Actually when the NES was released the population of Europe was about 694m, USA was around 240m, this is . Europe was and is a huge market for videogames, it just gets ignored by Americans who were unaware what was going on in the rest of the world at the time. Like the video game crash being a supposed global event, in other areas the console/home computer market was booming. ? In 1986 Europe was a very different place compared to today, I have no idea where you're getting this.
Even though it was really only the US market that actually "crashed", it was still an event with global implications. E.g. It set the scene for the Japanese to make their mark on the worldwide gaming stage. The success of the NES can arguably be attributed to Nintendo's control over what got published for their platform, a direct lesson from the crash. And sure it wasn't /as/ successful in PAL regions, it still did pretty well, and motivated Sega to enter the western market with a similar product and business model.
You could also argue that Nintendo's domination was more down to their aggressive monopoly on developers and restricting them from releasing (or delaying releasing) games on other platforms, essentially keeping the best titles as exclusives for their system. The NES had plenty of terrible games (like every other platform) so I'm not sure how much the crash helped Nintendo with regards to avoiding shovelware, despite their limits to prevent market flooding there was still plenty of junk. I think it was more to do with what their rivals didn't have.
Times have changed, Nintendo stopped worrying about what other manufacturers were doing with the launch of the Wii.
Media format wise yes, but they were still actively making comparisons to competitor hardware on how the 64 was more advanced. Gamecube was their last console as far as being in the same ballpark with MS and Sony.
Population numbers don't prove an argument because that is not the only factor. As ASSEMbler mentioned not everyone could afford a game system. But not just that, not everyone is going to be interested in one. And then there is marketing and other differences between countries. One thing that certainly helped is the NTSC market included the US and Japan which had strong ties after WW2. So when you have one or two large markets, that's easier than in Europe which has many more countries with different laws, regulations, and languages. So even if your argument of bigger total population meant what you say it does, you still have those issues. Afterall, that's part of why the NES did so poorly in Europe. Different versions of systems and games released in different areas. Games needing to be localized to different languages can be expensive.
Except half of that population wouldn't have gotten the NES anyway, because IN SOVIET RUSSIA NO IMPERIALIST GAME SYSTEM FOR YOU. just knockoffs of Famicoms. Were there any dedicated video game consoles for Europe before the Master System? I know the Atari consoles weren't as popular, and most gaming (at least from Brits, who I can understand in their Youtube videos, even with their silly accents) was taking place on microcomputers, which weren't exclusively gaming devices.
> IN SOVIET RUSSIA NO IMPERIALIST GAME SYSTEM FOR YOU. Only there's not really that much overlap between Yurop and the UDSSR, comrade. And if you think otherwise, you'll have to make sure to have the Russian population included in that '743 million' figure before going ahead and subtracting from it. And while you're grasping for straws, don't forget to subtract the GDR as well as the Russian-occupied parts of Berlin. > microcomputers, which weren't exclusively gaming devices. That's like saying cars aren't exclusively used for driving since you can sleep in them, too. Technically true, but, well... And let's not forget a) Famicom BASIC and b) Nintendo marketing the NES as not-a-gaming-device because of the market crash...
Yeah, snes sold poorly in the former USSR. The mega drive and famiclones completely owned that market.
I don't think the Switch will be a failure, I think it'll do quite well. I'm sure as hell pre-ordering one as soon as I'm able to. If it can do things that a tablet computer like an iPad can do, it will catch on pretty quickly. Eg. browse the net, watch YouTube, etc.
What are you talking about? The Soviet Union existed until the early 90s, what bearing does this have on the population of Europe at that time? You know the difference right? You've answered your own question there, yes we had dedicated consoles. I almost got a 2600 myself as a kid however my parents ended up buying a Vic-20. It's not that we didn't have access to them, it's that we didn't really want them. The ZX Spectrum was pretty much a gaming device, it was used exclusively for programming and playing games by everybody that I knew. It may have been sold as a home computer (same as Nintendo marketed the NES as a toy with the ROB set) but it was used for games. Oh and nice remark about UK accents, remember what language you typed that in though.
What was there to regret about the Wii? It had plenty of fantastic games and was always the go-to console to play when I had friends over.
While I do like the Wii, for those who owned nintendo consoles back in the 8/16bit, it was a letdown because the games for the "hardcore" gamers were on the X360 and PS3, Wii version was non existent or likely a trash port based on a already trash PS2 version. WiiU just proved the point that the most people who bought Wii were casual gamers who were attracted to the movement controller gimmick but had with no loyalty to a brand and went to the mobile market, the original Nintendo owners had switched to the consoles above and now to the PS4 and XONE.