After Sony’s recent comments about Microsoft and Nintendo’s next home consoles beating the PS4 to the market (and the discussion following about whether that was a good strategy) I began thinking about what were some of the characteristics of market leading systems. I focused my attention on the modern (post crash) console market, at here are some of my observations:

1. Of the 8 market leading systems (NES, SNES, Playstation, PS2, Wii, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance and Nintendo DS) 4 were successors to the market leading system.
2. Of the 8 market leading consoles only 2 (SNES and Wii) were released a year or more after a system that survived the entire generation; and these are also the only 2 generations where the market leading console did not dominate third party support
3. Of the 8 market leading consoles, only 2 (Wii and Nintendo DS) were online capable out of the box; and no system market leading system has had online functionality at launch.
4. None of the market leading home consoles launched for more than $300 (US).
5. While you could argue that the Playstation’s CD playback counts, only one system (the PS2) had significant multimedia functionality.
6. Only one home console (the Wii) supported 4 controllers by default
7. All 8 systems were more powerful than the previous market leading console
8. None of the 8 market leading systems were the most powerful systems of their generation; and some (Wii, Gameboy Advance, and Playstation) could be argued to be not dramatically more impressive than the most advanced system of the previous generation. 
9. None of the 8 market leading consoles had superior screen resolutions to their competition

Now, I’m certain other people have significant observations about the market leading systems.

While I fully admit that there will always be some wildcards, the picture I have started to see emerge indicates that you don’t want to release a system a year or more after the market leading console especially if you believe that processing power, media functionality or multiplayer game play will help your system sell well. 

In other words, their competitors were usually either too expensive and/or too late to market.

Pretty much, the only console that would break that generalization would be the Sega Genesis and you could argue that Sega’s late-generation antics with the Sega CD and 32X may have prevented it from surpassing the SNES.

I'd actually like to extrapolate on a few of these, myself, based on observations I've also seen:

-In the first point, you also missed that the victor home systems, going all the way back, have also been in pairs by the companies: Atari had the original Pong unit and 2600, Nintendo for the NES and SNES, Sony for the PS1 and PS2, and the verdict remains out on the Wii and possibly its next version. For portables, it's always been Nintendo, so it's kinda hard to say for certain on that aspect.

-Technically, there were a few games on a few systems that supported 4 players without a multi-tap. On the NES, I recall Anticipation supporting 4 human players with 2 controllers, and I know that the DS can support 4 (or more) systems wirelessly without need for additional dedicated multi-player hardware, or, in some games, even extra cartridges. You did need the systems, but they would be replacing the need for the extra controller on the Wii.

-Most powerful of the generation is a tough one; I take it that means you put the Neo-Geo in the same gen as the 16-bit era, then? Of the 16-bit systems, the SNES was the most powerful, actually. I'm also curious as to what system from the portable gen prior to the GBA you consider to be close to it? Turbo-Express and Wonderswan were both 16-bit, whereas the GBA was 32.

Nonetheless, it's interesting to see others thinking about this. I've done some thinking myself on it, but never bothered to compile everything. I'll keep thinking on it, though.

I think what determined the market leading console (or handheld) has always been the amount of new entertainment experiences, never polygon count, multimedia functionality, or processing power.  

You either need to be Nintendo or have a PS1/2 level of third party support. Now that every single game ever is multiplatform next-gen could be intresting.

I don't care and never did care when a system was released or how powerful it was.  I just wanted/want to play good games that I love to play.  I have a Wii, PC, PS3, DS and I really want a PSP and a 360 for some great games as well.  Good observations though.  Interesting to think about.

I mentioned this in another thread (the one about Sony claiming Ninty and MS would beat them to the market) but people seemed to think that my opinion, launching late would be stupid, was moot. I agree with you though, releasing after the competition is rarely very smart.

I found your observations to be an interesting read.  Sony could keep PS3 going longer than 360 and Wii.  However, if they wait too long to enter the next generation then they could be left in the dust.  I don't think they should wait longer than 12 months tops to release the PS4 after either Nintendo or Microsoft has released their next system.  Your observations seem to support this as well.

It will make for a very interesting console race next-gen.  Will MS and Sony effectively alienate the tech-enthusiasts that they've captured as loyal fans to persue these historic trends?

With just as many owners as the Wii - the HD twins sales still prove that there is a market for the 'realist graphic nut'.  Placing emphasis on online marketplaces and subscription mutliplayer services, may mean more profits despite a lower hardware sell-through, which is a weird thing to say.