Would you sacrifice one of the big 3 for Sega?

[binary solo]

KungKras said:

binary solo said:

KungKras said:

binary solo said:

sales2099 said:
Sony, because they killed Sega.

How did Sony kill sega?

1. Entering the market at the exact wrong time for Sega, while they had become vurnerable.

2. Moneyhatting devs to keep games off Saturn.

3. Announcing PS2 right before Dreamcast launch to try and kill momentum.

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.

Yes, but it's emotionally overwrought, and inaccurate, to say Sony killed Sega. Seriously, are you going to begrudge Sony for all time for trying to make sure its console was a success? Is it such an outrage that Sony should think it can make a go of being a gaming console maker and give it a go, especially as they had gone a fair way down the road with Nintendo?

None of what you say can be made into Sony being at fault. If you can point to any instances where Sony used unethical business practices and those unethical practices directly contributed to Sega's poor console sales, then yes I'll accept Sony bears the stain of guilt for causing Sega's downfall. But so far all I've read is Sony engaging in business practice that is acceptable, and no, you can't say moneyhatting is unethical, because it's accepted practice in the business. Buying exclusivity happens in a lot more industries than gaming.

Sega fans, and Nintendo fans, need to get that gigantic Sony chip off their shoulders. You don't have to like Sony or Playstation, but you should stop with the unjustified blaming of them for the failings of your preferred console makers; unless you can provide an actual smoking gun.

If there's one thing Sony fans didn't do this generation it was try to blame someone else for PS3's difficult start. Quite the opposite really, they maintained faith that PS3 would do well enough in the end; and they were right. Sony fans can be criticised for a lot of things, but scapegoating isn't one of them; at least not in anything I've read.