Talk:Sega Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Sega Genesis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Sega 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 Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sega task force.
 

The Radicca/ATGames Versions[edit]

The section on the firecore is wrong. Too much for me to fix. The Firecore is not an emulator perse but rather a SOC. The dates of ATGames distribution is also wrong (They were licensed in 2005) but didn't partner for worldwide distro out of China until 2008. The details on all this are here: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/126333-new-at-games-genesismegadrive/page-2

Below is the pertinent part:

- January 4, 2005: AtGames obtains an exclusive OEM license from Sega for their old platforms' software library.

- March 2005: AtGames sublicenses some Sega titles to Jakks Pacific (almost undoubtedly for plug-n-play purposes). Recall that Digital Eclipse converted a few EA Sports Genesis titles to the Sunplus SPG110 for Jakks Pacific. I don't know precisely when that was done (though Jakks' EA license acquisition itself was announced in July 2004), but a January 2005 Amazon.com user review proves it was released earlier than this action. As the conversion was primarily done via an automated, custom tool (created by noted Atari 8-bit programmer John Harris), further Genesis projects likely could have been done with minimal resource investment. The Genesis library was thus probably that much more attractive to Jakks--or, well, maybe Jakks would have just used AtGames' Titan hardware, but I think it would not have been to their satisfaction.

- March 2005: AtGames sends a letter to Radica, challenging their exclusive plug-n-play Sega license. Radica meets with Sega and threatens them with legal action if Sega allows AtGames' Jakks agreement to proceed. Sega decides to side with Radica.

- April 2005: AtGames commences arbitration against Sega, scheduled to begin in November 2005.

- June 13, 2005: AtGames launches a civil suit against Radica in California Superior Court, "alleging intentional interference with contract and unfair competition."

- July 12, 2005: Radica files to get the action moved to federal court, based on a legal convention about foreign arbitral awards.

- October 7, 2005: US District Court grants AtGames' motion to remand back to state court, based on the fact that no arbitration agreement exists between Radica and AtGames.

That's all I have, unfortunately. Nothing about what actually happened during the AtGames-Sega arbitration. What the Sega-16.com forum user asserts is that the settlement resulted in a sharing agreement between Radica and AtGames, including Radica's Genesis hardware forming a new base on which AtGames built their subsequent Genesis products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C054:55B0:443B:763D:2BF6:784C (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't use forums as sources. But besides that, I'm not sure I follow your opening comment. I don't see anything in the article that says Firecore is emulation. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sega Genesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

European launch[edit]

The European launch paragraph in the "Launch" section needs to be rewritten with newer sources. Through verification, a lot in that section isn't mentioned in this source from IGN. I decided to list the following I pointed out:

  • "The European version was released on November 30, 1990." The European release date given in the article is 30 November 1990, both in the infobox and the "Launch" section. That date isn't cited in the article at all, and the IGN source never mentioned it. One English-language source I found is the September 1990 issue of Computer & Video Games, which says September on it (not sure if this is the European date, as that date applied to the UK).
  • "Building on the success of the Master System, the Mega Drive became the most popular console in Europe." IGN doesn't mention that the Mega Drive was the most popular in Europe. There might be sources for this one.
  • "Since the Mega Drive was two years old at the time of its release in the region, more games were available at launch compared to the launches in other regions. Ports of arcade titles like Altered Beast, Golden Axe and Ghouls 'n Ghosts, available in stores at launch, provided a strong image of the console's power to deliver an arcade-like experience." Again, IGN doesn't mention any of this. The CVG reference I found might help, as it mentioned that the Mega Drive has 22 games at launch. Space Harrier II, Super Thunder Blade, Ghouls 'n' Ghosts and The Revenge of Shinobi are mentioned in the CVG source. So was Altered Beast, which was a pack-in game at launch. I'm not sure about the "arcade-like experience" part, IGN never said this either.

It would be helpful if anyone can find other sources on the European launch or has any thoughts on this. – Hounder4 02:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The October 1990 issue of ACE also mentioned the release date of September 1990 with 20 games. – Hounder4 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Edge from February 1994 says it was September 1990, Which ties in with Sega Power saying it was at the Computer Entertainment Show in Earls Court, which ties into the show being held from the 13-16 of September that year. - X201 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
More weight for the ECES from C+VG - X201 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd go ahead and change it then. Three sources vs none, this really shouldn't even be up for debate anymore. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was debating it. I'm surprised the change has not been made already. Indrian (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I've done those changes today. – Hounder4 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Redacted content that does not meet FA criteria"?[edit]

I'm curious about this too. What's going on in this edit? Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, for starters most of it is original research. The statement that Sega ported a lot of arcade games early on is entirely unsourced. Castle of Illusion is singled out because of a tweet by Sega marketing director Al Nilsen and is therefore original research based on a primary source. The next sentence singling out several more games is sourced to a Gamasutra article that actually has nothing at all to say on the topic, and the material relating to Alex Kidd as a Sega mascot is completely erroneous and based on long-standing myth that has been debunked through greater access to Japanese sources. It was completely appropriate to remove all of that from an FA. Indrian (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's fine, I wasn't necessarily defending the content, just felt that edit summary didn't do the change justice. (It felt like the equivalent of when people's entire AFD rationale is "Delete - not notable." - not necessarily wrong, but not particularly articulate either.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries. I agree that the original summary was a little unhelpful. I had to dig through the deleted content to discover the issues I highlighted. Indrian (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks for explaining that, Indrian. If anyone would like to partially restore this content with better sources, or otherwise expand the "Game library" section, that would be fine; however, the reality is that this flawed material has not been fixed during the nearly two years since it was added in January 2016. While it might seem unfair to good-faith contributors, FAs are supposed to be barred in practice from new editing unless it meets Wikipedia's very high WP:FA standards.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Are they? FA standards raise over time, but the quality of older FAs can remain the same or even drop. Not that this changes anything here, but FA status should be a reward for being a well-written article, not the end goal which we lock away once it becomes one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I slightly overstated things above: All I mean is that edits to FAs should be, and usually are in practice, held to a higher standard than (say) edits to stubs. That's quite distinct from arguing that FAs don't need to be maintained or updated to reflect new scholarship. This principle holds especially true if an editor seeks to change or remove long-standing text that is presumed to have consensus by virtue of surviving an FAC, but also applies to wholly new additions. Even if it were not enshrined in policy, this tendency to scrutinize FAs is really just what one would expect from common sense alone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)