no worries, its actually done by Salnax

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/46878/salnax/

Honestly, the Nintendo style started to bore me with the SNES, so I ended up jumping ship to PC gaming until the PS1 got my attention again with games like FF7. I didn't have any Sega consoles until the DreamCast, but that one was awesome. I'm pretty sure, if they had built on what they'd done with the DC, that I would have been a PC/Sega fan.

Personally, if Sega filled the same niche as Sony and Microsoft, then I'm not sure gaming itself would have been that different.

Final Fantasy still on Nintendo-systems! *sigh*

I meant military shooters like Battlefield and Call of Duty and anything else like it. Medal of Honour was really the only one, Battlefield didn't come until 1999/2000. Shooters were more about fun than realism back then. But gaming seemed to be more about platformers back then at least until the Playstation became really popular. Maybe one genre wasn't massively dominant back then

Everything would be much better.

Cinematic gaming would be secondary to real gaming.

We wouldn't have to fear DRM.

And no matter if you bought Nintendo or Sega, there would be plenty third party games on every system.

Console gaming would be more distinct from PC gaming.

EA wouldn't have a sports game monopoly.

'Core' gaming would have remained on PC and consoles would have remained more arcadey/kiddie/casual than what we have now but not as much as they were prior to Sony. Sony is the one who broadened the market to more adult gamers but it would have happened anyway just slower and the core market much more dominated by PC.

Smartphones/tablets would still be eroding Nintendo/Sega's market and probably at a quicker pace than it is now with PS3/360 which still supports games mobile devices can't match.

What? "EA Sports - it's in the game". Saw it on Mega Drive and Snes. In my opinion they already had it back then already.

Anarchy Reigns would have had an offline co-op up to four players.

It would be better in some ways, worse in others. It would be healthier, because both Sega and Nintendo need to make money. Sony and MS games divisions can lose money, so they push hardware faster than makes sense financially. This has also pushed game budgets into blockbuster levels which has hurt software developers. There would also be less of the corporate agendas of pushing Windows Phones or BlueRay or any of that garbage, which would be refreshing.

On the flip side both MS and Sony are weak on the first party side of things. This allowed 3rd parties - especially western developers - to take on a lead role and become true AAA game makers. I think Bungie, Ubisoft, Activision, Take-Two and others have brought some nice diversity to the gaming world. Under Sega and Nintendo their games may have been overshadowed by the 1st party flagships.

I think we would have still seen FPS become prominent since they originated on PC and would arrive on consoles as soon as the tech was strong enough. I think we also would have still seen the "maturation" of the gaming demographic anyway. People like to credit Playstation with expanding the gaming market, but I don't think so. The trend was happening well before that as people who grew up with gaming grew up.

One thing I would be curious to know is if N64 would have gotten solid 3rd party support or if 3rd parties would have thrown their support behind the CD-based Saturn instead. FF7 published by Sega? That could make for a different gaming world...

EA locked down the NFL and FIFA licenses to prevent Sega from competing with sports games after they stopped making consoles.