binary solo said:
1. That's the best time for a new player to enter the market. Sega still had incumbancy which meant they werein the advantaged position, that they failed to deal with the newcomer is Sega's fault not Sony's. 2. When you're a new player you need to do something to get 3rd parties to put games on your system. That Sega wasn't in a financial position to counter Sony is Sega's fault not Sony's. I seem to recall MS moneyhatting the crap out of 3rd parties with Xbox, but that didn't cramp Sony's style, and Moneyhatting wasn't what caused Sony to almost fail with PS3. 3. Again, timing is everything to maintain momentum and success. If Sega was having a successful time with hardware a simple announcement from Sony about PS2 would have donelittle to slow down the momentum for Dreamcast. That Sega was so vulnerable that a mereannouncementof a console from Sony snet them into a tail spin form which they could not recover is Sega's fault not Sony's. Conclusion: Sony didn't kill Sega, Sega killed Sega. Or rather Sega's inability to excite the market killed Sega. Actually on second thought I wouldn't sacrifice anyone for Sega, because I like Sega games more than Nintendo games, so I'd rather have Sega continue to make games for the Playstation. Nintendo can carry on making hardware and keep its IP all to itself. |
I've been through this already.
Yes, Sega were the ones who put themselves into a vurnerable spot. HOWEVER, you really can't deny that Sony's entry into the market was a DISASTER for Sega from the PERSPECTIVE of Sega.
You also can't deny that with no Sony, Sega would have recovered from the mistakes that made them vurnerable.
I LOVE ICELAND!