By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What made Microsoft succeed where Sega could not?

cannonballZ on 11 May 2013

It seems the majority agrees in the main reason being money. I also agree. If Sega went through RROD, they would have never recovered.



Around the Network
Zappykins on 11 May 2013
spurgeonryan said:

Do I need to explain why Sega was popular in the first place? I think HappyD explained it all perfectly in his thread about why third parties left Nintendo. Because Nintendo had horrible policies against them for the longest time and took too long to correct them. Sega did not. Also they had some of the best games of all time. Which makes it all the more sad when they were forced out of the home console business about 10 years ago. Sure, we still get yearly Sonic games and other grand ideas from Sega, but things will never be the same.

But, where Sega failed, Microsoft has seen success. They have taken over the third console spot and showed the world that it is possible for this to happen. There is room for three home consoles battling it out for supremacy. What has Microsoft done that Sega could not? Is it just because they have unlimited money and would never go down like Sega did? Did they have to be successful in this area since APPLE dominated them in the mobile market and even hit them hard with the Mac for a while?

Lets face it, the original Xbox really was not that amazing, but they flourished enough to make the amazing 360.

Maybe this has been answered before, but I did not care enough at the time to find out. So now I am asking.

The original Xbox was a huge innovator, and pusher of new technology.  They delayed it so it would be twice as powerful as their biggest competitor.   In a time where few people had high speed internet connections, a still not eveone using a modem, they only had a high speed connection, break away controlers, and an included hard drive.   Plus Microsoft gives its developers the best tools to develop with by far.

Sure money helps keep the company operating, but it is foolish to ignore, the passon, innovation and resourcefulness of the company.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Mr Puggsly on 11 May 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

Sega games were all generic? Did you even have or play much Dreamcast? I mean the Sonic Adventure series, Shenmue series, Skies of Arcadia, Phantasy Star Online, Sega GT, Virtua Tennis, Jet Grind Radio, Sega Sports titles were some games far from generic. Maybe you're just familiar with their Arcade games?

Most platforms launch with weak games or ports. The Xbox was one of few with a killer app at launch.

I agree with your thrid party statement and that is something Sega platforms always struggled with. Especially with the Saturn and Dreamcast.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

J_Allard on 11 May 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

All you're confirming with that comment is that you never really played much, if any, Sega games.



burninmylight on 11 May 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

Sega's games were generic? I HIGHLY disagree. While Streets of Rage was very similar to Capcom's Street Fighter and Final Fight series', it was high quality and very enjoyable. Sonic, of course, wasn't even close to generic (always my preference when compared with Mario), and other stuff like Altered Beast, Phantasy Star, and Virtua Fighter have all made their marks. They failed strictly because they bit off more than they could chew, not because of a weakness in software. 

Now as for Microsoft, to me, their issue has never been quality, but quantity and questionable business decisions. I'd prefer them to pump their cash into new, fresh IPs by In-House studios, rather than go after every 3rd party exclusive the PlayStation had. They don't stand out because their own studios aren't doing enough (again, just my view) against Sony, Nintendo, and Sega. They have the weakest 1st party of the bunch, but they survived because they had the cash, were smarter than Sega, and did their reseacrh to combat Sony.


In the early 90's sega wasnt generic, but at some point certain styles like arcade titles lost the style and flair of its era as we started moving towards the new millenium. Nintendo has the disney effect, which bred characters that had a marketable look and color scheme to attract the eye creating timeless characters. Sonic was the only timeless character sega ever created and it saved the Sega genesis vs Mario in megadrive/genesis. I loved Sega, but their 90's arcade approach went stale. Why does Virtua Fighter have such a slim fanbase? Because its generic. Its a pure gameplay with little look or style and very technical. Only the best of the best played it and I did until I started got my Playstation and got Tekken. I stopped playing my 32X on my Genesis and went cold turkey on the Virtua Fighter. It had interesting characters an interesting story and more. Segas games had arcade gameplay quality, but what would prompt me to buy a Dreamcast when I could play the same games at the arcade with my friends? Sega shot themselves in the foot partially for many reasons and one of them was having a superior form of their games elsewhere and playable for cheaper prices earlier on. Second of all even though they only sold like what ten million Dreamcasts, they had a ton of games pirated based on format? The quality of their games were good, but generic in style and they had been sending the wrong message to consumers since the Saturn era, which didn't last very long to begin with. 

As for Microsoft, their problem with first party will be rectified by hiring the industries best by pulling out their checkbook. Plain and simple.


I was about to type a similar point. Everyone raves about Sega's IP nowadays, but outside of Sonic, they sold like crap. Jet Grind/Set Radio and Shenmue are the quintessential must-have hipster games now, but they sold like crap back in the day, along with Virtual On, Chu Chu Rocket, Skies of Arcadia and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.

I see people online all the time begging for a Shenmue 3 or JSR sequel (and I wouldn't mind the latter + a new Virtual On), but I can guarantee you funding those projects would be the equivalent of shoveling a pile of money into a burning furnace.



Around the Network
Osc89 on 11 May 2013
Zappykins said:
The original Xbox was a huge innovator, and pusher of new technology.  They delayed it so it would be twice as powerful as their biggest competitor.   In a time where few people had high speed internet connections, a still not eveone using a modem, they only had a high speed connection, break away controlers, and an included hard drive.   Plus Microsoft gives its developers the best tools to develop with by far.

Sure money helps keep the company operating, but it is foolish to ignore, the passon, innovation and resourcefulness of the company.

I miss this Microsoft! I hope they head back to this original mentality, rather than this "you gamers were a stepping stone into the set top box business" vibe they have been giving off for a while.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

J_Allard on 11 May 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

Sega's games were generic? I HIGHLY disagree. While Streets of Rage was very similar to Capcom's Street Fighter and Final Fight series', it was high quality and very enjoyable. Sonic, of course, wasn't even close to generic (always my preference when compared with Mario), and other stuff like Altered Beast, Phantasy Star, and Virtua Fighter have all made their marks. They failed strictly because they bit off more than they could chew, not because of a weakness in software. 

Now as for Microsoft, to me, their issue has never been quality, but quantity and questionable business decisions. I'd prefer them to pump their cash into new, fresh IPs by In-House studios, rather than go after every 3rd party exclusive the PlayStation had. They don't stand out because their own studios aren't doing enough (again, just my view) against Sony, Nintendo, and Sega. They have the weakest 1st party of the bunch, but they survived because they had the cash, were smarter than Sega, and did their reseacrh to combat Sony.


In the early 90's sega wasnt generic, but at some point certain styles like arcade titles lost the style and flair of its era as we started moving towards the new millenium. Nintendo has the disney effect, which bred characters that had a marketable look and color scheme to attract the eye creating timeless characters. Sonic was the only timeless character sega ever created and it saved the Sega genesis vs Mario in megadrive/genesis. I loved Sega, but their 90's arcade approach went stale. Why does Virtua Fighter have such a slim fanbase? Because its generic. Its a pure gameplay with little look or style and very technical. Only the best of the best played it and I did until I started got my Playstation and got Tekken. I stopped playing my 32X on my Genesis and went cold turkey on the Virtua Fighter. It had interesting characters an interesting story and more. Segas games had arcade gameplay quality, but what would prompt me to buy a Dreamcast when I could play the same games at the arcade with my friends? Sega shot themselves in the foot partially for many reasons and one of them was having a superior form of their games elsewhere and playable for cheaper prices earlier on. Second of all even though they only sold like what ten million Dreamcasts, they had a ton of games pirated based on format? The quality of their games were good, but generic in style and they had been sending the wrong message to consumers since the Saturn era, which didn't last very long to begin with. 

As for Microsoft, their problem with first party will be rectified by hiring the industries best by pulling out their checkbook. Plain and simple.

Nevermind what I said about not having played many Sega games, it seems you just don't understand the definition of generic.

Carry on.



Chris Hu on 11 May 2013
TeddostheFireKing said:
Rather than just say money:

1). Microsoft hasn't released 2 major additions to the 360 with games which aren't cross compatible (Genesis Mega CD and 32x).
2). Microsoft hasn't released a major console on the day of its full E3 reveal (Saturn).
3). Microsoft hasn't killed off it's old console while waiting to build up to its new release (Saturn --> Dreamcast).
4). Microsoft isn't trying to incorporate a design which is unheard of at it's time (Saturn's Dual Core).
5). Microsoft didn't have two separate teams designing two totally different consoles on different consoles (Sega: USA 32x and Japan Saturn IIRC).
6). Microsoft hasn't dismantled it's American game studios (well not quite Sega levels anyway). (Sega of Japan had enough of Sega America and basically closed it down, so Sega's overall game output was roughly reduced by half).
7). Microsoft doesn't have a handheld.
8). Sega didn't have Microsofts money :P

It din't help that the Saturn was more expensive then the PS1 either.  I give Sega a pass on the Sega CD but the 32X should never been developed and released that money should have been spent on making the Saturn a better console or it could have been spend on making more games.



Nsanity on 11 May 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.





Fayceless on 11 May 2013

Money? To some extent.

I think it's more to do with the original XBox and the fact that it could have just as easily been called "Halo Machine." That's what made the XBox cool, and that cool factor carried the XBox 360 with it's early launch. That 1 year advantage was the best move they ever made, capitalizing on the growing poplarity of the XBox (even if you didn't own one, it was very likely you played one) before competitors hit the shelves.