I don't think it's wrong to describe Sega as a one hit wonder in terms of commercial success in the console market, but I would say that this doesn't necessarily mean their less successful systems had nothing to offer.

Sales and quality don't necessarily go hand in hand.

All Sega consoles have some underrated gems.  Shining Force 1 through 3.  Dragon Force, Skies of Arcadia.  I always that PS 4 was amazing.  

But we all know VGChartz polls are tiny and not indicative of what the larger community thinks. Results on bigger forums could be a lot closer and may favor Xbox, especially forums with larger Xbox/PC/western-game-centric presence.

Dreamcast does have a very large dedicated fanbase relative to its install base. And the fact that Sega fans remain so loud is a testiment to Sega's inspiration and impact. But Dreamcast has a special significance in that it was Sega's final console. So... had Sega stayed in the business and launched successors, Dreamcast would not have been quite as memorable, because the fanbase would have been busy hyping up the new toys from their favourite company, and less busy talking about an old and dead platform.

I actually didn't own a Dreamcast, but I very much respect what a great piece of kit it was for its time and the many standout games it brought to the table.

I did (and still do) own an original Xbox, and I thought it was an excellent system thanks to games such as Halo 1/2, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Star Wars Battlefront, Crimson Skies, Doom 3, etc.

Oh I know, the sample size here is far too small to make any definitive statements about the overall gamer population, I was just speaking in general terms.

We're on a niche enthusiast forum after all, so there's a higher chance folks here were among the relative few who actually had a Dreamcast in the first place.

I'd like to give a perspective that you can take with a grain of salt.
I've never played a Dreamcast, but I have played an Xbox a few times.
I feel like I would probably pick Xbox because of the Star Wars games (namely Battlefront and KOTOR), better controller (never used Dreamcast but the controller looks awkward and lacks a second stick and bumpers), and better specs.
Be that as it may, I'd buy a Dreamcast way before I'd buy an Xbox. The hardware itself is maybe about 20% more expensive and almost any Xbox game I want to play I can play on Xbox 360 or Xbox One.

Xbox had a multi-billion dollar corporation backing it. Sega on the other hand had to sink or swim financially. If Xbox had been spun off from MS as its own company in 2001 Xbox would be dead by the end of the 360 era or before. Sega was in the console market for 18 years on its own two feet.

Fair. Pretty sure the Master System and its Japan only predecessor were profitable. The market was so much smaller back then, though. In a different comparison, an indie movie with a budget of about a million that makes a few million in total isn't necessarily a hit.

32X, Saturn, and Dreamcast were all commercial failures. CD probably was a failure as well. Sega spent over a generation of its hardware existence losing money.

In all fairness, Xbox lost billions on their first console alone. But it's Microsoft with a massive war chest. 

I meant more that a console can be commercially unsuccessful and still have a lot to offer to the right person; the Saturn and Dreamcast have quite a few excellent games for instance, while beyond Sega the Gamecube and Wii U have their followers despite being failures.

Quality is a subjective metric and varies depending on personal taste, and the thread is more about which people consider better rather than which was more successful.

Microsoft Gaming revenue is 15 billion annually...  so no, that isn't true.  Microsoft Gaming is incredibly profitable and successful.  

People forget how bad Sega were when they were still around. Great company and history but don't let nostalgia get in the way of reality.