o.pwuaioc wrote:It makes sense the other way, too. Genesis was, after all, initially competing with the NES.
2600, SMS
NES, Genesis
SNES, Saturn
N64, Dreamcast
Sega is just consistently really late.
But the Genesis was not made to really compete with the NES. Sega knew Nintendo would have a successor to the Famicom/NES. Also, the Genesis was built AFTER NEC had already put their 16-bit system on the market. The Genesis was a next generation machine at the time it came out. What you have listed is simply systems that overlapped with the previous generation. It really makes no sense to claim the SMS is the same gen at the 2600, Saturn of the SNES or DC of N64. They were all meant for the next gen. They were designed, built and promoted as such.
So, it really does not make sense the other way as you claimed.
alienjesus wrote: If anything, the Sega CD was Sega's response to the SNES.
The Sega CD was Sega's response to the PC Engine CD/Turbo CD. It was only promoted as a response to the SNES later on, but the initial reason for it was not to directly combat the SNES.
The saturn wasn't trying to compete with the SNES so much as the upcoming N64.The Dreamcast was trying to pre-empt the upcoming consoles from other companies. It may have competed with the N64 and PS1, but the intention was for it to compete with Nintendo and Sony's next consoles.
100% true, and demonstrably so. All one has to do is look up old interviews from the time or even advertisements from the time to show this.
Sega weren't late with the Saturn and Dreamcast. If anything, they were early.
Absolutely true, and interviews at the time with Sega showed exactly this intention.
It IS true, though, that these early systems did sometimes end up in a tweener position. They were not intended to be so, but ended up like that due to circumstance. The DC is probably the most common example of that. That is also the reason why some see it as the cut-off for retro.
