Which do you think was the better system? | |||
| Xbox | 26 | 46.43% | |
| Dreamcast | 30 | 53.57% | |
| Total: | 56 | ||
Can't say I was into either since I was a younging getting it's feet wet on a Gameboy Advance not far after the Dreamcast lifelight extinguished.
Anywoo, maybe I would've gel more with OG Xbox library of games due to the FPS getting really popular there to begin.
But knowadays it's quite easy to think I would gravitate towards the Dreamcast
Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909
BraLoD said:
I'm using Playstation to show you how your point stands no ground when Xbox is compared to something bigger. If Sega is close to Atari than Xbox, then Xbox is also closer to Sega than to Playstation... do you see the point? The same things you can say about Sega, using Xbox, I can say about Xbox, using Playstation, so if Sega is an one hit wonder because of this reasoning, what is different about the Xbox? I'm not trying to chance your opinion, and I'm not trying to be rude either right, because I simply don't care. The thread askes if you preffer the Xbox or the Dreamcast, after choosing the Xbox you decided to kick Sega down to futher validate your point, which needed no validation to begin with, it's your opinion, and I'm just pointing the same can be done to Xbox, because if that's your reason to pick the Xbox... it doesn't sound like a good reason at all. I feel like we both said what we should, don't want to derail the thread anymore. |
Your point is nonsensical.
If I say 8 is bigger than 6, you pointing out 10 is bigger than 8 means nothing, because 8 is still bigger than 6.
I would agree that Sony puts MS to shame in gaming, especially this generation. But Sony being better than MS doesn't have anything to do with MS vs Sega.
You are being rather silly.
3rd place is higher than 4th place. The fact 1st and 2nd exist doesn't mean suddenly 3=4.
My personal ranking would be Nintendo =Sony>>>>>MS>>>Sega
Last edited by Chrkeller - on 02 October 2024
43,882 
90s was a smaller market. Judging today's sales vs the 90s is like saying 70s NFL Qbs were shit by looking at stats alone. Practically no one threw for 4k yards in the 80s. Now they all do. Situations are different. MS modern-day sales for XBO and Series X are abysmal. 58 would be fantastic in 1999 but not in 2019. 28 million for Series 4 years in? Good for the 90s. Dismal failure now. It's about the most ignorant and narrow-minded argument. MS chased Sony and failed. They failed in Japan. MS Windows is the reason Xbox has not been shut down 15+ years ago. $$. Because Xbox was not making money but losing billions.
Interesting results in the poll; it was neck and neck for the first 24 hours, but since then Dreamcast has started to pull ahead.
Xbox sold more than twice as much as Dreamcast back in day; it seems like twenty years later DC's following remains more dedicated. Or, maybe someone just started exploiting the poll. (I hope not)
Chrkeller said:
Your point is nonsensical. If I say 8 is bigger than 6, you pointing out 10 is bigger than 8 means nothing, because 8 is still bigger than 6. I would agree that Sony puts MS to shame in gaming, especially this generation. But Sony being better than MS doesn't have anything to do with MS vs Sega. You are being rather silly. 3rd place is higher than 4th place. The fact 1st and 2nd exist doesn't mean suddenly 3=4. My personal ranking would be Nintendo =Sony>>>>>MS>>>Sega |
That's the point of the comparision, to point exactly that you saying Sega sold less than Microsoft and/or closer to Atari to claim it was an one hit wonder.
The nonsense is in you trying to use that to prove Sega was no good outside of the Mega Drive, while the very same reasoning makes the Xbox being no good outside of the 360... so what's the point in doing it? Either both are one hit wonders, thus it being pointless to call Sega out on it, or none are... thus making no sense to claim it either.
It's fine you have Sega is last place, many do, some would even put the Atari above some other brand. That's in line what was asked in the OP, not that other stuff, that doesn't even make sense, the reason why I was using the very same logic and examples to point it out to you.
Bottom line is that MS has deeper pockets than Sega. They can take the hits and keep on fighting, whereas Sega is a fraction of what they were at their apex: the Genesis days.
| Leynos said: Let's just pretend SEGA never had a lot of success in Arcades. |
SEGA were the king of arcades, and paved the way for the likes of Namco and Midway.
I'd say from technical perspective, it's hardly a comparison, XBOX by a landslide.
When it comes to library, it's up to personal taste - as primarily a computer/PC gamer, XBOX titles were more up my alley.
As only time I was involved professionally in game development, XBOX - it never went further than prototype stage, but that was a platform we were to develope for.
BraLoD said:
That's the point of the comparision, to point exactly that you saying Sega sold less than Microsoft and/or closer to Atari to claim it was an one hit wonder. The nonsense is in you trying to use that to prove Sega was no good outside of the Mega Drive, while the very same reasoning makes the Xbox being no good outside of the 360... so what's the point in doing it? Either both are one hit wonders, thus it being pointless to call Sega out on it, or none are... thus making no sense to claim it either. It's fine you have Sega is last place, many do, some would even put the Atari above some other brand. That's in line what was asked in the OP, not that other stuff, that doesn't even make sense, the reason why I was using the very same logic and examples to point it out to you. |
I actually don't think MS is exactly great, so I'm fine calling them a one hit wonder.
But your argument, sorry, is really stupid. "8 isn't bigger than 6 because of 10!"
And it isn't just sales but also legacy and impact. Sega has very little has impact.
Sega has been irrelevant for 30 years. MS actually matters today. MS has also been in the hardware business LONGER than Sega.
| Leynos said: 90s was a smaller market. Judging today's sales vs the 90s is like saying 70s NFL Qbs were shit by looking at stats alone. Practically no one threw for 4k yards in the 80s. Now they all do. Situations are different. MS modern-day sales for XBO and Series X are abysmal. 58 would be fantastic in 1999 but not in 2019. 28 million for Series 4 years in? Good for the 90s. Dismal failure now. It's about the most ignorant and narrow-minded argument. MS chased Sony and failed. They failed in Japan. MS Windows is the reason Xbox has not been shut down 15+ years ago. $$. Because Xbox was not making money but losing billions. |
Top 20 includes Atari, NES, GBA and SNES. The ps1 was the 90s. The ps2 launched one year after the DC and is the best selling console of all time.
Don't make excuses for Sega failing. Market size isn't why they failed.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
