Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 10

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. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 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. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 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.-- Pimp Uigi  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.-- Pimp Uigi  01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 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" 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?-- Sexy Kick  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.-- Sexy Kick  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.-- Sexy Kick  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.)-- Sexy Kick  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.-- Sexy Kick  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: 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)
 * Wired says 29 million.
 * IGN says 29 million.
 * GamePro says 29 million.
 * Game Tunnel says 30.75 million.
 * CNET News says "almost 30 million".
 * Ars Technica says "30 million units worldwide in its various forms".
 * VGChartz (yes, not considered reliable here, but some people like it anyway) says 30.75 million in one article and gives yearly figures totaling 30.9 million in another. In the later, note the possibility of cumulative round-off error.
 * Sega-16.com (reliable? I don't know) says "almost 30 million".
 * Retro Gamer says "30-35 million".|last=Szczepaniak
 * On Sega-16, Anomie, I'd be wary because it does admit some user-generated content, but proofreads all of it and posts its own as well. However, I've used it myself for shear statements of fact in certain circumstances, so I wouldn't doubt its reliability considerably.   Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 02:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make the footnote a little more clear, using more reliable sources for the 29 million and not pretending that all the regional numbers are completely disjoint when we don't have any reason to assume that, but Mr. 130.76.96.23 reverted with some BS reason. Your "smart writing" stinks of bias to me. 108.109.43.36 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Red Phoenix, we were not talking about Gamespy we were talking about Gamepro, which has no affiliation with IGN at all.


 * Unfortunately I can't find information on the issue number of the Man!ac scan, if I could find a site with full magazine scans available I wouldn't be opposed to searching all the issues around 1994 myself but there doesn't seem to be any out there.


 * I notice that the Islandnet source is back up again, this cannot be cited, its sources for the 29 million figure are from 1993 and early 1995 and therefore are massively out of date, according to Media Wire the Mega Drive was still selling 1 million units a year in the US alone as late as 1996.


 * The core issue here is not the contradictory nature of the evidence, its that some of us are using out of date figures from 94' which excludes variations (29 million) whilst others of us are attempting to compile an up to date figure including variations (~35 million).


 * I strongly oppose the return of the 29 million figure, its obviously, and quite clearly wrong and the only reason people seem to have for wanting it up is to have a single sales figure listed on the article at the cost of accuracy. In the event of no further evidence being found, the article should say "in the range of 29-35 million" or no number should be given at all. Jesus.arnold (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the source used because it highlights the disparity in the numbers.-- Sexy Kick  23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the present layout of the article gives undue weight to the 29 Million figure with not enough of an explanation to clarify the breakdown of numbers underneath.


 * Also, shouldn't Islandnet's actual sources be cited and not Islandnet? (The Islandnet article is, in essence just compiling data from other sources, such as the book Game Over, and in itself does not contain any original material). It seems to me that citing Islandnet is a cause for confusion, for instance for the 29 Million figure one of the sources seems to be the aforementioned book "Game Over" which came out towards the end of 1993, if the book could be checked and verified then we could simply write something like "Total worldwide sales: 29 Million as of the end of 1993" with a citation to Game Over.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.180.141 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did either of you actually check Game Over to determine whether it has either the 29 million or the 14 million number from the Islandnet source? Because it seems unlikely. The 14 million number apparently comes from page 64 of the EGM 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide, published in early 1999. As for the 29 million number, I note that the version of the Islandnet page from 2006-10-15 does not contain the number but does contain the reference to Game Over; the version from 2006-12-17 adds both the 29 million number and a reference to Linux Format Issue 51 (March 2004) page 44. While I am not able to check Linux Format to see if it actually states 29 million, the circumstances make it far more likely than the alternative.
 * 1999 and 2004 is a far cry from the "1993 and early 1995" claimed above. Anomie⚔ 03:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Game Over source has the number either myself. But I believe the Man!ac 1994 source because it fits with all the other data I read of specific region numbers, within specific time periods. The places that say 35 million for first party, and 5 million for 3rd parties and Nomad. All that information adds up to me. The NY Times source dated in March 98, 1993 region numbers, etc. etc.-- Sexy Kick  03:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into it, besides pointing out that this whole discussion is long on speculation and original research and short on actual reliable sources to back up anything other than about 30 million. BTW, how do you match up the NYT's 20 million (US) in 1998 with EGM's 14 million (NA) in 1999? Anomie⚔ 11:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clearly EGM going off of an older source (that has been posted.) NYT's is more reliable than EGM anyway. This claims 13 million sold in five years, which is harder to interpret. Do they mean August 1994 is the cutoff of that five years? It's certainly impossible to go from 13 million in the middle of 1994, to only 14 million in 1999. The Man!ac source is surely going off of the end of 1994 fiscal year, and shows sales numbers from many other parts of the world, and for many other systems. It's a very helpful source.-- Sexy Kick  22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonymous User, I concede to your logic in regards to the Islandnet page, by using the older article revisions you've pretty much proved as far as I'm concerned that the 29 Million figure is originally from Linux Format, and as you've said we should take nothing for granted in regards to the citations so for the moment the only definite source on the Islandnet page for the 14 Million US Genesis sales is EGM Buyers Guide, which I found online earlier and checked, here's a copy of the page.


 * Now that we know there's only one magazine source backing up the 14 Million US number we can finally get rid of that figure, seeing as now it stands as -


 * EGM Vs The New York Times and Electronics Times and Business Week (which states that 13 Million was already reached midway through 1994) and the May 1995 issue of Man!ac Magazine (Which states that 14 million was reached at the end of 1994) and the source that Sexy Kick mentioned above.


 * In regards to the Excel Spreadsheet. I found this and this today, which back up the two sections for Business Wire, as it stands every single piece of information on the spreadsheet that we've been able to check so far has been proven to be accurate, but unfortunately I've still not found the Sega of Japan press release (though the US figures given in the spreadsheet do tally closely with all the now verified figures for previous years).


 * Apart from that I found a bunch of articles, the most interesting of which may be this one from Brandweek, which basically says that in March 98 Sega had "sold more than 30 Million of its Genesis consoles". This article points to Majesco taking over sometime around March 1998


 * As mentioned before, would it be better to cite the primary sources for the figures? (ie the 29 million citing Linux Format but still linking to Islandnet, and EGM for the 14 million number if that figure ends up staying) I feel that it would be better that way for the sake of clarity.


 * I apologise if there are any mistakes in the preceding, but I am very tired at the moment so it may be an idea to check over everything for mistakes (which I will do myself tommorow morning anyway just in case) Jesus.arnold (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great article hunting. I like how the news about Majesco taking over is dated March 2nd 1998, and the 20 million NY Times' article is dated March 3rd 1998...giving even more validity to the numbers currently cited in the article.-- Sexy Kick  07:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a small note, I found the Business Week article mentioned on Islandnet here, so I've replaced the Islandnet link in my earlier write-up with a more useful link to the actual article. Jesus.arnold (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)