$$$$$ *cash register sound*

That's not the whole story of course, but it was a major factor.

Easy answer: Because Microsoft is (SLIGHTLY) more business savvy, and because Sega never had massive corporate backing so that losses on every console sold were just a drop in the bucket? Just a thought.

Hes got a point tho, a company like Nintendo can survive solely on there 1st party titles but Sega while having some great games has never really had many huge sellers outside of Sonic

Genesis had good 3rd party support, the same cant be said for Saturn and by the time Dreamcast came out Iit was too late.

Sony has a few big sellers Uncharted & God of War usually sell 5mil+, Microsoft also has Forza which I believe does around 5mil and Gears which does 5mil+. Sega has some great games but I cant think of any besdies Sonic that have ever done over 3mil

I agree earlier I said the reason they didnt succeed Iis because of the many mistakes they made with 32x and Saturn which led to them being broke by the time they fixed there problems. I was just commenting on ur guys argument abouy sega games selling well

I just don't get the lazy answer of money, the situations were completely different. Sega mismanaged themselves into failure over a 5 year period during which time they released lots of bad hardware. By the time the Dreamcast came, all faith in the brand was practically gone, I really didn't bother about it and neither did my friends who had been Sega fans since their teen years.

Microsoft haven't had it easy entering the business like Sony and Sega. Sega entered at a time when the industry was just recovering. The fact Nintendo had licensing policies that pushed third parties towards the Sega platform helped enormously, let's not forget that the arcade division of Sega pretty much made their brand too with the promise of the arcade experience in your home.

Sony had most of the development of the PS1 split between them and Nintendo, they had a free leg up into the market. Shrewd marketing and poor decisions by both Nintendo and Sega allowed them to get a strong foot hold. Once established they went on in strength, the PS2 was sailing on the crest of a wave, all the best franchises seemed to be on the console and the price was right compared to rivals.

Microsoft have entered the console market going up against the best selling console of all time, they had limited time to build first party studios and they made a poor decision on hardware that meant they struggled for the next 4 years to reduce costs. They had no help from their competitors making mistakes to get a foothold, they've spent a lot because they've had no choice. Had the RROD not occurred the sales figures today would be very different and you can be assured the original Xbox debt would have been recovered.

Microsoft may have spent money to build to where they are now but that isn't the reason they've stayed here, they've actually ran a reasonably tight ship but paid a hefty price for a couple of mistakes.

Sega beat MS to the punch with a centralized online gaming network on consoles with SegaNet. Hell they even charged fees to play online, and gave away consoles for a cheaper price with IIRC a one and a half year contract to SegaNet.

MS took their idea and expanded on it and improved it in virtually every way and added tons of their own stuff. Not to mention backed it with the billions of dollars the undertaking took. But they owe a lot of it to Sega because per usual, Sega paved the way.

You really could say money AND innovation lead to Sega's demise. They were always too far ahead of their own time and paid for it dearly and eventually just ran out of funds.

I never said they left hardware because most of their games didn't sell well. I never made that claim. There are many reasons why Sega had to get out of the hardware biz, and that's hardly one of the bigger ones. But now I realize you never got my whole point to begin with; you just took offense to me "downsizing" (didn't realize I had the power to fire employees to reduce the company in size, I never got that memo) it.

You claim I know nothing about Sega and my opinion is rubbish, yet I used the exact same reasoning you did when it comes to sequels. Then you suddenly decided that reasoning isn't good for anything, even going so far as to chastise my response for its length because I gave plenty of examples that countered your few. Funny how that works.

If you care to take your head out of your ass, you would remember my whole point was that for all of the games Sega was pushing out during their time as a hardware maker, they really weren't selling well, yet we cry for them like the second coming of Christ. There are some exceptions, but go and look at a list of the games it published and see that the majority of those games didn't make an impact at retail. As a recent example, look at the way the Nights Into Dreams fanbase cryed for a sequel for years. You would have thought the Wii sequel would have flown off the shelves, yet it managed only a modest but respectable 380k units. For you to try to turn this whole thing into a "hurr durr but datz not y dey left da hardweyr bitnizz ur dum!" argument either means you missed the whole point and wasted both of our times, or you're really trying to find away out of this.

Oh gosh, I'm afraid I've typed too much for you to comprehend. TL:DR - way to miss the point, genius.

You think so? I believe the opposite: the Dreamcast and every console since killed the arcade scene (here in America, at least). What made the arcade scene so great here was that you had all these ultra powerful, state of the art machines either playing games you couldn't get at home or playing them on a level not possible on a console. The Dreamcast is when consoles really started to catch up to the arcadses, and suddenly Virtua Fighter 3tb, Soul Calibur, Crazy Taxi and the like suddenly weren't so special when you went out. Why waste 75 cents (I wish they were still only 25-50 cents in the late 90s!) on King of Fighters or House of the Dead when I got the game at home?

The arcade machines that survived were the ones that you couldn't replicate at home: the Dance Dance Revolutions, the Mo Cap Boxing, the ones that used some peripheral that wasn't available on a home console. Otherwise, the only reason to sink quarters into an arcade machine was to play some stranger in Soul Calibur who looked like he might be good.

By the way, be sure to quote me so I don't miss your response.

I'm well aware of the policy. I thought the saying goes you aren't a real member here until you get banned at least once. Either way, I don't care. You're obsessed with this apparent task you've given me of disproving what you said and amusing you, and apparently this gives you some manner of joy, to the point where you're wearing blinders to everything else. This just proves what I've long suspected; this whole debate with you would almost be a waste of my time, but the one thing I've gained from it is a more firm belief in my original post after doing the research. So I guess I should thank you in that regard.