Azzanation said:
They were making money before they brought half the industry. The XB1 was on profitable and I believe half way through the 360 they turned it around due to high software sales and subscription money. |
There was a period of time where they were not making money towards the end of the XB1 generation when they made all those acquisitions. Xbox wasn't profitable. The personal computing arm of MS was profitable. That included Windows, Xbox, and a whole bunch of other stuff. But it was Windows and the other stuff that paid the bills making it profitable. Not the sales of Xbox consoles, or software, or subscriptions. Xbox as it was in 2017 is dead weight and still loses money. It's the Blizzard/Activision/Bethesda part of Xbox that actually pays the bills.
Anyway my point stands. Sega found success on their own, even if it was only for a single generation. Xbox would have been DOA if not for MS losing billions on it.
Also, Sega had and still has a better games development department than Xbox. That's why Dreamcast wins this battle. They courted 3rd party developers to bring over tons of great arcade games to Dreamcast. They made plenty of their own smash hits. Dreamcast had more kickass exclusives when they left the market in 2001 than XB1 had after seven years on the market. More than OG Xbox had when it was replaced by 360 too.
