reggin_bolas said:
Darc Requiem said:
reggin_bolas said:
Darc Requiem said:
KylieDog said:
Darc Requiem said:
Great idea in theory. It didn't work out to well for Sega thus far. Not only has Sega still struggled to be profitable their status as one of the best game developers is gone.
|
That is because Sega stopped making good games most of the time, or failing to localise the few good ones. Nothing to do with not having their own hardware.
|
Sega's fall in software quality started when they became a third party developer. It could be coincedental but they seemed to make better software when they were trying to sell their hardware platforms.
|
Pure coincidence, Sega was never Nintendo quality as a game maker. Also, they failed to adapt the Sonic franchise to 3D. Has nothing to do with business restructuring unless they intentionally laid off their best game developers.
Further, Nintendo has a vastly more diverse portfolio of IPs than Sega. They not only have Mario, they have Zelda, Pikmin, Metroid, etc. Sega only really had Sonic.
|
I disagree. Especially on the bolded. In their Prime, Sega had a top quality title in virtually every genre. Nintendo has always had a narrower focus.
|
I'm talking about the present. Nintendo is just more diverse. Also, even in the past, Sega's so called first party IPs besides Sonic were never huge hits the way Zelda and Metroid were.
|
Are you talking about Sega at present or in the past? Are you talking about the quality of the software or sales? You seem to be shifting your stance to fit your argument instead of using it to support your view.
