So...

...SONY didn't kill Sega! Microsoft did!

If they would've taken over Sega, they could have put their muscle behind the Xbox (since Microsoft was partially involved in Dreamcast development anyway), and that would have solved 2 of Microsoft's biggest Xbox problems: light first party support and Japan.

Keeping Sega on as a wholly-owned subsidiary (where Sega was still free to be Sega, but Sega profits/losses went to MS instead of investors) would indeed have been a bad idea, but instead making Sega the core of the Entertainment Device Devision would've been a big, positive thing

Shenmue: The Complete Saga comes to mind... :'(

No one killed Sega but themselves. Microsoft would only be buying a shell of a company. It's not like Rare when as soon as Microsoft purchased the company everyone of value just left.

Microsoft is looking to develop better games than what they are currently capable of doing. This is why they purchased the gutted Rare, but we see how thats worked out havent we? I think it would be harder to buy Sega titles than THQ at this. Sega has more notable titles than THQ ever did, but on the other side of the coin, could those games sell? Shenmue, Bayonetta, Shinobi, Sonic...are probably their biggest titles and three of those are niche. It's a toss up, but the numbers those games would make are nowhere in the realm of what Microsoft desires to profit.

Not true. From a financial perspective, Sega of 2001/2002 was shot, but they were still a very, very good development studio, and they retained their people for a while

The financial distress (and the fact that Sammy seems to hate them) has slowly starved out Sega of people and development capability ever since, but buying them in 2002 would've netted you a development/publishing powerhouse

Sega is a viable company, they probably didnt give microsoft a low enough price to make them happy. Rather than just taking the easy way out and buying a company, i'd rather see microsoft invest enough to build some more first party studios, with the philosophy and artistic direction that they want.

That's the problem with MSFT's strategy of partnering with everybody, all these other companies will want their cut as well. In this case, that is also true, bc a profitable company will be bought for a premium. It will probably sell for double the value of its stock, as buyouts frequently do.

I agree, but sega had been in distress since the late mid-late 90's based on decisions they made, which caused them to tank as a platform company after the Dreamcast. Thats almost two decades of issues. I don't really see where we're disagreeing here.

This. Microsoft plays well with companies they create far better than companies they purchase. I've noticed this.

My bad, i thought by "shell of a company" you meant that Sega's development talent had already gone.