By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 12 August 2008
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
disolitude said:
Dno said:

cool
lol@ sega. they where so good at one point... the only company that sucks when we went from 2-d to 3-d..... o well

Not at all...Sega was leading the 3d world with Virtua Fighters, Sega Rallys, virtua Cop games. Saturn was a little overwhelmed with some 3D games that were programmed half assed for it but had amazing looking 3D games that PS1 would struggle to replicate (Panzer Dragon series, Nights).

The company depended on selling hardware to make profits...hence why they had so many addons and crap. And when Sony finally introduced the "lose gazillion dollars on hardware...make it back on software", Segas days were numbered.

Plus the 1000 stupid mistakes they made...anywho. I'm sure if we look at all the great former employees sega had, they work for some of the biggest and best companies today.

 

Sega ALWAYS used a loss leading strategy. It's where Sony learned the idea from. They were doing it way back on the Master System. (to my knowledge anyway)

The 32X, Sega CD and all that crap was just due to poor management. Their execs sucked.

Nintendo's been the only company to ever have a "profit over marketshare" mentality.

Well outside of like... Neo-Geo. But they didn't even plan on selling any Neo-Geos to the public... they just released it to them because of popular demand.

Well Atari probably too.

Had they not made the 32X and Sega CD.  Or even maybe cut out the Sega Saturn.

The dreamcast coulda beat the PS2.

I disagree with that statement. Sega consoles always started selling for profit. I know for a fact that Genesis ($189), Sega CD  ($299) and 32X($149) were sold for profit at launch. Over time they may have lowered the system below cost due to no demand.

With Saturn they were forced to sell at loss for the first time after 3 months on the market(When PS1 came out for 299 vs 399 for the saturn) and then in less then a year PS1 went to 199. That was a cost reduction sega wasn't able to make as they didn't have as much money. So their losses started accumilating...and with smaller marketshare they couldnt sell as much software to recover the loss.

Dreamcast was sold to break even...and infact CEO Bernie Stollar who was in charge of Sega USA was fired by Sega of Japan after its launch because he overulled their instructions and didn't sell it for 249 and a 50 dollar profit.

So I don't think selling consoles below cost was ever segas strategy . They almost made as many consoles as they did games lol...how would they pull a profit if they were giving them away below cost?