Thank God MS and Sony has provided us with both option. It should not be a choice. 

Actually, it may be a faulty memory of mine; I thought I recalled the DC having more power in the system than the PS2, despite the PS2 using DVDs versus CDs. I may be wrong on that, though, in which case, I would stand corrected.

P1: I won't dispute the SNES games, though I was trying to stay in context of the power vs innovation aspect. Games trump both of those, so having innovation AND the games makes one an easy winner. As for Sega, yes, they did have Europe sewn up, but it was a lot closer in the US. Where it was that Sega lost was when Nintendo showed that you don't need hardware upgrades to do things like Donkey Kong Country. I still think that game would have made Sega lose either way, but it wouldn't have been as bad of a bloodbath late in.

P2: From day 1? Other than the Saturn, what disk-based system came first? Sega CD was an add-on to the Genesis, and the TurboDuo was an evolution of the TG16 and its HuCards. I recall there being other disk-based add-ons for many other systems, but I can't think of any others from day 1. Marketing was not a new thing, though I will grant Sony did step it up a fair bit. The selling at a loss is an interesting one also; though I'm not too sure how that would lead to them winning...

P3: Again, it's coming to the games. Sony didn't innovate anything new there, though, since neither MS nor Nintendo did either, their lead on games did lead to them winning.

takes power for devs to create beautiful games. power to fully express their art for perfection. But they have to understand how to use it first instead of sticking to old dogmattic tech. that will limit them and limit innovation.

The reason why it was a bloodbath late between Snes and Genesis is because Sega pulled the plug on the Genesis in early 1996...they pulled everything to concentrate on the Saturn. If you check the sales till then end of 1995, they are neck and neck, despite Donkey Kong Country. It was a rediculous decision considering they still had a lot of software coming down the pipe, most of which was canceled or rushed... Nintendo was smart and Snes was sold in NA till end of 1998 and supported properly. They had a 49.99 dollar snes model which Genesis never did (officially - Majesco sold one but I dont think this site counts that). The true Genesis sales in north amerca is 19 million, I don't know what people on this site are smoking listing it at 16 mil... Sega released a statement in 1999 listing sales for all consoles and genesis was at 19 mil in NA.

So I stand by my statement, if Sega didn't bother with the 32X and was actually giving Genesis the support till the end of that generation worldwide they would have sold a good 5-10 million consoles more and made that race a lot closer than it was (32 mil vs 49 million).

3DO was a standalone disc based system. Neo Geo CD as well. Neither were in the same league as PS1 technically (3DO wasn't bad tho) but CD systems were out since 1993.

Gamers that enjoy fun vastly outnumber graphics whores. Innovation can lead to fun. Power just allows more shit onscreen, which really doesnt do anything to change games over the last gen.

Well, although I lean towards innovation personally, at this point with the current audience, both are equally important for a market success.

Hrm... I do put the Neo Geo CD as an evolution of the Neo Geo (akin to the Turbo Duo I mentioned before), rather than a new system. They went to the CD based in an attempt to reduce the cost of the games. However, I will concede the 3DO and CD-i, both of which I forgot.

More power? Really? Graphically speaking I don't see the need for it, I mean consoles have reached almost perfection, any kind of improvement won't make much difference to what we see with PS360, let alone make a new console worth purchase.

I believe innovation is not just an option. It is the only option console manufacturers have to distinguish from each other.

Just look at NGP =)

innovation AND power!! FTW!! NGP!! LOL!!