This is a lame argument, as you could say the Atari wasn't the trendsetter because NES had 80m vs. the 30m.

But well, let's take a look how Atari came into existence:

"On June 27, 1972, the two incorporated Atari, Inc. and soon hired Al Alcorn as their first design engineer. Bushnell asked Alcorn produce an arcade version of the Magnavox Odyssey's Tennis game,^[15] which would be named Pong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari#Atari_Inc._.281972.E2.80.931984.29

They made another arcade based on the Magnavox already, and this game - Pong - became three years later their entry-ticket into the home console market. 1975 as they released Pong Magnavox discontinued the first Odyssey to start the Odyssey series, follow-up consoles. As far as I see it no home gaming system came to market before 1975, for three years the Magnavox Odyssey was alone on the market. 1975 and 76 multiple companies decided to release a home game system. Why do you think is that? Because they saw the potential of the Odyssey and wanted some part of it.

For bonus points: 1974 Magnavox started selling Odyssey in Japan - through a license deal. The partner was ... tada ... Nintendo.

Probably a home console market would've come into existance, but without Ralph Baer and the Odyssey it would've happened years later and already with a firm competition from PC-gaming. Without Atari on the other hand the market would've simply be dominated by Coleco, Epoch, Magnavox, Fairchild, Mattel, or any of the other companies that entered the newly created market alongside Atari.

There were other consoles around at the time. Even Atari was still around after the great "crash". it's just the Famicom was imported, repurposed and came in at the right time to take off internationally. 

I'll say the most important console is the one that escewed cartridges as a format for discs, saving a ton of costs for devs who could put that money back into their games. The dawn of AAA development if you will. The second most important is the one that established online gaming to the masses as a norm.

NES+PS1 were both huge contributions. Nes for saving the US industry and PS1 for bringing a market in Europe and proving games can be mature too.

The major US players at the time of the Crash: Atari, Coleco, & Mattel were all effectively killed by the Crash.  Mattel sold off the Intellivision line in 1984 due to the Crash.  Coleco Industries left electronics all together and went bankrupt  Atari may have still been around, but it was not the Warner Communications owned Atari (1976-1984).  That Atari died in the Crash and was sold by Warner to Jack Tramiel.  That Atari was more focused on home computers.  The Atari 7800 they released in 1986 to compete with the NES never had a chance, because the console was developed in 1983 for launch in '84, which never happened because of the Crash.  I got a 7800 for Christmas in 1987 and remember being severely unimpressed with it having already seen Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda on the NES in other people's homes.  We got an NES the following Christmas. 

Well, yeah. I guess NES deserves more credit for being a system that resuscitated the US console market, based on a strong lineup of games and not being trash. I know I loved it. I just still feel that the NES was being a touted as a child's toy still (since it was introduced that way outside of Japan), and didn't quite set console gaming as the true juggernaut it was going to be at that point.

NES.

Before you had the NES, video game consoles were essentially a way to play inferior versions of arcade ports. With the NES, Nintendo developed longer more intricate games that were more suited to the home experience. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid were particularly revolutionary.

Other, went with the original PlayStation, as it basically kickstarted the modern video game market. NES second for me, just as it didn't push teh market's popularity as far as the PS did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSX_(digital_video_recorder)

Are you talking about something else? The only info I could find on the PSX says its a peripheral for the PS2, so not even a console. 

Personally there are only three consoles I think should be considered the Magnavox Odyssey, the first home console, the Atari 2600, even though it was the console that lead into the market crash it proved that a home game machine had market potential, it wasn't the machine that caused it but Atari's non-excistant market control which is pleguing the mobile industry right now, or the NES which revived the market.

I started on Atari 2600. My parents became parents of my brother and sister before Ralph Baher even invented his brown box which was the first prototype console ever. I still said NES.

Anyone not voting NES has no clue about the history of gaming.
Anyone voting PS(anything) is clearly aging themselves on when they started gaming.

Even other game devs point to one company and one specific point / console.