Totally. Sega CD games that made the system worth owning (for me atelast)

Final Fight CD (much better than snes version with better sound)

Enternal Champions CD (best 16 bit fighting game)

Sonic CD

Snatcher

Slipheed

Night Trap (lame but fun)

Robo Aleste

Popful Mall

Lunar 2

NHL 94 (like genesis version only with voice comentary and video bios for key players...never seen that before on consoles)

Batman & Robin

Android Assult

These are games not available anywhere else in the form that they were presented on Sega CD. On top of that you had siperior ports of MK1, NBA JAM...etc... Great system.

Man good article. It brought back memories of when I owned the Master system, Genesis, Saturn, and DC. I was a Sega Fanboy and didn't know it, lol. It's really sad reading how a simple lack of focus on a big picture costed them. =/

@disolitide

I forgot all about Robo Aleste. Damn, that game was so much harder than MUSHA Aleste.

The  64-bit IBM 7030 Stretch from 1961 would like a word with you.

Also i think you don't actually understand what 64-bit means.

Sega CD games to own:

Dark Wizard
Dungeon Explorer
Keio Flying Squadron
Lords of Thunder
Lunar
Lunar 2
Popful Mail
Shining Force CD
Sonic CD
Snatcher
Space Adventure Cobra (FAPtastic)
Vay

 I took computer networking as a major in college and I have a vague understanding how CPUs work and what renders it a 32 bit or a 64 bit proessor. I couldn't design you a 64 bit CPU if thats what you are acusing me of.

I posted a link to wikipedia which claims that the first true 64 bit processor was made in 1991 by MIPS. The same article states that...

"64-bit CPUs have existed in supercomputers since the 1960s and in RISC-based workstations and servers since the early 1990s. In 2003 they were introduced to the (previously 32-bit) mainstream personal computer arena, in the form of the x86-64 and 64-bit PowerPC processor architectures."

I meant for the meanstream consumer when I said 3-4 years ago...but looking at my post I see where one could see that I said "No 64 bits didn't exist until power PC released it in 2003". So I am sorry about that...

All I wanted to say is that Jaguar wasn't a 64 bit processor...which it isn't. Everyone else that is knitpicking my reply needs to relax and possibly start antoher thread as OP has nothing to do with CPU data architecture.

Is it just me or does this article attribute pretty much all of Sega's failures to Sega of Japan? Is that right?

 This seems to be the general concensus... Even thoughg 32X was 100% American born, the American side of the company is what got them the success to begin with.

The Japanese side of the company was quite blind witht he saturn as well... In 1996 Segas CEO from Japan stopped all support for Sega hardware other than saturn. Yes saturn sold in Japan but it sold nothing everywhere else. Plus Gensis could have gotten them extra revenue had the support not been cut. Snes had one of its most successful years in 1996.

Interesting read.

The Jaguar did have more than one 64bit processors in it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

"Tom" Chip, 26.59 MHz

• Graphics processing unit (GPU) – 32-bit RISC architecture, 4 KB internal cache, provides wide array of graphic effects
• Object Processor – 64-bit RISC architecture; programmable; can behave as a variety of graphic architectures
• Blitter – 64-bit RISC architecture; high speed logic operations, z-buffering and Gouraud shading, with 64-bit internal registers.
• DRAM controller, 32-bit memory management

Anyhow, just with the Intellivision, number of bits isn't key to power.  The programmers mostly would code to the 16bit 68000 chip in the Jaguar.  And yes, the Intellivision was 16bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellivision

Intellivision was the first 16-bit game console, though some people have mistakenly referred to it as a 10-bit system because the CPU's instruction set and game cartridges are 10 bits wide. The registers in the microprocessor, where the mathematical logic is processed, were 16 bits wide.

Also, the TurboGrafix-16 (PC-Engine) has a 16bit graphics processor, but 8 bit CPU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbografx_16

The TurboGrafx-16 has an 8-bit CPU and a dual 16-bit GPU capable of displaying 32 sets of 15 colors at once out of 512.

Anyhow, number of bits doesn't say much.