What I meant was that if playing dirty is what you consider brilliant, then you must also consider Microsoft brilliant this gen.

Business wasn't covered as extensively back then as it is now. But since we have an example of Sony doing it once, it's likely they did it more than once.

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 disagree, they areagaming company so they'd do just as Sega did.And do pretty well at that too I suspect, possibly better than Sega have done.

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.

Actually I am not that concern about the "brilliant" calling back and forth. If you want me to say something about it, I guess I'll say MS was brilliant this gen, just less brilliant than Sony in the previous gens, taking what you said in consideration.

That doesn't work. You can't assure games where bought out of Sega if you don't have the info, like you had with Tomb Raider. You can't rely in your feelings and what you think happened if there isn't proof. As it stands now you could only say that Tomb Raider was an ace that helped Sony cement their advantage over Sega, I guess... But assuring that Sony bought games away from Sega is not something you can be certain, at best, you could consider the possibility but it can't be used as amo to state as a fact.

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.

I don't see how it's inaccurate. Sony entering the market was what became the final nail in Sega's coffin as a hardware maker. And I hate the direction that console gaming went while Sony was the market leader, so of course I am going to begrudge them for entering the market.

You just don't get it. Up until the PS3 failure, Nintendo was the only company left with the old-school philosophy of making consoles (and even the Gamecube was clearly influenced by the PS1 in design) and they were believed to also be going extinct as a hardware maker. And as long as there is two giant corporations like Microsoft and Sony in the market, Nintendo will always be vurnurable to war-of-attrition tactics. I don't want the kind of gaming I like to die out, so you can be damn sure I am going to be bitter about it.

Oh, and a lot of Sony fans complained about Microsoft's moneyhatting, I remember it clearly.

Just get over it already. There's no denying we've seen brilliant games the last couple of generations without a Sega console, and at least up to now console gaming has done very well. For some people it's sad that Sega left the hardware business, but it's blind fanboyism to hold a grudge against Sony for something that Sega largely did to itself.

I never said Sony fans didn't complain about MS moneyhatting. I said Sony fans haven't bitched about MS or Nintendo being to blame for PS3's bad start. PS3 faltered, and MS and Nintendo capitalised on that stumble, well done them. Wii would have been very popular even if PS3 had got off to a much better start, Xbox 360 probably not so much.

I like how you characterise PS3 as a failure when it's outsold every Nintendo and Sega home console other than the Wii, and will probably outsell Xbox360 when all's said and done, making only Wii and PS1/2 as home consoles that have sold better than PS3; and outselling Wii isn't entirely out of the question. PS3 had it's failings, especially early on, but it's far from being a failure. If PS3 was a true failure we wouldn't be getting a PS4.

i would sacrifice Microsoft

...i don't even need Sega back

The moment my type of gaming and my type of consoles isn't endangered is the moment I'll stop holding a grudge.

I define failure as "not achieving what you intended to achieve by doing certain actions", and sony obviously intended to make back the money they spent on the PS3.