Talk:Sega Genesis

Blast Processing

I've been interested in the term "Blast Processing", in terms of what it meant and how it was used during Sega's campaign against Nintendo. I vividly remember when it was first used in ads and commercials for Sonic 2, and even then I knew it was basically a crackpot term (at one point I heard someone in the industry refer to it as the "biggest industry joke in years"). But it's been difficult to find much public discussion or material about it specifically - it seems that most sites just consider it a footnote in the overall console war.

I've been seeing more discussion about it surfacing in the last year or so, and Issue 61 of Retro Gamer Magazine has a detailed statement about it from an interview with the guy responsible for marketing the Sega CD in the USA. He said that he felt he should take "some responsibility" for the Blast Processing term, since it arose from an in-house discussion on a hardware trick that was being exploited in Sonic 2 and some other games at the time. I have a copy of the issue at home and will grab the relevant excerpt tonight or tomorrow.

The term "Blast Processing" really did become sort of an industry joke, regarded as a "cheap shot" on Sega's part by many in the industry, and I remember it playing a significant role in the boost in the Genesis's popularity at the time, as well as its rapid downfall when the SNES proved to be the superior console. (Basically, the term itself came back to bite Sega.) I'm surprised at how little publicity remains about it today, tho.

Does anyone else have information on this that would be relevant to the article and/or an article about Sega itself or general console history? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the full excerpt from the Retro Gamer article. "Retroinspection: Mega-CD", Retro Gamer Issue 61, Page 84, interview with Scot Bayless.

“ Take the infamous 'Blast Processing' boast, for example. "Sadly I have to take responsibility for that ghastly phrase," admits Bayless with a grimace. "One of our programmers called Marty Franz discovered that you could do this nifty trick by hooking the scan line interrupt and firing off a Direct Memory Access at just the right time. The result was that you could effectively jam data onto the graphics chip while the scan line was being drawn - which meant you could drive the Digital-to-Analogue Converters with 8 bits per pixel. Assuming you could get the timing just right, you could effectively draw 256 colour static images. There were all kinds of subtleties to the timing and the trick didn't work reliably on all iterations of the hardware, but you could do it and it was cool as heck. So during the run-up to the Western launch of Mega-CD the PR guys interviewed me about what made the platform interesting from a technical perspective and somewhere in there I mentioned the fact that you could just 'blast data into the DACs'. They loved the word 'blast' and the next thing I knew 'Blast Processing' was born." ”

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical discussion

I reverted an edit that explained the term "Blast Processing" in terms of the system's CPU speed (being twice as fast as that of the SNES). While the tech specs do say that, the marketing term actually didn't have anything to do just with the CPU speed, but with the entire system's hardware. While it wasn't explained to the public in so many words, both the 1UP and Retro Gamer sources state that it was in reference to hardware tricks that the Genesis could perform and the SNES couldn't (and the excerpt above explains it in detail). That trick would be possible even if the CPU speed were the same in both systems and all other things being equal. So it's an oversimplification of the issue to state that the term referred solely to the processor speed of the machine. Feel free to discuss. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

16/32-bit

In an effort to avoid another revert war over this issue, here's a discussion on how to classify the Mega Drive in terms of what bit level it is (16- or 32-bit, or some hybrid, like 16/32-bit).

The Mega Drive is based on a Motorola 68000 CPU, which has a few 32-bit functions while sitting on a 16-bit bus. However, the system itself is strictly 16-bit - its memory bus and all of the functions that it actually uses in the CPU are 16-bit, and none of the 32-bit hardware in the processor was ever utilized. Also, the system was strongly marketed as 16-bit, and while I know that's not a strict measure of how a system should be represented, it lends credence to the technical implications I'm stating here. Therefore, to call it a 16/32-bit system based on the latent capabilities of the CPU is misleading to the majority of readers, who are probably not aware of the CPU's architecture or the exact implementation used.

Also, if the 32-bit statement comes from the fact that a 32-bit accessory (the Sega 32X) was made for it, this would also be misleading, as the attachment doesn't cause a 16-bit system to become 32-bit. Instead, it "hybridizes" the system by adding a separate processor and data bus.

Finally, I am not aware of any controversy or dispute in any reliable sources as to whether the Mega Drive is a "true" 16-bit system, unlike some other systems that have claimed to have a particular architecture but could be proven not to be. The two examples I'm thinking of are the Atari Jaguar and the Intellivision (the former was marketed as 64-bit, but there is a fair amount of discussion about whether that's a true claim, and the latter is technically 16-bit but was never marketed as such, and its graphic capabilities are far more primitive). So, I think the proper designation for this system is "16-bit". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression the "16-/32-bit" referred to the CPU, not the system as a whole. In that respect the CPU is no different from the budget 386SX CPU which is a 32 bit CPU sitting on a 16-bit external bus. If I had an old 386SX IBM PC you would not call it "16 bit". You would call it "32 bit" because that's the kind of arithmetic-logic the central processor performs. The fact the bus is "narrow" doesn't change the fact that it's still 32-bit CPU. Same reasoning applies to the 68000. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But the difference, as is actually stated in the article ON that processor, is that the 68000 CPU is not, in fact, a true 32-bit processor. "For instance, the CPU registers are 32 bits wide, though few self-contained structures in the processor itself operate on 32 bits at a time." The 386SX was a "discount CPU" with reduced functionality, yes, but it is still from a 32-bit line and is structured quite differently from the 68000.

Additionally, the designation of the console is based on the overall architecture of the system. The data bus and graphics subsystems are all 16-bit, and as I mentioned earlier, while the CPU is capable of some 32-bit work, it was never actually utilized in that way in the console (unlike in many of the computers that also used it). So the technical capabilities of the CPU take a back seat in this case to the more limited capabilities of its supporting hardware. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"the 68000 CPU is not, in fact, a true 32-bit processor" - It runs all 32-bit software whether that software was written for a 68040, 68020, or 68000. The article states that too. "the designation of the console is based on the overall architecture of the system" By that statement, the Nintendo 64 is not 64 bits, so I believe your reasoning is flawed. The bitness is based upon the CPU since it is the thing that executes the program. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My main point of reasoning is that it doesn't matter what the CPU is capable of doing. If the CPU only ever executes 16-bit instructions even though it CAN execute 32-bit instructions, it's still a 16-bit system. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, my argument here also has corroboration in modern technology. Current-generation AMD and Intel CPUs are capable of running both 32-bit and 64-bit code in hardware, and thus when referred to in terms of the hardware only, they're properly called 64-bit systems. But when you put a 32-bit OS on the machine, it is not possible at that point to run 64-bit code on the processor, and the system as a whole (including both hardware and software) is referred to as 32-bit. The working definition of the system depends on both hardware capabilities and method of use, and can change as the individual pieces change. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, as Thumperward points out below, this discussion is straying a bit outside of what reliable sources give us, and that's where the vast majority of information on WP should come from. All the reliable sources we have right now about the Mega Drive/Genesis refer to it as a 16-bit system, even when they acknowledge that it has a CPU capable of executing 32-bit code. If you can find a reliable source that differs here and states that it's actually a hybrid or 32-bit system, I'd be interested in seeing it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but the flaw in that logic is a 68000 can not run 16-bit software. If the attempt was made, it would crash very quickly. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the very first time I've ever seen anyone make that statement, and it seems to directly contradict the article on the 68000. Can you point me to a reliable source that actually states this? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The [68000] article does not say what you claim it says. I suggest you re-read it. As for my claim, the 68000 was the first in a line of 32-bit CPUs - it never needed to run anything but 32 bit code, because it did not need to be backwards compatible with any previous unit. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article states that it was forward compatible with all future 32-bit processors in the same line. It's capable of executing 32-bit code. But this does not mean it could only execute 32-bit code, and this passage from the article would seem to suggest that it had a 16-bit instruction set: "With only 56 instructions the minimal instruction size was huge for its day at 16 bits. Furthermore, many instructions and addressing modes added extra words on the back for addresses, more address-mode bits, etc."

Once again, I challenge you to cite a reliable source that refutes what's in the 68000 article, and more importantly, states that the Mega Drive/Genesis should be properly referred to as a 32-bit console. So far, I've seen nothing except unsourced conjecture about technical details of the CPU itself. (To be fair, I don't have a source to point you to about the CPU running 16-bit code in the Mega Drive, but I do remember my father complaining about the limited instruction set when he was developing games for the Sega-CD.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to argue here. Nobody has ever referred to the Mega Drive as a "16/32-bit system", so we won't. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are cases in which a marketing definition (in this case, "16-bit") may differ from the technically correct definition for a system. Again, I point to the Jaguar, where there is genuine debate over whether calling it "64-bit" is actually correct or not. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In cases where there is genuine debate in reliable sources, yes (I note that the PC Engine was always one of these). In cases like this, where regardless of the hybrid nature of the 68000 no RS has ever referred to the Mega Drive as a hybrid system, no. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I'm just pointing out that I think it's a legitimate topic to discuss here. I'm very leery of people saying "end of discussion" like that. I'm not saying we should debate about it ad nauseum, but I believe Theaveng has some legitimate points to make, and that I have decent arguments against them. That's how the consensus process works. I referred to your point in the thread above, though - it's a good point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out talk:Amiga and its archives, where I've previously argued this exact point regarding contemporary coverage of the Amiga, which nobody in the 90s ever referred to as anything except 16-bit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well..... having *lived* in that era, people did refer to the Macintoshes, the Atari STs, and the Amigas as both 16 and 32 bit units. In fact that's where the title for ST comes from: "Sixteen-Thirtytwo". To say people circa 1985 were not aware of this 16-bit databus/32-bit CPU is to distort reality. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm asking for more comments on this topic in WT:VG. I see three possible (and legitimate) definitions for a console's "bitness", so I want to make sure I understand what the consensus is on this before I argue further. The ones I see are (1) CPU capabilities alone (Theaveng's position), (2) Overall architecture of the hardware (memory bus, coprocessors, etc. - my position), and (3) Marketing and strictly what the sources say (Thumperward's position). I think all three arguments have merit, but I suspect that in terms of policies, Thumperward's position is the strongest. I hope that getting further comment from the project will help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I'm a long-time 680x0 programmer (for the past 20 years or so!), hopefully I can clarify the situation here. The 68000 is just like your 80386SX; from a programmer's perspective, it's a 32-bit system. All the instructions can specify what size of data they'd like to operate on; 8, 16 or 32 bits. All the registers are 32 bits wide from the start. By comparison, the 80286, released 3 years after the 68000, only has 16 bits wide registers, which had to be complemented with new registers in the 80386 to widen them to 32 bits. 80386 programmers needed to use new instruction modes to do 32 bit computation that simply didn't exist in the 80286. 680x0 programmers had 32 bit computation throughout the entire processor line. This is referred to as the word size.

All 680x0 code is 32 bit code; 32 bit addressing, 32 bit data. For example, the instruction move.l d0,(a1) copies the full 32 bits of register d0 into the 32 bit memory address referenced by register a1.

But, as you know, the 68000's data bus is only 16 bits wide, and its address bus is only 24 bits wide. This is the real thing that matters in a system. On a 68000, my example instruction would need two 16 bit writes to memory, while the same instruction would only need one 32 bit write on a 68020. Hence that's why we call a 68000 a "16/32 bit" system.

While the Megadrive does contain this 32-bit-inside/16-bit-outside 68000, all the other chips in the box have 16 bit or just 8 bit registers, so there's no big incentive to write code that pushes 32 bit numbers about all the time, when you could push 16 bit numbers about and be twice as fast. The Amiga and Atari were much the same; their support chips all had 16 bit registers, if you wrote a 32 bit value, you were actually writing two values to two different registers! Along with the marketing and the big "16 BIT" lettering embossed on the front of the machine, this is why the Megadrive is just "16 bit" while the 68000 inside it is "16/32 bit". Kyz (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the insight. So, based on that, it would be accurate to say that the processor in the Mega Drive is either 32-bit or "16/32-bit", but that the system as a whole (the subject of the article) is "16-bit". The issue above was that the system was being notated as "16/32", which a number of us felt was incorrect given the available info. What's your take on that? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it was 32-bit or not, 32-bit instructions are never really that useful and is mostly just marketing hype from Motorola to hide the 68000's weaknesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.42.188 (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sales number is wrong

Look at the source for the NA numbers, it says: "Total North American sales in its lifetime: 14 million. Total world sales: 29 million." 1989 year. Then look at 1999 two pages further: "Unit sales of video game systems in North America to date: Sega Master System 1.5 million, Sega Genesis 19 million, Saturn 1 million, [378.59]". That totally contradicts the 14 million NA sales number that appears alongside the Worldwide 29 million sales. At least the worldwide sales number should be removed from here, as it can't be seen as reliable anymore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.80.50 (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears the number is under flak, and with sources. http://segatastic.blogspot.com/2009/12/mega-drive-sales-figures-update.html Funny part is, all of them except for Japan's, Other, and Europes sales numbers are from Wikipedia. There's also some light shedding revenue data, sourced from a book.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just translated the entire Brazilian article that wikipedia has sourced the 2 million number from, and it says that the Genesis has sold over 35 Million world wide. I looked around the net, and have found many older, unupdated sites claim 35 million. In fact, the blog link posted above indicates 35 million, if you don't count Nomad and Majesco sales. (38.02 Million - 3 million - 1 Million = 35.02 Million) I think we've come full circle here.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I went ahead and restated the worldwide sales figures to be between 29 and 35 million in the article lead, with a {{fact}} tag. Might need to revisit the wording on that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So do Majesco's Genesis sales, and Nomad Genesis sales not count towards the total number? Because that's where the 38.02 Million number came from. It's known that Majesco took over the Genesis in NA post 1997, and all the revenue and sales numbers went to them, and not Sega.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the numbers as you see fit, so long as you can cite the sources that back them up. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do a little more digging first.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've done all the digging I can with the resources available to me, I've done my best to cross reference sources as well. I'm going to update the numbers soon.--PimpUigi 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated the sales numbers. I wasn't sure if I should cite this http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Pricey/SEGAtastic/mdsales.png, or the press releases (as a non clickable reference) and I wasn't sure if I could include the Revenue data sourced from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/11Videogames.pdf in a new section of the article or the console wars article or not. I also updated the main Mega Drive picture to be the original Japanese Mega Drive.--PimpUigi 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you really count in the Nomad as Genesis sales? They're two different products. I've never seen anyone count the Turbo Express and Turbo Grafx 16 together for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.58.89 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nomad is nothing more than a portable Genesis. It can be hooked up to a TV via composite/RF cables, even has stereo sound and a second controller port. Did the Turbo Express have that? And of course, Game Gear is a more powerful system than the Master System, so it shouldn't be counted as the same as SMS.--108.2.8.193 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is the "Sega Genesis Nomad" on the Nomad box that I have right here. It's also listed on the variations of the Sega Mega Drive article, so IMHO it should be counted. However, in the same respect you're right. So it should just be noted in a content note.--70.110.152.115 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was already noted in a content note...--70.110.152.115 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume we'll be including Gencore, Firecore, Genmobile, and Retrogen sales as well if their numbers are released, as all four are officially licensed variations of the Mega Drive.--70.110.152.115 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

-All wikipedia pages for Sega consoles seem to be biased. They feature sales that are higher than the actual figures. First with the SS, someone cited a random source by a book that opposed all the claims (that exist throughout the internet and in video game magazines & reports) that the console had sold 9 million and just added a random 17 million figure. Afterwards, you guys suddenly put a random 39 million figure which totally disagrees with what is mentioned in the rest of the web. Not that I really care about what wikipedia says, because it is known for being taken over by fans or people that present their own, biased opinions, but what is going on with the Sega pages is a total disgrace imo. I think that a sensible wikipedia editor should either report this page or just put the sales figure back to 29 million so that it agrees with what 100% of the reports claim in the internet and in magazines. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.204.78 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I find it highly dubious that after all these years, some Sega Fan Site (ahem...this fact alone should get the bells ringing) now suddenly claims to know better figures when 29 million has been pretty much a consensus throughout the 2000s and late 90s.

The site blankly states: "There has been further research..." yet they don't provide any kind of source at all. Well, they do mention Sega & Nintendo, but how come I've never seen this information anywhere else. I can't believe how butthurt Sega fanboys still are: Nintendo pwned you, get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.22.204 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What? all the numbers are sourced in depth now, whereas before one random number proliferated across the internet was being used, which didn't have any kind of sales breakdown by region, or proper sourcing at all. The 29 million figure never tallied with sales evidence, and the source being used actually contradicted itself, whilst the new figures can be backed up with evidence from the actual time, The North American sales figures are actually now cited from The New York Times. Also, on the note of this sudden change being "dubious" you have to realise that getting sales figures for Sega consoles is extremely difficult as Sega themselves never actually released official figures, the new figures were reached because someone took the time to tirelessly search and translate figures from each country separately and add them together. On the other side though, I do agree with the talk on Master System sales, after seeing that this page had been updated I started looking into Master System sales and found that 13 million is probably too much, and that 9-10 million is probably closer to the actual sales figures of the Master System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.205.157 (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree about the Sega Saturn's 17 million number being dubious, that's why the 9 million number is shown. I don't know a thing about Sega Master System. However, I for one feel that people who don't know how to even indent their comments on a talk page, much less sign them, have absolutely no idea what's what. The 39.70 million number makes sense to me, especially since it's sourced in depth, and is generally accepted by most people. The 29 million number was quoted alongside a 14 million in NA number, 14 million was what the sales were at the end of 1994, in the US alone. This has been published. I even have the magazine scan of the 14 million number, and it says "1994" right next to it, and has an American flag. The New York Times' 20 million is from a reliable source (it's a newspaper) dated 1997, and the Majesco made Genesis 3 was discontinued in 1999...that's five years, the evidence is there. Also, many online sources (including a wikipedia sourced article) claim 35 million world wide, a number than makes perfect sense if you don't factor in the 3rd parties TecToy+Majesco, and the portable Sega Nomad. Please do not disrupt talk pages with insults against editors, and Wikipedia in general.--108.2.190.127 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the SMS's sales info. It wasn't even cited. Looking into the history, I went to the website that originally hosted the 13.4 million number, to find they had changed it 6 million. Personally I do not find the site to be reliable, but I don't have time to track down sales information like some people. If anyone feels like disputing cited information, site your sources, and make sure they haven't been debunked in this case.--108.2.190.127 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Still, all sources claim that the console is at 29 million. In other words, only wikipedia has "39,70 million" because of a New York Times Article? What is that all about. The 29 million figure is being supported by everyone and you put ONE source that claims otherwise, stating that it claims the truth. Wikipedia must reflect what is the general consensus and not what "one article claims". Anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.118.112 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No they do not all claim 29 million and never have, if you go back further in time you get sources claiming different figures ranging from 29 million to 31 million to 33.7 million (excluding variations).

The original sales number on Wikipedia was actually 35 million (excluding variations) it was changed on December 1st 2006 to 29 million, citing a source which contradicted itself, it said on the opening page "Total North American sales in its lifetime: 14 million" and two pages later "Unit sales of video game systems in North America to date: Genesis 19 million". This source does not seem particularly reliable to me and in itself seems to be the basis for the 29 million figure.

The New York Times is a more reliable source than the one which was being used, the new 39.7 is more precise as it's built from figures taken from each market separately, and this number also tallies much better with actual financial reports.

I feel like the bigger issue we should be discussing is whether or not Variations such as the Nomad should be included in the overall sales, or mentioned separately in the article. Jesus.arnold (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the foreign wiki's have now adopted the 39.70 million number as well. Looking at their history, they all had 35 million, not 29 million. Only the US wiki, and the RU wiki had 29 million. Both based off of the contradicting source. Also, here's the 1994 magazine scan.--108.2.2.183 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 1: Sales numbers are probably still wrong

There needs to be more reliable sources here. I kept the 35.70 estimate for now, but those marked with "unreliable source?" needs to have their reliability verified or be replaced. For the second content note, please add more figures there from reliable publications or post them here and I'll add them to note two. « ₣M₣ » 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This makes the 29 million number intensely outdated. Notice where it says 1994, the US 14 million number, and the 29 million number as well. I also noticed you incorrectly marked the Portuguese article as unreliable, this is just wrong. Wikipedia has sourced to that article for years. Obviously none of the 1994 numbers should be replacing a more current number.--108.2.8.193 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What magazine is this random scan from? When was this issue published? There are essentials that must be answered to at least identify the source. Also, English-language sources are preferred and I'm indifferent to the Portuguese article since it probably cannot be replaced. « ₣M₣ » 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, English sources are preferred, but when you can't find one, you have to make due. We all know that. Some of us have been editing this article for years. 35 million is what used to be used as the number, until Islandnet put out the 29 million number, along with the 14 million number. This is what has caused this whole thing to happen. Now that we find evidence to the contrary, from 1994 no less, only those who don't have a neutral point of view are going to struggle with this. That's why no one challenged the 39.70 million number for over a month. Super NES is still the prevalent console, we have facts, and we have sources for sales numbers, sources that line up with sourced financial data (data that belongs nowhere in the article, and I'm sure you'd complain about that as well.) I wish I knew what magazine the scan was out of, but I wasn't the one who posted it.--108.2.8.193 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm struggling then, using mainstream news publications with their editorial oversight and all, how dare I cite Arstechnica, or IGN, or GamePro, or Wired magazine's numbers to help provide another estimate. A 1998 St. Petersburg Times article said "The 16-bit SNES, released in 1991, has sold millions of units worldwide, 30- million between it and the Sega Genesis." Apparently, none of this really matters if you have your own blog. By the way, "failed verification"[1] means exactly what it says in the article, "Some based off of a very outdated magazine source" is "not in [the] given citation". It doesn't matter what anybody discovers on their own, even if it is true, if they cannot verify it (ex: does this list its sources?) with reliable sources it should not be on Wikipedia. In other words, editors should start-off with this data (it actually provide sources), probably check it if possible, then build from it (Zeebo's vice president of business development and licensing said the Genesis still sells in Brazil). Since apparently Sega does what Nintendon't by not giving us readily available sales information, so I'm not going through this mess anymore and opted-out by notifying this article's principle contributors (Red Phoenix and X201) instead. Cheers, « ₣M₣ » 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic in saying a source is "outdated" in respects to sales, clearly the more recent the source and the further it is from the actual time the more likely it is to be coloured by years of supposition, misinformation, exageration and hearsay. Also, a extremely high percentage of websites from recent years are likely to have actually taken their sales number from Wikipedia in the first place. Whereas the figures found in magazines contemporary to the time are often taken from press statements and interviews with Sega employees themselves (and are pretty much the only available information straight from Sega).

You talk about finding more sources to back up the 39.7 million estimate, when the original 29 million not only had no reliable sources until after in appeared on Wikipedia, but is contradictory to most available information from the time.

Also I'd just like to say that I'm glad someone is taking the counter-argument as personally more than anything I'm interested in the truth and oversights are less likely if both sides of the argument are properly represented. Jesus.arnold (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added in the 30.75 million source. I must say that I'm terribly disappointed with the way the new information is being handled by you Falcon. We've edited Smash Bros. articles together in the past. I've never ever seen you over in the Sega side of things though. Conflict of interest?--SexyKick 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for notifying me, FullMetal Falcon. So, you guys had to see fit to wake me from my inactive slumber, huh? All right, I haven't been here in a while myself, but I'll do my best to help out since I'm here anyway. Okay, let me start by saying that if a source is more reliable, regardless of the language it is in, it is the source that should be used. I've used articles in other languages myself when it's appropriate, and though English is far more preferred when you have two options of the same reliability, reliability and verifiability are more important than what language the article is in. Data and facts are data and facts regardless of what language they are in, provided you have someone who can read them and interpret them so you can use them in an English article without incorrectly citing a fact.

Now, that being said, I do vaguely remember this problem back when we (X201, I, and whoever else was editing at the same time) were trying to make this article a GA, although I don't recall finding reliable sources for both points. To address this fully, though, I feel that I need to address some more points you all have made, okay? First, FullMetal Falcon mentioned that the Genesis still sells in Brazil. As far as I know, that is still true, in which case the sales figures might be chronically updating, and a more recent article might be more reliable. But at the same time, whatever you can find that is the most reliable and verifiable source should be what you use.

Given this, I'm not here much, so if you guys would be willing to do me the favor of posting links to your sources either here or on my talk page or something so I can take a look at them and give you guys an honest opinion, I'd be more than glad to take the time to do so. Let me know what's up and I'll be glad to help out. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

On one side we have a blog that "sources" its numbers to a fansite, something that may be another blog, a New York Times article that may already include the Genesis 3 sales but is being assumed not to, and a reliable site about a handheld that is compatible with the Genesis (but isn't a Genesis); a scan of an unidentified magazine that is claimed without evidence to prove everyone else's numbers are out of date; and a screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet that claims to take numbers from other sources. On the other side we have Wired, IGN, GamePro, and so on. 173.6.148.35 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

something is a news article, and it's not a blog. New York Times article dated before, or just at the beginning of the Genesis 3's market entry. The Nomad is a Genesis. On the box it says "Sega Genesis Nomad" (noted in the Sega Nomad article) and it is simply a handheld Genesis. It has stereo sound, you can hook it up to a TV, it has a second controller port, and a power port. How is it not a Genesis? There are no system enhancements, and not all Genesis' were able to connect to the Sega CD...and you can even have an extremely unstable 32X running on it. GameGear has enhanced graphical capabilities over the Master System, and I don't think Turbo Express could connect to a TV, or had a second controller port, but I didn't have that system, so I could be wrong.--SexyKick 02:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, after reading what you guys have posted, here's what I can tell. Apologies if I"m a little rusty, but like I said, I haven't been here on Wikipedia in a while. The first link SexyKick posted, I wouldn't call that a news article. Its use of the first person makes it an opinion article at best. It's what we'd call an "editorial" on a site that I wouldn't say counts as a verifiable, reliable source. Being reliable means more than just stating a point of fact (or fiction) in a place not everyone can write. Now, as for what the IP posted, that first site obviously is a blog, and one that appears to contain original research at that, which does not count for anything on Wikipedia. The New York Times site is heavily, heavily outdated, but I would say it is reliable because it's very unlikely that such a large news source like the Times doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and such. As for the scan, so much of that one is going to depend on finding where it came from. If you can find the magazine, and its issue number and such and it turns out to be a major informative magazine, then you could cite that magazine. But as it is right now, as a simple image it's not a reliable source. Neither is the Excel spreadsheet, for that matter. On the subject of the Nomad, okay, I can recall trying to merge that article over some time ago and getting it reverted on my face. It basically is a Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, yes. So, let me just propose something absolutely crazy, and say this: see if what numbers you can find mention the Nomad or not. If it doesn't (and specifically doesn't), add the Nomad's numbers as a separate statement. If you can't tell, do some more digging. Hopefully that helps; I've done a lot of work with sources before, including on this article way back when, so hopefully I still remember what qualifies and what doesn't. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said the NYT was unreliable, I just questioned the assumption behind its use. Wikipedia says the Genesis 3 was released in 1997 and the article is dated 1998. And isn't it original research to use it that way anyway? Do you have a comment on the fansite link, Red Phoenix? 173.6.148.35 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Majesco sold Genesis 2's as well. The NYT article is dated 3-98, and the Genesis 3 either launched in early 98 or right before Christmas in 97. It was discontinued in late 1999, do you think they sold even half a million Genesis 3's by March 1998??? It seems like we just don't know how many Mega Drives were sold. We probably shouldn't even have a number at this point, and just a paragraph citing the controversy.--SexyKick 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unreliable, but considering the Genesis was still selling at the time (as you mentioned, Majesco's Genesis 3), not to mention the fact it only cites North American numbers, there really isn't too much you can do with it. There's nothing you can do with the fansite, because there's nothing to prove reliability with it. No numbers sources or anything like that. But a couple of the things you guys have just said do worry me -- "citing the controversy" may be original research in this case unless this "controversy" is more than an internet fad and has reliable sources talking about it. Otherwise, there is no controversy, just missing numbers. Worse yet, what if those numbers we have maybe just match one model of the system? I think it's safe to say 20 million Genesis units were sold in North America, and we do have a reliable source for that. As for the rest of the world, though, a lot more digging needs to be done. Sales figures need to be found. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The three sites mentioned IGN, Gamepro, and Wired could well have taken their figure from Wikipedia and the unreliable source, none of them actually mention where they got their information from. There's no breakdown by region, The figure is in opposition to revenue data , and is literally the lowest estimate for sales figures found on the internet. From the proliferation of the 29 million number from 2007 onwards personally I would also say that it is possible that it was Wikipedia which made the 29 million figure the status quo.

On the other side you admittedly don't have as much as I would've liked either, a New York Times article, a spreadsheet which does however clearly list all of its sources (one of which being Sega Japan) a magazine scan, the Brazillian website the german website and a whole bunch of lessor sources not really worth bringing up.

Seeing as so many different total sales figures are out there for the Mega Drive, I think the main priority is to find more evidence about the "Sega of Japan Press Release Early 97" mentioned in the Excel spreadsheet, as if found this is clearly the most reliable source out there, and the 31.3 Million worldwide figure (excluding Tec Toy and Majesco) can have the 2 million Tectoy and 2 million Majesco sources added to it to give a figure of 35.3 Million —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus.arnold (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then we can list the NYT source, TecToy, and Majesco separately, and the Nomad numbers separately as well (so no original research is done) and that way people can piece together a complete story (38.70 million.)--SexyKick 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, might as well address these... First off, it's doubtful that IGN, Gamepro, or Wired took their figures from Wikipedia. These three sites (or at least IGN, to my memory) have all been evaluated and deemed reliable sources. We get a lot of our info from them, not the other way around. I would cite IGN personally myself, but here's my personal opinion of the numbers: I think the 29 million is probably the number not including the Genesis 3 or any of the variations not sold by Sega. Basically, it's just the straight-up Mega Drive/Genesis as sold by Sega, and what makes the numbers confusing is how many variations of the console there were. Now, of course this is all speculation and uncited opinion, so that can't be said, but that may be a reason for this. I think SexyKick has the right idea: piece together what you can with the sources we have. I would personally throw IGN in there as well, but that's just me, as IGN is almost always considered reliable. If there's any questions about IGN, Wired, or GamePro, you guys should take that to WikiProject Video Games and see what they say, because they're really the experts on those sites and their reliability and verifiability related to Wikipedia. Jesus.arnold, I don't trust the magazine scan, sorry, but if anyone finds the magazine itself I'd be more inclined to say it could be used. And that spreadsheet, well, same reason. Find me the original data that was compiled for it and I'll believe it. Personally, I'm not one for numbers myself or preferring one set over another as a "fanboy", but I would just rather see the most reliable sources used for the numbers that can be found, and the most reliable sources used all across the article. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 07:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say doubtful, more like extremely likely, you do not get one uniform number for sales figures unless there's an official statement, which we know in the case of the Mega Drive there isn't. If the three websites used their own sources there would be at least a small disparity in the numbers, some would say 29.1 million, some would say 28.9 Million, the fact that they all state exactly the same number, and none of them are precise (not even to within 100,000) says to me that they all come from the same source.

Whilst not citeable material I think the spreadsheet is probably true, mainly because two of its sources, the "Man!ac" and "Times" numbers have both been proven to be accurate from other sources (the "Maniac" refered to in the spreadsheet is the magazine scan we have, the Times number is backed up by the official website's article)

Man!ac Magazine is the longest running German video game magazine

Lastly, take a look at the Islandnet source list for its 29 million figure, some of the sources are so old (Game Over by David Sheff published in 1993 Microprocessor Report May 1995) that if anything they back up the higher sales figure. Jesus.arnold (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we might be able to post the reliable sources. Like, list 29 million (note that it is grouped with the 14 million US, and note that it doesn't include the following...) then list the 20 million US, the 2 million Majesco, 2 million TecToy, and 1 million Nomad seperately, and do some smart writing to say they're seperate from the 29 million.--130.76.96.17 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 2: Continuing to figure this out

If you can find the magazine itself, Jesus.arnold, and can get a full citation of the issue and the page the scan is from, then let's use it. As for the spreadsheet, you'll need to cite the numbers themselves from the original sources. The spreadsheet's not going to be good enough on its own.

So, it seems like the core of the issue here is that we've got sources that contradict each other, and the question that comes in is which is more reliable. The Mega Drive might be the hardest console to do this with since there were so many variations that scramble all of the numbers and make so many variations of the numbers themselves and how we interpret them. Like the IP above just said, there's a 14 million US number, but the Times article showed a 20 million US number. That's six million in itself alone. On the subject of IGN, GameSpy is an IGN-affiliated site, so it would make sense there would be no disparity in that case. That doesn't mean, though, that they use Wikipedia as a source. In fact, as I've said, IGN is deemed a reliable source per the Video Games WikiProject. We might have to mention the disparity in the numbers in the article, though, in the article if we can show sources for both, as long as we avoid the word "controversy". Sound fair, guys? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds much more fair to me. The Brazilian article is the only one that mentions the TecToy sales data, and I think it's reliable for that myself. Other articles still mention Majesco's sales.--SexyKick 03:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the hope of giving more real information to the discussion (since I was bored anyway), I did a bit of googling for relevant sources. I found:

• Wired says 29 million.[2]
• IGN says 29 million.[3]
• GamePro says 29 million.[4]
• Game Tunnel says 30.75 million.[5]
• CNET News says "almost 30 million".[6]
• Ars Technica says "30 million units worldwide in its various forms".[7]
• VGChartz (yes, not considered reliable here, but some people like it anyway) says 30.75 million in one article[8] and gives yearly figures totaling 30.9 million in another.[9] In the later, note the possibility of cumulative round-off error.
• Sega-16.com (reliable? I don't know) says "almost 30 million".[10]
• Retro Gamer says "30-35 million".[11]

I couldn't find anything in Google that looked reliable at first glance for 33.7 million or 35 million. It would be nice if anyone knew where the "Sega of Japan Press Release Early 97" in the spreadsheet screenshot mentioned above might have been published; the current Sega and Sega-Sammy websites don't seem to have press releases going back that far, and I didn't manage to find anything in the Wayback archives of Sega's websites from around that time. Hope that helps. Anomie⚔ 22:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sega Mouse / Mega Mouse

"The Sega Mouse and Sega Mega Mouse were also released for the Mega Drive,[62] the latter being available in North America while the other served the Japanese and European markets"

This sounds the wrong way around to me, as the word "mega" wasn't used for other hardware in the US but was in Japan and Europe. Can anyone confirm? Miremare 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the mouse name was in the US, but I agree that it would seem inconsistent for "Mega Mouse" to be released as such in the US market, considering nothing else in the Genesis line was named "Mega-" anything. In any event, the above sentence is very poorly worded, regardless of any factual inaccuracies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This [12]seems to suggest that it was called the Mega Mouse in North America - X201 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, what X201 said. I brought this section over a while ago when I merged the Mouse/Mega Mouse article over from its own separate article that really didn't deserve one. I did think it was odd myself, but as far as I know that is the case. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Revival contents

Should the Revival section not contain information about the four new licensed Genesis consoles? Firecore+RetroGen & GenCore+GenMobile??

And what of this thing? http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/31177/new-sega-console-hitting-summer --108.2.2.183 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Variations should probably be cleaned up...

Variations has information that is also in the Revival section. Should we clean that up, and move any extra info into the Revival section?--SexyKick 04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of Discontinuation

Could someone check Stephen Kent's sources? There is reason to believe that the date of discontinuation is wrong.

At the moment I think we have to assume that Kent (or Kent's readers) confused 1995 as the year when Saturn was released in the US and as the year that Sega of Japan released their last Mega Drive game in Japan with the year that "Sega" (which one?) discontinued hardware/software? for the European or American markets.

• 1. via Sega-Saturn.com's News Room: December 27, 1996: SEGA SLASHES ANNUAL PROFIT FORCAST: "Now that we know our sales in the Christmas shopping season, we will wipe out worldwide inventories of 16-bit machine-related products, worth about $60.8 million," - from an official Sega press release
• 2. http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/21/1876835/GameGenieFix.jpg - Notice how it says "(c) 1998". That means that Sega produced the hardware until 1998 at least.
• 3. Sega of America would go on to publish several games for the Genesis. Among them Virtua Fighter 2, a game produced by Sega of Japan in 1996.

It would be nice if anyone could quote the part in Kent's book that is used to justify the 1995 date. DCEvoCE (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We all know that the Mega Drive was discontinued in 1995, this doesn't mean support was discontinued at that time (regarding the image) and it doesn't mean all inventory had been sold, and it also has nothing to do if games were still produced. You're confused on what the discontinuation date is, I'm sorry you don't understand despite people trying to tell you otherwise.--SexyKick 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"We all know that Mega Drive was discontinued in 1995" - what kind of evidence is that ? DCEvoCE (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is Kent's book, which is the only verifiable piece of evidence in this "argument," and the only one that mentions discontinuation. You refuse to listen to anyone who has tried to help you understand. Community understanding is also evidence, and the overwhelming community understanding is 1995 is the discontinuation date.--SexyKick 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the cited pages in Kent. Page 508:

By the end of 1995, Sega of America found itself juggling seven separate and incompatible game platforms [....] Sega Enterprises CEO Hayao Nakayama made the logical choice to concentrate on Saturn. [....] What made sense in Japan, however, was about to become a disastrous move in the United States. [....]

Tom knew that the 16-bit business was going to be there. Paul Rioux knew it, and so did Shenobu Toyoda; but Japan refused to believe. They were convinced, and they would not listen to Tom [Kalinske]. [....] They would listen to no one and they absolutely bullied the U.S. into launching the [Saturn] system. It very much compromised their ability to keep the 16-bit business. —Michael Latham

And page 531:

Concentrating on Saturn proved to be a tactical mistake that cost Sega millions, if not billions, of dollars at the end of 1995. [....] With only a few hundred thousand people owning Saturn, the market for Saturn software was tiny compared to the Super NES and Genesis markets. Nintendo concentrated on its 16-bit sales that Christmas and had the most lucrative holiday season of any game manufacturer. Cash-starved Sega did not have the inventory or the new games to capitalize on Genesis.

And pages 534–535:

By the spring of 1996, the industry was rife with rumors that Tom Kalinske was leaving Sega. [....] He didn't seem as ready to fight Japan on decisions he knew were incorrect [....]

It wasn't the failure of Saturn that made him lose interest; it was the inability to do something about it. He was not allowed to do anything. The U.S. side was basically no longer in control. —Michael Latham

On July 15, Sega announced that Kalinske had tendered his resignation.

Hope that helps. As a compromise, perhaps state that Genesis was discontinued in 1995 with the remaining inventory disposed of in March 1997 at the end of Sega's 1996/97 financial year? Anomie⚔ 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome as always, Anomie. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's fortunate I had time to make it to the library to pull those quotes, and that I had this page watchlisted to notice. Anomie⚔ 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your work! but there's nothing that hints on the discontinuation of the Genesis, but the launch of Saturn. Like I wrote earlier: "I think we have to assume that Kent (or Kent's readers) confused 1995 as the year when Saturn was released in the US [...] with the year that "Sega" (which one?) discontinued hardware/software? for the European or American markets." DCEvoCE (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've kept 1995 but linked it to Japan as the last game by Sega of Japan was released in late December 1995 (Pengo) - see http://sega.jp/archive/segahard/md/soft.html DCEvoCE (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you still don't understand. : ( Discontinuation has nothing to do with games released. Licensed games for the Mega Drive have come out well since the year 2000. 3rd party consoles (Genesis 3 & Majesco made Genesis 2's) extended support (to honor all warranties) and games being released have absolutely nothing to do with discontinuation. Please open your heart and understand. The Genesis, Mega Drive, etc. was completely discontinued in 1995. They stopped making new consoles to ship to stores. That's what discontinuation is. Excess inventory, non shipped inventory, and surplus stock at Toys R Us does not count as evidence that the Mega Drive had not been discontinued. It's discontinuation was announced and clear at the time.--SexyKick 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So, GameCube was discontinued in 2003 then? Seriously, what you are saying is not correct: The Genesis 3 was introduced in 1998 in North America, and you can see a photo of the motherboard with its production date here: http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9163 Direct link to the photo, as shown in my initial statement: http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/21/1876835/GameGenieFix.jpg - This unit is produced in 1998 by Sega (as can be seen by the "(c) 1998 Sega" copyright notice) but distributed by a third party. Plus you still have not provided ANY source for your 1995 claim at all. DCEvoCE (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

DCE...Majesco needing to make Genesis 2's (and eventually 3's) to sell in America is further proof of the discontinuation of the system. While we settle the matter here, please leave the original part of the article that you wish to change, intact. GameCube production was only put on hold while they waited to sell through inventory. There was a new model post 2003 that didn't have component video support. Plus, we know the GameCube was discontinued in 2007. If we wanted to count 3rd party system sales, the Genesis was never discontinued, since there are four licensed Genesis consoles on the market today.--SexyKick 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference Replacement Needed

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Christoph Bolitz. "Sega Mega Drive information". www.skillreactor.org. Retrieved 2008-04-01.[dead link]

That's the reference for Source 21, notice something wrong here? The link's dead now and the article uses it 16 times. All of those references have to be replaced with reliable sources somehow. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's archived. Yet, you can't link directly to the Mega Drive article.--SexyKick 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that does make me think, though. If memory serves me right, that's a sourced report. Maybe we could go through the sources listed on the page, start picking out those with reliability, and use them directly (as well as for other points as well if necessary. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)