Could you give more specifics? Like how Sega made the Saturn more successful, and to what degree?

I don't want to be a nitpicker, but these sorts of factors make a huge difference. If you were to ask the same question about the GameCube for example, I wouldn't know if it was because of Nintendo's lineup, third party support, marketing, or any of a dozen other factors.

I can make up my own "Saturn Suceeds" scenario and work from there, but if you had anything in mind, it'd be good to know.

for the record, the Gamecube is falsely thought of as a 'failure', Nintendo didn't sell a kajillion hardware but they made a good deal more money in profit that Gen from the Gamecube than Microsoft and Sony did from the Xbox / PS2. 

also this is a strange question in my opinion because the Saturn doing well wouldn't magically stop the Dreamcast from being a planned mess with huge overspending on its development and the development of projects like Shenmue. as far as I know Sega was not even THAT financially successful off of the Genesis, I get the impression the company never had an organized strategy 

This is all just my theory but had the Saturn worked, the PS1 obviously wouldn't have since Sega had a lock on the "mature" audience that Sony capitalized. So, I think nothing would have been that different with the exception of Sega's place in the industry. It would have been Dreamcast, Xbox and then Gamecube instead of PS2, Xbox and then Gamecube. 

In order for the Saturn to have been successful, it would 1) need to have been launched at a much more competitive price point, i.e. $299 or lower, and 2) have consistent 3rd party support beyond the first couple of years of its life.

What really doomed the Saturn (beyond its botched launch) was that the PlayStation started scooping up all the big 3rd party titles. While it did receive ports of games like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil and Wipeout, the PS1 was generally the lead platform for these titles, and after 1996 3rd parties began to move away from the Saturn altogether and focus mainly on the PS1.

Had the Saturn been competitively priced at launch and received most of the same 3rd party non-exclusive titles the PS1 did, it's likely the console would've been more successful, but I still don't think it would have been as successful as its predecessor, and would probably still have finished a distant 3rd in sales behind the PS1 and N64.

Edit: Also, the Saturn hardware was a bitch to program for and was poorly designed for 3D games which obviously defined the 5th gen of consoles, so to add to my first two points, 3) the Saturn architecture would have to have been redesigned to make it more developer friendly and better focused on the coming wave of 3D gaming.

Yeah in a thread like this I think a good alternate history scenario proposition off the bat helps. I mean how about shift the release date back to line up with when devs thought it would be and possibly a price decrease. Then maybe have better direction so that instead of being a great 2D console you make it in 3D

I honestly struggle to think how the Saturn could have sold well, the best case scenario for that system would have been 20m if it had some killer aps.

You didnt answer his question, in this what-if scenario, what did it do differently to be more successful?