starseed1981

Not much, it certainly got more attention that the TurboGrafx 16. On a side note, that system was incredibly popular in South American and Europe. In fact, they still make them in Brazil.

shumway

I didn't know about the Sega Master System at all until my dad asked if I wanted one instead of an NES. I told him no way. He also pronounced it seega. Then I finally started seeing advertisements for it when Double Dragon was coming out. Their version was far superior to the drek we received on the NES, but, so what.

Obi-Wanma

I remember seeing ads for the Sega Master System on TV.

shumway

Me too, but the first one I really remember featured Double Dragon.

Jay G.

I had a friend who had a Sega Master System. I felt bad for him.

starseed1981

I was the only one on the block that had the Master System instead of the Nintendo. It actually wasn't bad because all the video stores only rented NES games, so my parents had to buy games all the time. It did, however, suck that I only got to play Alex Kidd In Shinobi World when all the other kids were playing Super Mario 3 .

fumanstan

Born in 1982, I don't remember any commercials for the Sega Master System. I had an NES, and I remember commercials for the TurboGrafx 16 though (for Bonk's Adventure).

Obi-Wanma

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r6x3iNB0ddo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

kgrogers1979

"And coming soon.... MONOPOLY!"



I do remember the Genesis ads "Sega does what Nintendon't!" but I don't remember any Master System ads at all.

I am a huge comic book nerd too, and I remember Atari and Nintendo ads in my comics, but I don't recall any Master System ads in them. Maybe I should dig through some of my longboxes of old comics and see if there were any.

DthRdrX

Having both, and playing a lot of the ports, the SNES usually embarrassed the Genesis in the graphics dept. It was also the follow up to one of the most popular systems of all time so I'm not surprised the SNES won.

When the N64 came out it was fairly tough to get a hold off where I live. People were buying the PS1 instead. It also helped that most PS1 game prices seemed to hover around $45-$50 compared to many SNES game pushing anywhere from $60-$80, at least the ones I liked.

Sega hurt themselves IMO, because people got sick of them releasing one system after another and not having much available to play on them. I mean C'mon!

foxdvd

Jay G.

Using CD-ROMs allowed from higher profit margins on PS1 games and possibly higher production numbers compared to the N64 carts. It allowed Sony to introduce the "Greatest Hits" line of older value titles (I think cartridges typically just stopped production, and then stores dropped the price to clear out poor selling titles).

It also allowed for rampant piracy of PS1 titles, especially compared to the virtual non-existent cartridge counterfeiting. This was possibly bad for the software developers, but it helped the platform's popularity overall.

Sega fractured its own market when it released both the 32X and Saturn, especially in such a short window. That drove their brand down, meaning that more people were interested in the PS2 over the Dreamcast, and Sega didn't have the funds due to the poor selling Saturn to really fight for the Dreamcast.

It seems like some degree of brand loyalty exists for the consoles. The SNES drew from the goodwill of the NES. The N64 did well initially due to the SNES, but the advantages of the PS1 in terms of titiles won out. Then the PS2 capitalized on the goodwill from the PS1. That only goes so far though, and price and availability of compelling titles drives sales more so than just technical superiority.

DthRdrX

1. I'm not sure I would call the Genesis better for Arcade ports. Both Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat looked 100% better on the SNES and they were the most popular arcade games back then.

2. Uncharted 3 looks great but isn't available on the 360. Most games made for both systems tend to look better on the 360. Ps3 has a few standouts though.

Also, I had a 3D0 when they cut the price to $450. IMO it was just too ahead of it's time and doomed to fail. I loved the thing. Price killed it.

DthRdrX

Sure, given that the CD was Sony and Phillips baby. Savings were probably immense.

I really think the N64 also suffered from hardcore gamers moving to something different.

Let's be honest, Nintendo's stance towards not allowing blood/violence in their games irked a lot of people who had purchased the SNES. Sure, Nintendo eventually caved, but it did alter the brand's image a little as the PS1 helped moved games toward more adult oriented storytelling.

Moopher

We ended up with 2 master systems, a couple of NES (one built into a Curtis Mathes TV), and a Turbografx 16x when I was younger... The Master Systems got nearly no play-time though. I remember playing ghostbusters on it...and that's about it. The NES obviously got most of our attention, but I was also hooked on Bonk's Adventure for a good while.

Drexl

It often depended on the type of game. Shmups and beat-em-ups tended to do better on the Genesis because of the faster processor, while (one-on-one) fighting games were generally less demanding and benefited from a higher color palette on the SNES.

DthRdrX

Thats quite possible. Most of the game industry at that point in time was aimed at the fighting game market though. I remember the local arcades keeping pretty much nothing but fighting games all at once.

Jay G.

Do you have any specific comparisons between the two systems, like an arcade port that appeared on both?

Fandango

There was a link to a comparsion of Mortal Kombat earlier in the thread.

Jay G.

I was the one that gave that link.

I was thinking more of a comparison of a shmup or beat-em-up port, since Drexl thinks they were better on the Genesis.

starseed1981

I don't think the Genesis had graphically superior arcade ports, quite the opposite. But its were more popular with consumers. For example, it had the original Mortal Kombat with blood & SF: Championship Edition rather than regular SF. It was also the "sports" system.

And yes, most cross platform games tend to look better on the 360 but that is due to development difficulties with the PS3. Going back to the point of the thread I was just relating that to the fact that the most powerful console of this generation isn't the most popular. Its actually 3rd (in the US anyhow).

Oh man, the 3DO....thats right next to the Dreamcast in the consoles that make me teary eyed from being killed to soon.

Jay G.

I think there's a difference between one port being considered better than the other (such as MK with the blood cheat code on Genesis), and one being more popular.

I can't find numbers for both consoles for MK or MK2, but for MK3, the SNES version sold more units:
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/6357/mortal-kombat-3/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/6358/mortal-kombat-3/

SF2 and SF2:Turbo on SNES handily beat out SF:CE on Genesis in terms of sales:
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/4386/st...world-warrior/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/4388/st...hter-ii-turbo/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/6452/st...mpion-edition/

I think it's important to remember that whatever quality differences there were in graphics and gameplay, most people only had one system, so they were going to buy the port for their system, regardless of whether it was "inferior". That meant that SNES had a leg up, since more people had it.


As for Genesis being considered the "sports" system, was this in terms of the number of titles, the quality of the titles, or the sales numbers for those titles?

Yeah, I think in terms of raw specs, the PS3 is the technically superior platform. However, it's reportedly really, really hard to optimize the usage of the hardware. So console-exclusives may be able to eek out more performance, but cross-platforms titles aren't going to be able to specialize the code as much, making the PS3 versions often inferior.

starseed1981

Theres alot of good points there. Alot. You tend to forget that its wasn't common, at least in my neck of the woods, to have more than one console back in the day.

Sub-Zero

Thanks for all the replies. They were very interesting and informative. One of the things that seemed to be repeated a lot is that often times the most powerful system is also the most complicated system, making it more difficult to get the most out of the more powerful systems.

Anyway, considering that apparently only one time did the most powerful video game console "win" its generation's console war, when the Super Nintendo sold more systems than the Sega Genesis, is there very much incentive for a console maker to really devote a lot of time and money to making the most powerful new system when history suggests that it likely won't have the best selling system in its generation?

I have to think that the reason Nintendo is apparently not interested in making super powerful systems anymore is largely the result of the technically superior Gamecube getting crushed by the less powerful PS2, and before that, the pretty powerful N64 getting crushed by the original PlayStation.

fumanstan

It's weird how it seems like that's changed these days. More people seem to own at least two consoles, although the cheap price of the Wii aided that.