Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

324

What did Sega do wrong that Sony & Nintendo got right?

Was it shit games? Or price point of the consoles?

What did Sega do wrong that Sony & Nintendo got right? Was it shit games? Or price point of the consoles?

(post is archived)

[–] • 6 pts (edited )

Master System was black Mega Drive/Genesis was black Sega CD was black 32X was black Saturn was black

They tried to save themselves with a white console but then it was already too late

Once a nigger, always a nigger

NES was white Gameboy was white SNES was white N64 was black... but it was fine because they used primitive cartridge technology to artisticly symbolize the negro brain

[–] • 6 pts

nintendo is sitting on a shit tonne of money, they focused on quality games and made sure that their brand wouldnt be damaged. not to mention they went after the casual gamers so it was more interaction and innovation vs having the highest quality hardware/graphics.

[–] • 5 pts

4 reasons, imo.

1) Sega released too many systems too quickly, leading fewer people to want the latest upgrade. In less than a decade they released the Genesis, 32X, Sega CD, Saturn, and Dreamcast. Nobody was buying a new Sega console every 1.5 years.

2) Just as it was becoming industry standard to sell consoles at a loss, then make up the profits in game sales, Sega released the Dreamcast with weak privacy protection. I had multiple friends who bought a Dreamcast but had a library of pirated games.

3) This was around the era where Sonic, once the widely beloved mascot of Sega's flagship game franchise, was starting to be seen as a little cringe by some. The games were no longer top of their genre (some were outright bad design and poor programming), and internet communities of sexual deviants were forming fandoms around the Sonic characters. It was weird.

4) Nintendo was putting out games that would be instant classics, and the PS2 had a massive library and crazy marketing. Sega would have had to bring their A game to even hope to compete, yet they had all the above problems.

[–] • 3 pts

I think a lot of it was Japanese ego and arrogance. They seemed to sort of resent how successful the Genesis was in the US and did a lot to really tighten the reigns and also rejected attempts to team up with both SGI (which Nintendo ended up doing) and Sony as well. Teaming up Sony just to remove them as competition even if you ended up getting a smaller cut of those games probably would have been the better move. Then there are other things that limited software coming out for the Saturn like not getting good dev kits out to third parties until the Saturn was all but dead. And yeah, the lack of focus on their hardware direction. But mostly I think it was Sega of Japan trying to flex and make sure everyone knows they don't answer to anyone and people answer to them is what did it.

[–] • 3 pts

PS2 = black, DVD player Dreamcast = white, no DVD player

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Dreamcast was ez pz to mod and play backup copies of games.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

I’ve worked on two games where Sega was the publisher. They seemed to have a strategy of putting devs in a position of either going out of business or becoming the property of Sega. It was so well known in the industry that the last partner devs wanted to get into bed with, was Sega.

They would do shit like change milestone deliverables. If you don’t deliver every bulletpoint when the milestone is due, Sega didn’t have to cut you a check, even if you hit 99% of the requirements. As projects dragged on, Sega seemed like they were purposely trying to get us to slip deliverables. Devs need that money to pay the staff. Once Sega detected blood in the water, they would try to buy the company for stock that had been pumped. The former owners would typically have to stay on as employees for several years until the stock vested, and by then it had settled to its true value which wasn’t that great. If Sega shows up at your door with a sack of money, be wary.

[–] • -1 pt

doesn't make sense to buy stock after it has been bumped. check ur logic

[–] • 0 pt

The choice was, give up control of your dev studio for publisher stock which you couldn’t sell until it vested, and continue developing the game. Or go out of business, in which case Sega would own all the dev work done so far because they funded the development. EA does this all the time.

No one bought any stock, nigger faggot.

[–] • -1 pt

You write like an uneducated pleb faggot nigger

[–] • 3 pts

Because Genesis does what Nintendon't.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Because there are so many Nintendopes in the world. Also, PC gaming was the hot sector in the mid to late Nineties. Not until CD gaming consoles such as the Sony Playstation came out did PC gaming experience any serious competition. And as soon as the PlayStation came out, it kicked Sega's remaining ass.

[–] • 2 pts

As a Sega loyalist, I bought the Sega Saturn which was released at around $400. I loved it, but the price was so high and the playstation was being released a month later at $300. Everyone bought the gaystation, which in my opinion, sucked balls compared to the Saturn as I later on bought one only to sell it again because all the games sucked. Saturn never seemed to recover and then the Nintendo64 came out and split the market even more. By the time the Dreamcast came around, which I bought and loved, Sega had a very small market share. When the xbox and ps2 came out, it was the end of Sega. If Sega came out with a system today, it would be the only console I would consider buying.

[–] • 1 pt

if sega came out with a new system today it would be the ouya 2.0

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

This vid pretty much covers it
https://youtu.be/GH7R2PEvzXo

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Yeah I was going to say - there are a bunch of videos about it. I just don't remember the analysis! Maybe if we had Sega systems growing up, I would have cared more.

[–] • 1 pt

Sonic just didn't collect enough rings to keep the company afloat.....

Load more (7 replies)