By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What made Microsoft succeed where Sega could not?

WagnerPaiva on 11 May 2013

One word: RESSOURCES.

The infinite money from WINDOWS and the rest of MS line up (Office, etc) keep the Xbox healthy.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 11 May 2013
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

All you're confirming with that comment is that you never really played much, if any, Sega games.


Yeah.....sure. My first gaming console was the genesis and I switched to the SNES. Dreamcast was my last console but I bought it late because the PS2 was more important.



Play4Fun on 11 May 2013
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

Sega's games were generic? I HIGHLY disagree. While Streets of Rage was very similar to Capcom's Street Fighter and Final Fight series', it was high quality and very enjoyable. Sonic, of course, wasn't even close to generic (always my preference when compared with Mario), and other stuff like Altered Beast, Phantasy Star, and Virtua Fighter have all made their marks. They failed strictly because they bit off more than they could chew, not because of a weakness in software. 

Now as for Microsoft, to me, their issue has never been quality, but quantity and questionable business decisions. I'd prefer them to pump their cash into new, fresh IPs by In-House studios, rather than go after every 3rd party exclusive the PlayStation had. They don't stand out because their own studios aren't doing enough (again, just my view) against Sony, Nintendo, and Sega. They have the weakest 1st party of the bunch, but they survived because they had the cash, were smarter than Sega, and did their reseacrh to combat Sony.


In the early 90's sega wasnt generic, but at some point certain styles like arcade titles lost the style and flair of its era as we started moving towards the new millenium. Nintendo has the disney effect, which bred characters that had a marketable look and color scheme to attract the eye creating timeless characters. Sonic was the only timeless character sega ever created and it saved the Sega genesis vs Mario in megadrive/genesis. I loved Sega, but their 90's arcade approach went stale. Why does Virtua Fighter have such a slim fanbase? Because its generic. Its a pure gameplay with little look or style and very technical. Only the best of the best played it and I did until I started got my Playstation and got Tekken. I stopped playing my 32X on my Genesis and went cold turkey on the Virtua Fighter. It had interesting characters an interesting story and more. Segas games had arcade gameplay quality, but what would prompt me to buy a Dreamcast when I could play the same games at the arcade with my friends? Sega shot themselves in the foot partially for many reasons and one of them was having a superior form of their games elsewhere and playable for cheaper prices earlier on. Second of all even though they only sold like what ten million Dreamcasts, they had a ton of games pirated based on format? The quality of their games were good, but generic in style and they had been sending the wrong message to consumers since the Saturn era, which didn't last very long to begin with. 

As for Microsoft, their problem with first party will be rectified by hiring the industries best by pulling out their checkbook. Plain and simple.

Nevermind what I said about not having played many Sega games, it seems you just don't understand the definition of generic.

Carry on.


Yup.



S.T.A.G.E. on 11 May 2013
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

Sega's games were generic? I HIGHLY disagree. While Streets of Rage was very similar to Capcom's Street Fighter and Final Fight series', it was high quality and very enjoyable. Sonic, of course, wasn't even close to generic (always my preference when compared with Mario), and other stuff like Altered Beast, Phantasy Star, and Virtua Fighter have all made their marks. They failed strictly because they bit off more than they could chew, not because of a weakness in software. 

Now as for Microsoft, to me, their issue has never been quality, but quantity and questionable business decisions. I'd prefer them to pump their cash into new, fresh IPs by In-House studios, rather than go after every 3rd party exclusive the PlayStation had. They don't stand out because their own studios aren't doing enough (again, just my view) against Sony, Nintendo, and Sega. They have the weakest 1st party of the bunch, but they survived because they had the cash, were smarter than Sega, and did their reseacrh to combat Sony.


In the early 90's sega wasnt generic, but at some point certain styles like arcade titles lost the style and flair of its era as we started moving towards the new millenium. Nintendo has the disney effect, which bred characters that had a marketable look and color scheme to attract the eye creating timeless characters. Sonic was the only timeless character sega ever created and it saved the Sega genesis vs Mario in megadrive/genesis. I loved Sega, but their 90's arcade approach went stale. Why does Virtua Fighter have such a slim fanbase? Because its generic. Its a pure gameplay with little look or style and very technical. Only the best of the best played it and I did until I started got my Playstation and got Tekken. I stopped playing my 32X on my Genesis and went cold turkey on the Virtua Fighter. It had interesting characters an interesting story and more. Segas games had arcade gameplay quality, but what would prompt me to buy a Dreamcast when I could play the same games at the arcade with my friends? Sega shot themselves in the foot partially for many reasons and one of them was having a superior form of their games elsewhere and playable for cheaper prices earlier on. Second of all even though they only sold like what ten million Dreamcasts, they had a ton of games pirated based on format? The quality of their games were good, but generic in style and they had been sending the wrong message to consumers since the Saturn era, which didn't last very long to begin with. 

As for Microsoft, their problem with first party will be rectified by hiring the industries best by pulling out their checkbook. Plain and simple.

Nevermind what I said about not having played many Sega games, it seems you just don't understand the definition of generic.

Carry on.


The style was once powerful in the early 90's representing what was "cool" opposed to Nintendo, but Sega suffered from tunnel vision in style moving forward into the new milenium. Where I say generic, is by definition something not having a brand name. Most of the games did not artistically fit a brand. All of Nintendos characters fit a brand style. The Sonic brand's most meldable characters were mostly all hedgehogs, Marios characters were varied and had different colors and were full of life giving them longevity in their style. I've already studied color theory recently so the way I am getting this out might not make as much sense at first. A generic product is a product without a brand name competing as a secondary to brand name products. Those characters were apart of Segas brand, but they did not fit the STYLE of a brand.

 

Pay attention to the colors and shapes in the photo. Which ones stand out the most to you? Which ones draw the eye to you? Segas color scheme was bland and repetitive and muddy at times. They barely used triad primary colors, which make up Nintendos main protagonist Mario. 

In todays lingo, generic means bland or ordinary. This was the way in which I was using it. Too much art talk I guess.



burninmylight on 11 May 2013
CGI-Quality said:
burninmylight said:


I was about to type a similar point. Everyone raves about Sega's IP nowadays, but outside of Sonic, they sold like crap. Jet Grind/Set Radio and Shenmue are the quintessential must-have hipster games now, but they sold like crap back in the day, along with Virtual On, Chu Chu Rocket, Skies of Arcadia and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.

I see people online all the time begging for a Shenmue 3 or JSR sequel (and I wouldn't mind the latter + a new Virtual On), but I can guarantee you funding those projects would be the equivalent of shoveling a pile of money into a burning furnace.

Sega games "sold like crap"? Define that and humor me. 


OK, fine. In this instance, "sold like crap" means "didn't sell enough units to recoup development costs, warrant a sequel, or push hardware." Shenmue sold 1.18 million units, an amount normally worthy of celebration back in 2000.

*UNFINISHED DRAFT, WILL RETURN*



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 11 May 2013
burninmylight said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Segas games were all generic and so were Microsofts. Halo saved Microsofts launch and they had the majority of third parties available on the Xbox. Where the third parties go the majority of gamers will go.

Sega's games were generic? I HIGHLY disagree. While Streets of Rage was very similar to Capcom's Street Fighter and Final Fight series', it was high quality and very enjoyable. Sonic, of course, wasn't even close to generic (always my preference when compared with Mario), and other stuff like Altered Beast, Phantasy Star, and Virtua Fighter have all made their marks. They failed strictly because they bit off more than they could chew, not because of a weakness in software. 

Now as for Microsoft, to me, their issue has never been quality, but quantity and questionable business decisions. I'd prefer them to pump their cash into new, fresh IPs by In-House studios, rather than go after every 3rd party exclusive the PlayStation had. They don't stand out because their own studios aren't doing enough (again, just my view) against Sony, Nintendo, and Sega. They have the weakest 1st party of the bunch, but they survived because they had the cash, were smarter than Sega, and did their reseacrh to combat Sony.


In the early 90's sega wasnt generic, but at some point certain styles like arcade titles lost the style and flair of its era as we started moving towards the new millenium. Nintendo has the disney effect, which bred characters that had a marketable look and color scheme to attract the eye creating timeless characters. Sonic was the only timeless character sega ever created and it saved the Sega genesis vs Mario in megadrive/genesis. I loved Sega, but their 90's arcade approach went stale. Why does Virtua Fighter have such a slim fanbase? Because its generic. Its a pure gameplay with little look or style and very technical. Only the best of the best played it and I did until I started got my Playstation and got Tekken. I stopped playing my 32X on my Genesis and went cold turkey on the Virtua Fighter. It had interesting characters an interesting story and more. Segas games had arcade gameplay quality, but what would prompt me to buy a Dreamcast when I could play the same games at the arcade with my friends? Sega shot themselves in the foot partially for many reasons and one of them was having a superior form of their games elsewhere and playable for cheaper prices earlier on. Second of all even though they only sold like what ten million Dreamcasts, they had a ton of games pirated based on format? The quality of their games were good, but generic in style and they had been sending the wrong message to consumers since the Saturn era, which didn't last very long to begin with. 

As for Microsoft, their problem with first party will be rectified by hiring the industries best by pulling out their checkbook. Plain and simple.


I was about to type a similar point. Everyone raves about Sega's IP nowadays, but outside of Sonic, they sold like crap. Jet Grind/Set Radio and Shenmue are the quintessential must-have hipster games now, but they sold like crap back in the day, along with Virtual On, Chu Chu Rocket, Skies of Arcadia and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.

I see people online all the time begging for a Shenmue 3 or JSR sequel (and I wouldn't mind the latter + a new Virtual On), but I can guarantee you funding those projects would be the equivalent of shoveling a pile of money into a burning furnace.


Yep. Anarchy reigns might have had futuristic characters, but everything was so wrong about the artistic direction. Very bland and there was very little harmony. 



Persistantthug on 11 May 2013

In the beggining of Microsoft's entrance, 12 and 13 years ago,

Microsoft was so angry and determined to undermine and hurt Sony for using OPEN SOURCE material, that they spent BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to make it happen, until eventually, they made it happen.

 

However, In the meantime, Microsoft lost focus on it's true most dangerous enemy....Google, and it has hurt them (Microsoft CORP) dearly.

 

In recent years, We've even seen Microsoft scale back expenditures on the Microsoft GAMES department/division.  We saw them close down ENSEMBLE Studios, shutter DIGITAL ANVIL, get rid of ACES, and disolve FASA.  Has anyone ever wondered why, Instead of Microsoft buying their good buddies BIOWARE, it had to stand by and watch EA snap them up?  it's because Microsoft GAMES has a budget and couldn't afford Bioware, or to keep those other studios open.

 

So while it was Microsoft's money that got them into the console game race.....I don't think it will be thier money that keeps them in.



Rafux on 11 May 2013

Money



Booyah on 11 May 2013
burninmylight said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


I was about to type a similar point. Everyone raves about Sega's IP nowadays, but outside of Sonic, they sold like crap. Jet Grind/Set Radio and Shenmue are the quintessential must-have hipster games now, but they sold like crap back in the day, along with Virtual On, Chu Chu Rocket, Skies of Arcadia and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.

I see people online all the time begging for a Shenmue 3 or JSR sequel (and I wouldn't mind the latter + a new Virtual On), but I can guarantee you funding those projects would be the equivalent of shoveling a pile of money into a burning furnace.


PSO was one of their best games, and it was very successful and very, very 1st party. Guess which game has a sequel? Although PSU was toilet PSO2 looks very promising.

Dreamcast was the greatest fighting game system of all time and if it had gotten more 3rd party support maybe it would have been more successful, but 3rd party games don't sell on Sega systems lol.



foodfather on 11 May 2013

Really, just money... how about more creativity, better developers and better hardware...

if Sega were so great, they would have money of their own. Sega sucks now, they sucked back then. Sega have made a business of regurgitating the same crap over and over for decades, just like Capcom, Squeenix and other weebo companies. Its about time they bit the dust and let companies like Microsoft, Ubisoft and Bathesda take over.  

~Mod Edit~

This post has been moderated.

-Smeags