Computer gaming was rising in Europe and held sway there for quite awhile. A lot of innovations we credit to console games actually appeared on PC games first. Sega actually did pretty well in Europe compared to Nintendo. In Japan, the arcade scene was gaining in popularity, which is the real root from which the current lineage of consoles derived. A lot of arcade developers were growing and looking into creating a home gaming system. Sega released a home console on the same day as the NES--and lost because the NES was far more advanced. Yes, Nintendo's first success in the market was at least partially because they had the most powerful console. If it hadn't been Nintendo then it would have been someone else (probably Sega, a company that was hurt very badly by Nintendo's illegal tactics in the US). Would they have been as successful? Maybe, maybe not. It would have happened, though, even if it had a different form.

Illegal tactics?

Ok, so its not like the Treehouse thing then. Fair enough.

I suppose Nintendo would challenge the use of the word "illegal" because they settled without an admission of guilt, which was how a lot of antitrust cases ended.  They were charged in most US states with anti-trust violations and allegations of price-fixing and retailer intimidation.  They agreed to give out millions in rebates and stop much of what they were doing out of "good will".  Basically, they got out of it with a slap on the wrist because they agreed to stop.

They were taken to court over their exclusive contracts but, as far as I know, a decision wasn't reached.  I don't know what happened with that, as information from that time is hard to find online.  They did some pretty cut-throat to stuff to kill competition and it was super effective.

Is this what you're referring to?: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/11/business/nintendo-to-pay-25-million-in-rebates-on-price-fixing.html