Obviously, they're still around and do good sales but it doesn't feel like their systems have been really culturally relevant or massive since the N64. The Wii for a while was cool but it seemed like a novelty product and I don't know many people who owned one. The Switch has a fanbase but it seems like the PS4 and XboxOne are way more important in pop culture nowadays. I feel like Nintendo, while it will always remain a fixture of pop culture because they literally saved the game industry and reinvented console gaming, has been in a decline for a while now, at least socially. Even back during the N64 era, it seemed like 7 out of 10 kids I knew had a PS1, 2 out of that 10 had an N64 and 1 out of that had a Sega Saturn or Dreamcast.

Idk about culturally but the Nintendo Switch is doing well and you see ads and commercials on TV and online, Nintendo isn't a big phenomenon anymore as it was back in the 80s and it wasn't the king of video games as it was back in the 80s also.

Not really, no. Nintendo isn't looked at seriously like it was. Its the console for casuals now. That's what its looked at as.


Idk about culturally but the Nintendo Switch is doing well and you see ads and commercials on TV and online, Nintendo isn't a big phenomenon anymore as it was back in the 80s and it wasn't the king of video games as it was back in the 80s also.

Nintendo was phenomenon up until like, 2008.

Not really, no. Nintendo isn't looked at seriously like it was. Its the console for casuals now. That's what its looked at as.

Nintendo was phenomenon up until like, 2008.

When i mean phenomenon i mean big, Nintendo wasn't like that in the 2000s, even though Nintendo was still popular and well known, it wasn't in the media all the time like it was back then..

When i mean phenomenon i mean big, Nintendo wasn't like that in the 2000s, even Nintendo was still popular and well known, it wasn't in the media all the time like it was back then..


I know what you meant. Nintendo just still felt significant up until the late 2000s.

I know what you meant. Nintendo just still felt significant up until the late 2000s.

I guess you could say that, because of Wii and how it looked revolutionary.

Not really.

Nintendo is the black sheep of the video game industry now. It has been that way since 2001/2002.

Not really, no. Nintendo isn't looked at seriously like it was. Its the console for casuals now. That's what its looked at as.

Nintendo was phenomenon up until like, 2008.


I've been thinking about this "casual gamer" thing for a while now. It seems to be a common complaint that gaming is targeting "casual gamers", but it's gotten me thinking, haven't they always done that? I mean, if you go back to the NES era and even the SNES era, one could argue that they were targeting so-called "casuals" back then as well. I'd imagine back then, there were less people who adopted the whole "gamer" label in general, and thus, gaming companies like Nintendo and Sega were aiming for mass appeal with their games (ie., Mario, Zelda, Sonic, etc.). Same thing with Sony as they entered gaming in the late 90s. Keep in mind, back then (from my understanding) gaming was seen more as a recreational thing, something to do at the end of the day to unwind. It wasn't something that people took as seriously as they have in recent years. Plenty of people played video games but I'm sure not many people would have adopted the "gamer" label.

Of course as we enter the 21st century and gaming gets more serious/more involved, you see more and more people identifying as "gamers". Admittedly, having grown up in the 2000s, I considered myself a gamer for a while. As I've grown up, and have had adopted other priorities and interests/hobbies outside of gaming, I have found that I don't really consider myself a gamer (be it casual or core) at all anymore. I like playing video games, but it's more for recreation, something I do for fun. It's not something I get super passionate about, nor do I consider myself apart of the subculture. Anyway, I'm probably rambling at this point, but my main point is that gaming companies have always aimed to reach a wider audience. It's just that back then, most people were playing video games for the fun of it, not to be apart of the "gamer" subculture.

Now, it's possible that I misunderstood the definition of a "casual" and "hardcore" gamer. I'm just going by my interpretation of what a "casual" is. If I am totally off-base please let me know. Keep in mind, I'm coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't really considered himself a "gamer" for a few years now.

To answer 90's Guy's question, it's hard to say. The Nintendo Switch seems to be doing very well, but who knows? It may be just a fluke, considering the previous few Nintendo consoles weren't so successful. It's possible that the Nintendo Switch is more the exception rather than the rule. But hey, the mere fact that it was successful proves that anything's possible.

I would put the Switch above Xbox One in terms of relevancy. The PS4 is above both though.

To answer 90's Guy's question, it's hard to say. The Nintendo Switch seems to be doing very well, but who knows? It may be just a fluke, considering the previous few Nintendo consoles weren't so successful. It's possible that the Nintendo Switch is more the exception rather than the rule. But hey, the mere fact that it was successful proves that anything's possible.

True, but i doubt that with the release of Ultimate in December.

I've been thinking about this "casual gamer" thing for a while now. It seems to be a common complaint that gaming is targeting "casual gamers", but it's gotten me thinking, haven't they always done that? I mean, if you go back to the NES era and even the SNES era, one could argue that they were targeting so-called "casuals" back then as well. I'd imagine back then, there were less people who adopted the whole "gamer" label in general, and thus, gaming companies like Nintendo and Sega were aiming for mass appeal with their games (ie., Mario, Zelda, Sonic, etc.). Same thing with Sony as they entered gaming in the late 90s. Keep in mind, back then (from my understanding) gaming was seen more as a recreational thing, something to do at the end of the day to unwind. It wasn't something that people took as seriously as they have in recent years. Plenty of people played video games but I'm sure not many people would have adopted the "gamer" label.

Of course as we enter the 21st century and gaming gets more serious/more involved, you see more and more people identifying as "gamers". Admittedly, having grown up in the 2000s, I considered myself a gamer for a while. As I've grown up, and have had adopted other priorities and interests/hobbies outside of gaming, I have found that I don't really consider myself a gamer (be it casual or core) at all anymore. I like playing video games, but it's more for recreation, something I do for fun. It's not something I get super passionate about, nor do I consider myself apart of the subculture. Anyway, I'm probably rambling at this point, but my main point is that gaming companies have always aimed to reach a wider audience. It's just that back then, most people were playing video games for the fun of it, not to be apart of the "gamer" subculture.

Now, it's possible that I misunderstood the definition of a "casual" and "hardcore" gamer. I'm just going by my interpretation of what a "casual" is. If I am totally off-base please let me know. Keep in mind, I'm coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't really considered himself a "gamer" for a few years now.


Nah. Games back then were Building audiences. Nintendo peaked and fallen from what made them special. The PS4 and Xbox doesn't feel casual. Nintendo, now does because of the "kid friendly" aspect they adapted to. Maybe you can say it was tolerated when Nintendo peaked, then they lost themselves in it.

Since the Wii U era, they've pretty much only been known as the handheld makers.

I think they were more important during The 1980's, I don't think they're that important now.

It may be just a fluke, considering the previous few Nintendo consoles weren't so successful.
By "the previous few" do you mean just the Wii U? Because the DS and the Wii both outsold everything Nintendo has ever done.

If anything the Wii U was a fluke flop made possible by a chain of bad decisions. I don't think we should put them just because of that in an unfavorable light. They definitely can be the biggest thing on earth if they were willing to.

By "the previous few" do you mean just the Wii U? Because the DS and the Wii both outsold everything Nintendo has ever done.

If anything the Wii U was a fluke flop made possible by a chain of bad decisions. I don't think we should put them just because of that in an unfavorable light. They definitely can be the biggest thing on earth if they were willing to.


Don't forget the 3DS, which was also a juggernaut and made a lot of money.

Despite people's reluctance to say so due to them being their childhood consoles, I would throw the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube into the flop category. The Switch has already caught up to the Gamecube in total sales after just a year on the shelves, it is only a matter of time before it surpasses the N64.

Don't forget the 3DS, which was also a juggernaut and made a lot of money.

Despite people's reluctance to say so due to them being their childhood consoles, I would throw the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube into the flop category. The Switch has already caught up to the Gamecube in total sales after just a year on the shelves, it is only a matter of time before it surpasses the N64.
I agree, especially with the statement that people in this thread are definitely very biased. Saying the N64 was culturally more impactful than the Wii is 100% wrong to me. "People playing tennis with a Wii mote in their living room" is such an iconic image on its own I've seen featured in plenty of series and movies and I'm sure is very familiar to a lot of people regardless of video game knowledge, while I can't really think anything for the N64 that really left its mark on pop culture.

Both the NES and the SNES are a very iconic slices of retro gaming, but the best legacy I can think for the N64 is "that Playstation competitor with cartridges".

No, not anymore. These days, it's PlayStation or Xbox.


the best legacy I can think for the N64 is "that Playstation competitor with cartridges."
What? ???

There are genuinely some milestones attributed to the N64. First, it was the first console to come with four controller ports as well as a controller with an analog stick available from the start. That's two things the PS1 and Saturn didn't have at launch. Second, it introduced one of the biggest franchises in Nintendo history which were Super Smash. Third, it was compatible with the GBC, a feature that even the PS1 didn't have. Fourth, it made FPS games popular on home systems thanks to Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark. If that's not a legacy of the N64, then I don't know what else to tell you.

No, not anymore. These days, it's PlayStation or Xbox.
What? ???

There are genuinely some milestones attributed to the N64. First, it was the first console to come with four controller ports as well as a controller with an analog stick available from the start. That's two things the PS1 and Saturn didn't have at launch. Second, it introduced one of the biggest franchises in Nintendo history which were Super Smash. Third, it was compatible with the GBC, a feature that even the PS1 didn't have. Fourth, it made FPS games popular on home systems thanks to Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark. If that's not a legacy of the N64, then I don't know what else to tell you.


You can't forget Super Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time.  3D Mario and Zelda have been trying to live up to that standard for the 20+ years since the N64.

You can't forget Super Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time.  3D Mario and Zelda have been trying to live up to that standard for the 20+ years since the N64.
You know, I was going to add that, but since both games were transformative, they need their paragraphs of how they changed the N64. Two sentences regarding Super Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time isn't enough.

You can't forget Super Mario 64 and Zelda: Ocarina of Time.  3D Mario and Zelda have been trying to live up to that standard for the 20+ years since the N64.


While they don't surpass them in how revolutionary they are, the Mario Galaxy series, Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild have almost as much if not more critical acclaim.

I think Nintendo had one of the worst periods of its history between 2010-2015, but it has became more relevant since the Switch came out in 2016. Although Nintendo has lost in the powerful console war, now they’re into innovative consoles and casual, indie games

I would say that Nintendo did better in this period than the Wii U period.

Do you think Nintendo did better during The 80's, 90's or The 2000's?

Do you think Nintendo did better during The 80's, 90's or The 2000's?
Sales-wise, definitely the 2000s ;)

3 of the top 5 best selled nintendo consoles are from the 2000s (GBA, DS and Wii)

Sales-wise, definitely the 2000s ;)

3 of the top 5 best selled nintendo consoles are from the 2000s (GBA, DS and Wii)


Then Shruggie, What about the original Nintendo system from 30 years ago?  ???

http://geekchicelite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/nintendo.jpg

I think Nintendo had one of the worst periods of its history between 2010-2015, but it has became more relevant since the Switch came out in 2016. Although Nintendo has lost in the powerful console war, now they’re into innovative consoles and casual, indie games
Switch came out in 2017.

I think the 2000s was Nintendo's last decade where Nintendo was considered relevant by the mainstream and by the gaming industry. Even though the Gamecube was Nintendo's weakest selling console (before the Wii U) it still was respected among the general gaming community. With the Wii while it was the most commercially successful system, it turned a lot of traditional gamers away from Nintendo, Nintendo thought the Wii's success  would carry over into the Wii-U because Nintendo had that "too good to fail" mindset and it ended up selling worse than the Gamecube.

Nintendo was at its cultural peak throughout the 80's to mid 90's when it was in the arcade, the NES, and the SNES. Since the N64 era it's been up and down, however, the N64 was still the most mature Nintendo console of all time in terms of all the games that were released and it was still successful, while the Gamecube was the first major Nintendo console that failed however it was the last Nintendo console that appealed to hardcore gamers with a lot of good variety of games around 2nd & 3rd party and not just 1st party. The sad thing about the Wii is that despite the fact it was high in sales because of the motion controls for casual gamers, the Wii was a huge improvement in 1st party games compared to the Gamecube however it miserably failed in every other aspect, and even then true gamers were pissed off with the motion control issues.

Nintendo was at its cultural peak throughout the 80's to mid 90's when it was in the arcade, the NES, and the SNES. Since the N64 era it's been up and down, however, the N64 was still the most mature Nintendo console of all time in terms of all the games that were released and it was still successful, while the Gamecube was the first major Nintendo console that failed however it was the last Nintendo console that appealed to hardcore gamers with a lot of good variety of games around 2nd & 3rd party and not just 1st party. The sad thing about the Wii is that despite the fact it was high in sales because of the motion controls for casual gamers, the Wii was a huge improvement in 1st party games compared to the Gamecube however it miserably failed in every other aspect, and even then true gamers were pissed off with the motion control issues.
True, I hear old-school gamers say that during the 8-bit and 16-bit era that Nintendo was synonymous with all gaming consoles, even with Sega in the picture. Once the late 90s rolled around that was when it Playstation took Nintendo's place as the forerunner of gaming. Now when the general market thinks of gaming they say Playstation and Xbox and forget Nintendo exist.  I think the Switch might change that with the rapid sales numbers. With the Wii-era, most non-gammers didn't realize that the same company who made the NES in the 80s made the Wii in 2006.  The NES was pretty mainstream as well like there were plenty of girls and parents that were playing video games during the 8-bit era as well, even the 16-bit era had that casual appeal despite the commercials being more geared towards young boys. Once the 32-bit era rolled around gaming became mostly targeted towards young males.

I think Nintendo is really a nostalgia thing for the most part these days.  No Mario or Zelda game is going to be able to recapture the magic we all knew as children.  It just can't be done.  However, the new titles are still fun to play and people do get enjoyment out of them so they live in because of the nostalgia people have.  Nintendo also has it's own proprietary franchises that other game developers can't touch.  I would say in that respect they are kind of like the "Disney" of video games.

Today's AAA games are all Xbox and PS4 and Nintendo is pretty much an afterthought.

Also, people like to relive nostalgia so remember when Nintendo came out with the mini Nintendo system that came out a few years ago?

https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/5ea/6b/90563664a66ea5630b0ddfd1e036153d.jpg

I think Nintendo is really a nostalgia thing for the most part these days.  No Mario or Zelda game is going to be able to recapture the magic we all knew as children.  It just can't be done.  However, the new titles are still fun to play and people do get enjoyment out of them so they live in because of the nostalgia people have.  Nintendo also has it's own proprietary franchises that other game developers can't touch.  I would say in that respect they are kind of like the "Disney" of video games.

Today's AAA games are all Xbox and PS4 and Nintendo is pretty much an afterthought.


That is true. "Breath of the Wild", while it was a great game in itself, does not compare to the experience of playing Ocarina of Time for the first time. Also, not even Super Mario Odyssey can compare to Super Mario 64. I think it's because of the nostalgia and the memories of the 64 era as being part of a happier and simpler time.

Nah. Games back then were Building audiences. Nintendo peaked and fallen from what made them special. The PS4 and Xbox doesn't feel casual. Nintendo, now does because of the "kid friendly" aspect they adapted to. Maybe you can say it was tolerated when Nintendo peaked, then they lost themselves in it.


That's not exactly what I was talking about. Granted I'm still a bit fuzzy on what constitutes a "hardcore gamer" and a "casual gamer", so if you could explain the differences to me, and the games associated with both groups, that would be great. My main point was that there were likely less people who identified as gamers in general back in the 90s. They certainly existed, but the vast majority of the people buying the games were people who played video games as past-times as opposed to deep-seated passions. Heck the "gamer" label in general was probably not as common as it is now.

To give more specific examples, think of games like Super Mario 64. I seriously doubt that Nintendo were aiming to only appeal to "hardcore" gamers (I don't even know if that term was commonplace back then) with that game. It's a pretty straightforward game that could be enjoyed by pretty much anyone. Even if you go back to fourth generation games, you still had games like The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for the SNES and Sonic The Hedgehog 2. A Link to the Past was much simpler than the previous Zelda games, so it could appeal to people who only play video games as a mild past-time, but it also had a lot of hidden secrets and extra features that could appeal to more "involved" (for lack of a better word) games. With Sonic The Hedgehog 2, one could go through the game without getting any of the Chaos Emeralds, and it would not have a negative effect on the ending. The Special Stages seem to appeal more to gamers with a little more time on their hands, as they are known to be (one of) the most difficult Special Stages in the series. The reward is simply getting Super Sonic, but it doesn't really effect the ending (besides having a little clip of Sonic turning Super).

I'm probably rambling, but my point is that gaming companies like Nintendo and Sega have always wanted to appeal to a wider market. They always kept in mind people who did not consider themselves apart of the gaming community but still enjoyed gaming as a down-time activity. Now that I think of it, it's true that gaming companies didn't always appeal to "casual gamers", so I do take back the first sentence of my previous post. But that is only because the "gamer" (bearing in mind there is a difference between people who are apart of the subculture and people who simply play games as a down-time hobby) label as a whole was not something that was preferred by the mainstream back then. I hope that makes sense, I know I probably dragged this post a bit long.

That is true. "Breath of the Wild", while it was a great game in itself, does not compare to the experience of playing Ocarina of Time for the first time. Also, not even Super Mario Odyssey can compare to Super Mario 64. I think it's because of the nostalgia and the memories of the 64 era as being part of a happier and simpler time.
Nintendo Switch may not be a NES, N64 or even Wii but it can still start a new golden era of Nintendo where Nintendo can be seen as a viable competitor in the console space and just be seen as "the other console".

That's not exactly what I was talking about. Granted I'm still a bit fuzzy on what constitutes a "hardcore gamer" and a "casual gamer", so if you could explain the differences to me, and the games associated with both groups, that would be great. My main point was that there were likely less people who identified as gamers in general back in the 90s. They certainly existed, but the vast majority of the people buying the games were people who played video games as past-times as opposed to deep-seated passions. Heck the "gamer" label in general was probably not as common as it is now.

To give more specific examples, think of games like Super Mario 64. I seriously doubt that Nintendo were aiming to only appeal to "hardcore" gamers (I don't even know if that term was commonplace back then) with that game. It's a pretty straightforward game that could be enjoyed by pretty much anyone. Even if you go back to fourth generation games, you still had games like The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for the SNES and Sonic The Hedgehog 2. A Link to the Past was much simpler than the previous Zelda games, so it could appeal to people who only play video games as a mild past-time, but it also had a lot of hidden secrets and extra features that could appeal to more "involved" (for lack of a better word) games. With Sonic The Hedgehog 2, one could go through the game without getting any of the Chaos Emeralds, and it would not have a negative effect on the ending. The Special Stages seem to appeal more to gamers with a little more time on their hands, as they are known to be (one of) the most difficult Special Stages in the series. The reward is simply getting Super Sonic, but it doesn't really effect the ending (besides having a little clip of Sonic turning Super).

I'm probably rambling, but my point is that gaming companies like Nintendo and Sega have always wanted to appeal to a wider market. They always kept in mind people who did not consider themselves apart of the gaming community but still enjoyed gaming as a down-time activity. Now that I think of it, it's true that gaming companies didn't always appeal to "casual gamers", so I do take back the first sentence of my previous post. But that is only because the "gamer" (bearing in mind there is a difference between people who are apart of the subculture and people who simply play games as a down-time hobby) label as a whole was not something that was preferred by the mainstream back then. I hope that makes sense, I know I probably dragged this post a bit long.


The hardcore/casual dichotomy gained prominence when Nintendo tried to get traditional non-gamers into gaming with titles like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Nintendogs, Brain Training etc.

If 'casual' is being used to describe games like Zelda then it has no meaning beyond being a slur I think.  :-X

That is true. "Breath of the Wild", while it was a great game in itself, does not compare to the experience of playing Ocarina of Time for the first time. Also, not even Super Mario Odyssey can compare to Super Mario 64. I think it's because of the nostalgia and the memories of the 64 era as being part of a happier and simpler time.


I'm going to opt for the latter: nostalgia is colouring people's rational judgement ;D

I don't want to fall into a presentism, judging old games by present day standards. Super Mario 64 was absolutely revolutionary for its time, but Mario Odyssey is the better game. I'm playing it right now and it's a lot of fun.

Just went into my local GameStop for the first time in a while. Xbox and Playstation games dominated the shelves, and Nintendo stuff was pretty much relegated to a tiny corner in the back of the store. They really are slowly dying out as a console developer.

True, I hear old-school gamers say that during the 8-bit and 16-bit era that Nintendo was synonymous with all gaming consoles, even with Sega in the picture. Once the late 90s rolled around that was when it Playstation took Nintendo's place as the forerunner of gaming. Now when the general market thinks of gaming they say Playstation and Xbox and forget Nintendo exist.  I think the Switch might change that with the rapid sales numbers. With the Wii-era, most non-gammers didn't realize that the same company who made the NES in the 80s made the Wii in 2006.  The NES was pretty mainstream as well like there were plenty of girls and parents that were playing video games during the 8-bit era as well, even the 16-bit era had that casual appeal despite the commercials being more geared towards young boys. Once the 32-bit era rolled around gaming became mostly targeted towards young males.


It depends on where you live. In the mid 90s (roughly 92-96) in the US, the Genesis was the dominant platform, by sales. In Europe, the SNES did better. Sega's fall came be traced to three things really:

-Oversaturating the market with too many consoles at once
-Dooming the Saturn from the beginning by releasing it 4 months early without telling any of the developers
-Marketing the Saturn as an adult console (whereas the N64 was aimed at children/preteens, and the Playstation was aimed at the 18-24 market)

There was a glimmer of hope when the Dreamcast was released: It was very popular, it sold well, and it had great games. The battle however was won by one factor: The PS2 could play DVDs, and the Dreamcast couldn't. As soon as the PS2 was released, Dreamcast sales tanked. Sega was gone.

But for a brief time, it seemed like Sega would take Nintendo's place.

It depends on where you live. In the mid 90s (roughly 92-96) in the US, the Genesis was the dominant platform, by sales. In Europe, the SNES did better. Sega's fall came be traced to three things really:

-Oversaturating the market with too many consoles at once
-Dooming the Saturn from the beginning by releasing it 4 months early without telling any of the developers
-Marketing the Saturn as an adult console (whereas the N64 was aimed at children/preteens, and the Playstation was aimed at the 18-24 market)

There was a glimmer of hope when the Dreamcast was released: It was very popular, it sold well, and it had great games. The battle however was won by one factor: The PS2 could play DVDs, and the Dreamcast couldn't. As soon as the PS2 was released, Dreamcast sales tanked. Sega was gone.

But for a brief time, it seemed like Sega would take Nintendo's place.


once 94 hit Super Nintendo was winning the war , Donkey Kong  from DK Country became Nintendos new mascot instead of Mario, infact
Nintendo.com had DK on its main website for 2 years instead of mario in the years leading up to Mario 64

Sega was winning from 91 to mid 94, but like I said once DKC and DKC 2 were out it was a wrap

once 94 hit Super Nintendo was winning the war , Donkey Kong  from DK Country became Nintendos new mascot instead of Mario, infact
Nintendo.com had DK on its main website for 2 years instead of mario in the years leading up to Mario 64

Sega was winning from 91 to mid 94, but like I said once DKC and DKC 2 were out it was a wrap


In terms of overall consoles sold in the US, here's the year by year breakdown:
1994:
Sega Genesis: 57.87%
Super Nintendo: 36.43%
NES: 4.75%

1995:
Sega Genesis: 42.68%
Super Nintendo: 37.71%
Playstation: 11.15%
Saturn: 4.93%
NES: 2.25%

1996:
Playstation: 28.83%
Nintendo64: 24.99%
Sega Genesis: 18.56%
Super Nintendo: 15.88%
Saturn: 10.49%
NES: 0.66%

1997:
Playstaton: 49.82%
N64: 38.69%
Super Nintendo: 5.11%
Sega Genesis: 4.12%
Saturn: 2.5%
NES: 0.07%

1998:
Playstation: 61.38%
N64: 31.27%
Sega Genesis: 5.31%
Super Nintendo: 1.61%
Saturn: 0.44%
NES: 0.001%

1999:
Playstation: 55.06%
N64: 28.98%
Dreamcast: 12.27%
Sega Genesis: 3.53%
Super Nintendo: 0.05%

I got this from a research PDF tracking game console sales by percentage from I believe 1994 to 2000.
Also, here is a Press Release from January of 1996 talking about 1995 game sales:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sega+captures+dollar+share+of+videogame+market+--+again%3B+diverse...-a018001580

http://www.netinst.org/Clements_Ohashi.pdf

That's the study where I got the data from.

In terms of overall consoles sold in the US, here's the year by year breakdown:
1994:
Sega Genesis: 57.87%
Super Nintendo: 36.43%
NES: 4.75%

1995:
Sega Genesis: 42.68%
Super Nintendo: 37.71%
Playstation: 11.15%
Saturn: 4.93%
NES: 2.25%

1996:
Playstation: 28.83%
Nintendo64: 24.99%
Sega Genesis: 18.56%
Super Nintendo: 15.88%
Saturn: 10.49%
NES: 0.66%

1997:
Playstaton: 49.82%
N64: 38.69%
Super Nintendo: 5.11%
Sega Genesis: 4.12%
Saturn: 2.5%
NES: 0.07%

1998:
Playstation: 61.38%
N64: 31.27%
Sega Genesis: 5.31%
Super Nintendo: 1.61%
Saturn: 0.44%
NES: 0.001%

1999:
Playstation: 55.06%
N64: 28.98%
Dreamcast: 12.27%
Sega Genesis: 3.53%
Super Nintendo: 0.05%

I got this from a research PDF tracking game console sales by percentage from I believe 1994 to 2000.
Also, here is a Press Release from January of 1996 talking about 1995 game sales:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sega+captures+dollar+share+of+videogame+market+--+again%3B+diverse...-a018001580



Well the gen consensus  about Sega is that it was dead by the time Donkey Kong Country 2 dropped, No one on the school yard was
caping for Sega then LMAO  Sega did have a good run with Sonic 1- 3K it was king at that time, but Super Nintendo stole all the hype
away at the end of that cycle

I remember how it was then, Nintendo was also taking over with DKC advertisments in 94/95 as well, with not many sega ones.
Game Gear also died in like early 97 as well, while Game Boy Pocket was released, Sega won the first half, But Nintendo won
the second half of the war.

I had Genesis and SNES by the way

Well the gen consensus  about Sega is that it was dead by the time Donkey Kong Country 2 dropped, No one on the school yard was
caping for Sega then LMAO  Sega did have a good run with Sonic 1- 3K it was king at that time, but Super Nintendo stole all the hype
away at the end of that cycle

I remember how it was then, Nintendo was also taking over with DKC advertisments in 94/95 as well, with not many sega ones.
Game Gear also died in like early 97 as well, while Game Boy Pocket was released, Sega won the first half, But Nintendo won
the second half of the war.

I had Genesis and SNES by the way


I had both (Genesis I got for my birthday in 1994, and a SNES I got I think either for Christmas 1996 or in 1997) as well. I'm just posting the sales data. It may have been marketed more but it just seems like going from the data the Genesis sold more in the 90s in the US. I know in Europe, the SNES was twice as popular, so that's probably how it helped surpass the Genesis globally, also in Japan the SNES was bigger. I do remember never getting a Saturn and no one having one and I remember wondering when a real sequel to the Genesis, as a console, was gonna come out. I think people loved the Genesis in general and Sega fumbled the ball with the next two systems, never capturing whatever it was that people loved about the Genesis. I moved on to Playstation in 1998.

I had both (Genesis I got for my birthday in 1994, and a SNES I got I think either for Christmas 1996 or in 1997) as well. I'm just posting the sales data. It may have been marketed more but it just seems like going from the data the Genesis sold more in the 90s in the US. I know in Europe, the SNES was twice as popular, so that's probably how it helped surpass the Genesis globally, also in Japan the SNES was bigger. I do remember never getting a Saturn and no one having one and I remember wondering when a real sequel to the Genesis, as a console, was gonna come out. I think people loved the Genesis in general and Sega fumbled the ball with the next two systems, never capturing whatever it was that people loved about the Genesis. I moved on to Playstation in 1998.


By early 1997 it was a wrap for 16 bit, I played DKC 3 and I was just mad I couldnt play ps1 or n64, at this time Playstation was crushing it with daily 24/7 pepsi advertisements, and Crash 1 and 2, tomb raider,  I never played my Snes again after 97 lmao,  In the Fall of 97 tho I did get ps1 and FF 7 it was game changing experience