff? You yourself said 1997: "over 18 million in the US". You supplied that source. What happened at the end of 1997? 400,000 more. You supplied that source too. 18.5 million is wedbush's report. The 2004 report goes to 1999. Re: GamePro's Nomad projections; the proper way of doing things isn't by sweeping them under the carpet. Before the primary and secondary sources existed for 40 million, the editors here came to consensus to present the 29 million number - though we knew it was wrong, present the other numbers, because Misplaced Pages reflects sources. Not our own opinions. And WP:CALC is not synthesis (as was well covered in this debate the last time as well). The Nomad article went FA with that source, Gamepro are reliable sources. When you find more accurate numbers like with Cesa, that's a different story. Please use them. But truthfully, the Wiki way is to then say "Blake Snow said 10.6 million, but Cesa says 9.13 million." There aren't any conflicting Nomad numbers; that is why it is your opinion. If we were to follow that though, then we wind up still having to show the 40 million sources, and showing the 30.75 million sources, but honestly I know we all agree that's a detraction from article quality since we actually have the numbers to accurately add these things up with now.--SexyKick 22:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no desire to enter the SYNTH versus CALC part of this debate at the moment, but that GamePro source is an unmitigated disaster of lies and misinformation that is known to have inaccurate 3DO, Dreamcast, Sega CD, and 32x figures at the very least. It should absolutely not be used as a source for anything (and yes, I realize the handheld article is technically a different article from the console piece, but they are a pair written by the same author and published on the same day, so they are one body of work for these purposes). I've said it before and I will say it again, an article that is demonstrably full of errors and poor research is unreliable on its face regardless of whether the larger source is generally accounted as reliable. Indrian (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The way the other articles all seemed to do it, was use the Gamepro article until what they deemed more correct numbers came along. While Lynx supposedly sold 3 million (the article reported 500k), the GameGear was just about on point. What is likely is that Sega made 1 million Nomads in 1995, and sold them until they ran out. You definitely don't see me defending the 10.60 million, but you can see how the research was done to come to its conclusion thanks to Times' wonderful walls of text in the Dreamcast talk pages. (which I read as they went on) If we have a specific bone to pick with the Nomad part of that article, then that is what is relevant in this case.--SexyKick 23:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
"And WP:CALC is not synthesis (as was well covered in this debate the last time)." The lesson of that debate is simple: You were wrong.
I may not have been involved with the article back then, but I am certainly familiar with the history, and well recall the persistent efforts of IPs and certain Sega fanboys to promulgate the insane notion that because sources like the "Segatastic" blog had higher estimates, those higher estimates must automatically be the most comprehensive estimates. In fact, I'm tempted to quote some of those discussions, in particular your own comments pushing for higher totals based on wild synthesis and conjecture, but I won't (for now) because that's in the past, and anyone can look through the archives to judge for themselves the accuracy of my characterization. What is clear, however, is that both 40 million and the now-infamous GamePro article are the product of citogenesis. (By contrast, the 29 million figure was extremely accurate and based on Sega's final tally when they discontinued the system in Japan.) You, SexyKick, are in part responsible for creating 40 million by playing with made-up numbers like "37.3-40.8+ million"; I simply cannot take seriously the pretense that you are acting as an objective, impartial observer. The rest of your post is you playing dumb, and you have no reason to play dumb, unless you are seeking to obfuscate the truth.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
29 million was never accurate. As is proved by the Cesa numbers, and as we also know that the two 3rd parties and Nomad sales are indeed missing from that. You provide these helpful, illuminating sources, which I am thankful for, and instead of playing them to their credit, you open it up to this "WP:Calc is synthesis" nonsense again. To obfuscate the truth, is to simply say 30.75 when we not only know the 3rd party numbers are missing from that, but we have the sources on top of it. To obfuscate the truth is to ignore WP:Undue Weight. You have been throwing out accusations and character attacks since I showed up today, and looking through your history, I am not the only editor you have done that to. It isn't true, and it isn't nice. If anyone is trying to obfuscate the truth, it's the person getting angry and avoiding good faith. 29 million is further from 36.25 than 40. Even 30.75 is further than 40. 40 was too far, it wasn't my number either - those were just the sources we had available to us at the time. These sources help us make it right. I want to present the whole picture - not hide part of it. Saying 30.75 million is the same thing as saying 40 million. It's just in the opposite direction. "if we pretend this data doesn't exist"--SexyKick 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to point out that the interview linked in the topic below this one finally gives what I consider to be a solid source for Sega system sales in Brazil. Through September 2015, TecToy has sold 5 million Master System and 3 million Genesis units. I realize some of our blog sources already had those numbers, but I always questioned the validity of those sources. This time, however, the figures come straight from the chairman of the company. Indrian (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
SexyKick, the following parts of your edit cannot be allowed to stand:
  • The GamePro source is flagrantly unreliable. You have no consensus for continually re-adding it to this page and the Nomad article, as demonstrated by Ryūkotsusei's purging of that source on several articles and Indrian's comment above.
  • The double-counted projections and exceedingly dubious Nomad figure you use to conclude that the Genesis "narrowly" captured the majority of the North American market is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. NPD is not necessarily the last word on this topic, but it's better than the misleading attribution of your personal calculations to the 2004 source.
In addition, if it were remotely accurate, 36.25 million would not be the final figure, as it excludes the units sold by Samsung, which were estimated at 194,000 in early 1994 and are probably not included in Sega's total (Samsung manufactured the hardware itself, unlike Ozisoft). That said, we're never going to get a perfectly exact figure for licensed variants, and shouldn't try.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the lead to say: "Sega sold 30.75 million Genesis units worldwide. In addition, several million licensed third-party variants of the system were sold in various regions, with the bulk of those being sold in Brazil."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This source (from the University of Texas & University of Tokyo) gives detailed annual NPD sales data and market shares for the US during 1994-2001. It shows the Genesis outselling the SNES in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, while the SNES only outsold it in 1997. This contradicts the claims made in this article and by Wedbush about the SNES catching-up with and outselling the Genesis in the US. RetroGameFan (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice that chart until after skimming through the article and declaring it obsolete in light of the recently revealed Wedbush report, and was wondering if I would be forced to address it. Good catch. While the figures are interesting, it's hard to see how they could be true, when our sources tell us that the SNES outsold the Genesis in 1995 (2.7 million to 2.1 million) and 1996 (1.4 million to 1.1 million) as well as in 1997 (due to the Genesis shortage that year) and 1998 (per the NeoGAF chart below)—when Kent recounts that the SNES won "the waning years of the 16-bit generation"—and when it would still take the mythical one million Nomads for the Genesis to surpass the NPD/Wedbush figures for the SNES even if we assumed that all 1.5 million units Majesco projected to sell were sold and that the Wedbush report chose to exclude them. More crucially, the chart's figures for 1995 are fairly questionable, as Sega themselves claimed to have captured 43% of the U.S. hardware market in 1995 versus Nintendo's 42%, including sales of the Genesis, Game Gear, Saturn and Nomad--the latter of which, to beat the SNES, must have been selling like crazy, right? The chart you linked to attributes roughly this entire percentage to the Genesis alone, and then attributes another 5% to the Saturn. If your source is really only quantifying console sales and excluding handhelds, there is not necessarily any contradiction there, as the Game Boy was certainly more important to Nintendo's overall market performance than the Game Gear was to Sega's, but the coincidences in the numbers are worth looking into more closely. Even the fact that the chart identifies the Genesis as a "CD-ROM" system, to me, casts doubt on its credibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Not all sources are going to become obsolete when they conflict with others. We have an WP:Undue weight situation. Two reliable sources say two different things. It is not an easy situation. I have attempted to address it, but we aren't going to wind up using "just the one *insert forum user here* prefers", nor are our personal views of "interesting but I personally don't see..." we have two reports on NPD data. One totals up to Sega's end of 1997 numbers. "Over 18 million" + 1997's 400,000. vs. The Other One that is using arbitrary methods that do not give us direct numbers to compare. In regards to the stuff from last week, per Indrian and Ryu, I can see there is a consensus to not use that gamepro article. The Nomad article needs to be updated with an explanation of this included in the article and sourced to the GamePro archived source though; not simply the removal of it - to both inform clearly and prevent further citomegadrive.--SexyKick 16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Btw I am happy with that dummy edit you just did. I tried to write something myself but the words weren't right, and I couldn't leave it. I do absolutely however, find the continued personal attacks to be very much the opposite of what using Misplaced Pages to be. They are depressing and I find they are making me sad. I saw another editor experience these same emotions when you called them out and wrote a paragraph about how they "couldn't possibly be a serious editor". Please do understand - this is not the way to treat fellow editors. This is not a forum, and this is not a city street playground. You are smart, capable, and have enough clout to be able to resolve conflict without this form of behavior.--SexyKick 16:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible that Wedbush chose to exclude NPD data on the Genesis 3 for whatever reason? Sure, but there are other possible explanations for coincidences in the numbers.
The percentages in the 2004 source are obviously impossible and render the source utterly unreliable on its face, because even in the best-case scenario the Genesis could have only roughly equaled SNES sales in the U.S., yet there would be an enormous gap in favor of the Genesis if it had really outsold the SNES every year except 1997. Still, what could explain the error? The answer lies in a revealing NeoGAF discussion sparked by this very dispute. As it happens, the 2004 Clements and Ohashi source was based on NPD's raw data, subsequently revised (see post #379) because the Genesis/PlayStation figures were too high while the SNES/N64 figures were too low. (That the revised Genesis 3 sales recorded in 1998 and 1999 come to just under one million actually supports Majesco's figure, because most of the numbers seem to be undercounts characteristic of NPD data from the time, which is nevertheless better than nothing when trying to determine the overall trend.) This is a simple case of the more recent report from 2014 reflecting the most up-to-date research available. Unfortunately, SexyKick's unbiased search for the truth has turned the relevant portion of this article into a POV nightmare, with a manufactured controversy designed to render the facts unknowable:
  • "According to a 2004 study of NPD sales data that presents year by year charts through 2001, the Sega Genesis was able to maintain its lead over the Super NES in the American 16-bit console market. The chart in this source does not include any data prior to 1995, differs from several other sources cited above, and does not give provide figures as to the absolute numbers of any console sold. However, according to a 2014 Wedbush Securities report based on NPD sales data, the SNES ultimately outsold the Genesis in the U.S. market. This 2014 report does not present yearly data and it does not state that Majesco's sales of the Genesis 3 are included in its estimations.
The bits in bold are SexyKick's unsourced personal innuendo based on wildly subjective criteria (reliability is contingent on "year by year charts"?). The portion in italics is a dummy edit I added to demonstrate the inappropriateness of SexyKick's heavy-handed approach; he claims to see no issue with it. As for SexyKick's concept of the "combined market" of the U.S., Europe, and Brazil, clearly it is an attempt to conceal that out of all the relevant countries comprising this "combined market" the Genesis won only in Brazil and the U.K.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Your arguments, seem to be all based upon "some guy on a forum said", and that is what original research is. We do not know who won the American market because we have one source saying Sega won, we have another saying "Sega: 18.5 million" not "Genesis: * million". It sounds like your interests are better served posting on forums than working on these articles if you can't understand that Misplaced Pages reports viewpoints; not cherry picks them. By the numbers, we have 20 million vs. 20 million + ? Nomad anyway, I'm sure some forum will speculate and debate. You also do the article quite a bit of annoying harm by reverting every intermittent change on your revert quest.--SexyKick 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That the NPD figures were revised is demonstrated by the Wedbush report. This is not a case where there are reliable sources in disagreement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the wedbush report simply only took from the Sega 1st party sales. There is no other way to explain 18.5 million reported from Sega, and then 18.5 million reported from them. I could try your hardlining and say that makes their claims unreliable - but it doesn't work that way. It's a reliable source presenting a different point of view. Two reliable sources *are* in disagreement. It seems to me one is incomplete, it has tons and tons of text, but says no where that Majesco's Genesis 3 was accounted for in there - and the coincidentally identical numbers back that idea up.--SexyKick 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a horse in this particular fight, but I do want to make a couple of points. First of all, Sexy, you are right that a forum post cannot in and of itself overturn a reliable source. Since there is a contradiction between two reliable sources it might (emphasis on the might) be necessary to present both. However, on the flip side it is original research and POV to cast aspersions on the Wedbush figure by highlighting its lack of yearly sales info (irrelevant to the larger issue) and speculating on the presence (or lack thereof) of Majesco figures.
On the other hand, Times is right, the Wedbush report supports the forum contention that the numbers were later revised. According to the 2004 study, the N64 sold ~17.1 million units. According to Wedbush, the figure was 18 million. Add up the revised figures in the forum post, and you reach 17.99 million. While that includes two more years of data, the sales in those years were only 160,000, not enough to move the 2004 study numbers to the point where you would round up to 18 million. Do the same trick with the PlayStation. The 2004 study says ~28 million PS1 units by 2001. As the console still saw significant sales over the next three years or so, this means it would likely exceed the 30.4 million figure in the Wedbush report by the time it was discontinued. If you add up the forum totals, however, which only show about 26 million by 2001 and then adds four more years of data, you get 30.18 million. As a minuscule number of units were probably sold after 2005 (the last year on the forum), that lines up well with the 30.4 million in the Wedbush report. The logical conclusion is that the numbers were indeed revised at a later date and that the forum numbers are accurate since they line up with the Wedbush report. I still do not suggest citing the forum here (not reliable), but in terms of source critique, this shows the Wedbush report is probably quoting accurate NPD figures, while the 2004 study is (for whatever reason) not. Indrian (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
There's still no reason for him to revert the entire article if he's focusing on a specific paragraph.--SexyKick 07:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but like I said, I don't really want to get involved in the edit war part of this. I'm just pointing out a few facts and figures. Indrian (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
But I don't accept the rest of SexyKick's edit. I will never consider "over 35.25 million" to be a more accurate statistic than 30.75 million, not including several million licensed third-party variants. Before including the "several million" phrase in my compromise edit, by the way, I was going to use "30.75 million...roughly 35 million counting licensed variants" with the latter cited to Retro Gamer, but then I checked the source and realized it didn't quite say that—my wishful thinking colored my memory. How we could bury Sega's number behind this apples-and-oranges synth calc and pronounce ourselves satisfied is beyond me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding worldwide sales, I found this source on the talk page archives here, an interview with Joe Miller, Sega's former Senior Vice President of Product Development, stating the Genesis sold over 40 million worldwide, including all models and third-party sales. RetroGameFan (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I just realized Joe Miller's already been mentioned above. Still, I think it might be worth mentioning in the article. RetroGameFan (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No, this is a classic example of citogenesis; he is just parroting the Misplaced Pages numbers of the time. He was head of R&D so would have no special sales info. We took him out for this very reason. Indrian (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the Mega Drive did indeed outsell the SNES in Europe. In that same NeoGAF thread, someone posted this source, which shows that, by the end of 1994, Western European sales stood at 6.88 million for the Mega Drive and 4.65 million for the SNES. The Mega Drive sold more in Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and "Other W. Europe", while the SNES only sold more in Germany. RetroGameFan (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Technically, those are not sales, but the active install base of each console according to Screen Digest. One can pretty safely assume that the market share proportions are probably about right, but sales of both consoles would be a little higher. Also, since it only goes through 1994, we cannot be sure Sega outsold Nintendo in the end. We have a final Europe estimate of 8 million for Genesis kicking around in the article. I am not sure we have a final SNES estimate. It looks like Nintendo's total European figures increased more than Sega's in 1994, so its possible that Nintendo started outselling Sega in the waning years of the generation in some European markets if that trend continued. Indrian (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't really looked into the European figures very closely, but my guess would be that the final European sales numbers for both the SNES and the Genesis would be roughly in a statistical tie, which is why I accepted Indrian's earlier comment—the larger the gap with which Sega won in the UK, the largest European market, the more likely it is that Nintendo ultimately outsold Sega in some other European countries.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This forum posts contains data that the poster got directly from Nintendo. This shows SNES sales for all of Europe at 8.7 million, which is higher than the Sega estimates. Unfortunately, this does include some data from other areas of the world like Australia as well, but I imagine sales in these regions were negligible. My guess is that Nintendo won the waning years of the generation in most markets (the Screen Digest data indicated Nintendo was starting to outsell Sega even in 1994). Also, I have heard that tracking data prior to 1994 is often less reliable, so its possible the Nintendo and Sega numbers are misstated to a degree in the Screen Digest report. Regardless, I think its safe to say that Nintendo probably ended up on top on the whole, but not by a large margin, and certainly not in the United Kingdom. We cannot be 100% sure based on these figures, however, since some sales from outside Europe are mixed in. Indrian (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding up the highest install base for each Euro country in that Screen Digest source gives us 1994 Euro totals of 7.27 million for the SMD and 4.65 million for the SNES. Also, SMD outsold the SNES in 1994, with SMD selling 1.54 million in Western Euro that year, compared to SNES selling 1.06 million in 1994. In addition, SNES had a drop from its 1993 sales (1.56 million), whereas MD was consistent with its 1993 sales (1.55 million). RetroGameFan (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Those other regions include Europe, Oceania, and mainland Asia. The SNES was a big deal in mainland Asia, so that would account for a big chunk of those 8.7 million sales. The only sales data we have for Europe specifically is Screen Digest, up until 1994. For 1995 onwards, total Euro/Asia/Oceania sales from April 1995 to 2001 add up to 2.26 million. Even if we assume it was all for Europe alone, and added them to the Screen Digest number, the final number would be 6.91 million for Europe. It's very unlikely the SNES caught up with the SMD in Europe. RetroGameFan (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Consoles in mainland East Asia were almost entirely unauthorized clones rather than actual Nintendo manufactured hardware. I would have to go digging for more numbers, but my guess is Screen Digest under reported SNES penetration prior to 1994, a period when estimates across all regions are known to be far less accurate generally due to more primitive tracking. For a different perspective, according to one of the first posts in the NeoGaf thread, Beep! claimed Mega Drive sales in Europe of 3.30 million by March 1993 (end of Sega's fiscal year), while Screen Digest claims that the MD install base was already 3.580 million at the end of 1992. I still believe that Nintendo most likely outsold Sega in most of continental Western Europe, though I am certainly not advocating any article changes with the current level of sourcing. Indrian (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
RetroGameFan, if there's anything this discussion should have taught us, it's that arbitrarily combining numbers from different sources is usually a recipe for disaster. If Nintendo's data suggests Screen Digest overstated the Genesis install base and understated the SNES install base for the end of 1994, combining the flawed Screen Digest numbers with Nintendo's post-April 1995 data on the theory that the latter includes a huge number of SNES consoles sold in mainland Asia and that the supposedly comparable flaws of each source will cancel one another out is unlikely to generate a reliable conclusion. In addition, I would like to emphasize that the official Nintendo figures are inherently more reliable than the vague reference to 8 million potential Saturn owners in CVG (unless they somehow got that number from Sega, in which case Ozisoft would also be included).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I am not necessarily declaring the Screen Digest figures invalid at this point; just noting that pre-1994 tracking data -- whether from the NPD or Famitsu or what have you -- is generally considered flawed, which is part of the reason it's hard to find that info on the web. I'm therefore not ready to consider Screen Digest as gospel without more corroboration. That said, it is considered a reliable source, so I am not advocating its removal either absent more definitive proof that the numbers are off. It's still a little circumstantial at this point. Hopefully more will turn up one way or the other. Indrian (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Screen Digest is a reliable research firm source, arguably the Euro equivalent to the NPD at the time. Their SNES sales don't contradict Nintendo's numbers, since Screen Digest's data is for sales in Europe, while Nintendo's data is for shipments (not sales) across Europe, Oceania and continental Asia all combined. As for the SMD, Screen Digest's data is lower than Beep and Famitsu. Beep's 3.3 million number is for that fiscal year alone (April 92 to March 93), not lifetime SMD EU sales, which they put at 5.1 million by March 93 (and forecasted 8.6 million for March 94). Famitsu reported SMD EU sales at 5.4 million by March 93 and 7.25 million by March 94, which they put ahead of combined SNES sales for Europe, Oceania and continental Asia (3.46 million by March 93, and 5.85 million by March 94). Almost all sources point to the SMD beating the SNES in Europe (except for Germany). RetroGameFan (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, regarding the Europe debate, the former president of Sega of Europe claims that Sega was the leader everywhere but Germany: http://www.sega-16.com/2008/09/interview-nick-alexander/
A few things. I am sure Sega led in all those markets in the early years. I am not so sure they were ahead at the end of the console cycle. As I said above, Screen Digest is a reliable source, but ALL the reliable tracking sources had issues in the early 1990s because they tracked less of the market and had to rely more on estimate formulas. This is why the NPD appears to have restated many of its early figures at a later date. I am sure Screen Digest did the best it could at the time, but there is a good chance they were off to some degree. Also, install base =/= sales, so even if their figures are reasonably accurate, they are not measuring the same thing. As for Nick Alexander, he left Sega in 1994, so he would not know the final figures. You are correct that I misread Beep, my apologies. You, however, are misreading the Nintendo figures. Legitimate, authorized consoles did not sell in mainland Asia in the 1990s, it was a clone and pirate market. Nintendo would have sold hardly any inventory there. Australia was a small market to, so would not have siphoned off many sales. 7.5 to 8 million of that 8.7 million was probably Europe, and they almost certainly won in more than one market to get to a figure so close to Sega since Sega took the largest prize, the UK. Also, Famitsu indicates that in the 1995-96 Fiscal year, Nintendo took just over a million lead over Sega in international markets. Its a shame that they did not breakout US, Europe, etc. from that figure, but since the companies were running neck and neck in the US at that time (according to the yearly NPD figures at NeoGaf, Nintendo sold just over 800,000 more systems than Sega in those years combined, but much of that was in 1996 which is barely represented in Famitsu , plus they were still making up an early deficit in the market) and Sega was crushing Nintendo in the UK at that time, Nintendo must have been leading in more than just Germany to obtain such a margin internationally (and no, a smaller market like Australia, where I am unsure who was leading, would not be able to create such a wide gulf all by itself). I think Sega did have as much as a two million lead in Europe in the early days (Famitsu and Screen Digest appear to largely agree on that despite the figures themselves being different), but Nintendo ultimately caught up, and in some cases sailed past. Again, it's all still circumstantial, but the known unreliability of early 1990s tracking combined with the final Nintendo figure in territories other than North America and Japan, and a lack of any yearly figures for either company past 1994 still leaves me suspicious. Once again, however, I am not advocating a change based on the current evidence, just more research. Indrian (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
RetroGameFan, shipment data would be more reliable than tracking data, rather than the reverse as you seem to imply.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Tec Toy

This article suggests that Tec Toy still sells Mega Drive. They discontinued it to focus on the Master System a few years back.

Source: this interview http://www.sega-16.com/2015/11/interview-stefano-arnhold-tectoy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.68.56 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That is a shame. I had always thought that since they were still selling this handheld version of the Mega Drive that they hadn't decided to discontinue it. What should we do with the main article in light of this news? Do we say that they discontinued the Mega Drive but continue to sell a handheld version of it with built in games only?--SexyKick 15:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Tec Toy Mega Drive?

I find it odd that Teec Toy isn't even mentioned in the "third-party models" section, despite being the most successful third-party manufacturer. Can we add in a sentence or two and a picture to the gallery? Thanks. Phediuk (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking to expand Game Library section

I was wondering if you guys would be interesting in the Game Library section. Here's my brainstorm of it so far:

Paragraph 1: Early titles were arcade ports (Altered Beast/Golden Axe/Super Hang-On) and mascot titles (Castle of Illusion/Moonwalker/Quackshot). These games did well but enough to help Sega compete in NA.

Paragraph 2: Kalinske joins and wants a new mascot and more western development. Sonic replaced Alex Kidd. Sega Technical Institute was created, and they worked with Blue Skies and Apossola for Western-esque software.

Paragraph 3: Japanese 3rd party support was poor. Square and Enix skipped the system, and despite Sega having their own RPGs (Phantasy Star/Shining Force), Genesis couldnt compete marketshare-wise in Japan. Capcom initially didn't put SF2 on the system, but eventually got a port. Western support was strong, including EA Sports and Virgin Games. Mortal Kombat 1 was multiplat, but the Genesis version could allow you to bypass the censorship and according to creator Ed Boon played closer to the arcade version than the SNES version (I have a source for this).

What are your guys thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.68.56 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I had most of this in the article a few years back, along with a section on European advertising as they had this awesome Peter Wingfield campaign that lead into this awesome Cyber Razor Cut promo. However mostly all of it was removed during the FAC process as superfluous. Many of the sources are probably still out there though.--SexyKick 16:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. To be fair, a lot of what is mentioned is said in the page, just spread around.
Categories: