What would gaming have been like if Sega didn’t fail and Microsoft never entered the console space?

i wonder what it would have been like if microsoft arrived a gen earlier, during the psone/n64/saturn era. the controller would look like this

iu
 
Last edited:
Since Sega is so similar to Nintendo and don't have 3 trillion dollars to fall back on....there wouldn't have been an acquisition spree.

Sega probably would still have full console exclusives.

Those wishing MS didn't release their games every where would like Sega. Maybe Sega also don't embrace PC gaming like MS has.

Interesting time line for sure tho.
 
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
One thing I have to disagree with you on, though, is SEGA not charging for online play. They definitely did; if you remember, they did a $199 rebate with Dreamcast during 2000 where you basically got a year of SEGA.Net free with the rebate, as long as you bought the Dreamcast.
Click to expand...
That was a promotion though. It's basically no different than getting a free iPhone by signing up for BoostMobile or a free PS3 for test driving the latest Jeep vehicle, or whoever still does these promos.

SEGA.net was basically just the official ISP for the Dreamcast, but you could use any ISP you wanted (aside from the free ones and AOL) to get online with your Dreamcast. No extra costs were involved to play online, just like anyone with a PC today.
There was no paywall.

The $199 rebate deal was just one of many service incentives that were popular back during the dot-com boom era. You could even get a Mac or PC computer for free back then just for agreeing for them to load it up with spyware.
 
hououinkyouma00 said:
What does Gaf think?
Was it possible for Sega to succeed?
Would Microsoft had entered the fray anyway despite there not being an obvious opening?
What would a modern Sega console/ecosystem look like?
How would PC gaming change as as a result?
Click to expand...
Cool, fun questions

- My gut reaction to your thread title was being all in on more Dreamcast. For me, not to sound zesty, but that was honestly kind of a magical time.
- I think the PlayStation 2 made it impossible for Sega to succeed.
- I'm not sure if Microsoft would've entered the console business. I can see them still trying, but in this hypothetical with Sega being successful *and* PlayStation 2 still happening, I think the PS2 would've made it impossible for MS to succeed as well.
- I think Sega would've evolved the VMU idea and just integrated it into their controller with a more modernized screen (touch, decent resolution, color/backlit). I also think Sega would've been the first to come out with a digital only console.
- I don't really know enough about PC gaming to really comment on how it would've changed. I suppose PC-only people would consider getting the platform if they loved Sega's first party, but from the outside looking in PC people seem like they kinda... stay PC people. Like I almost always hear console -> PC, almost never the opposite.
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Offering a free online gaming services in the early '00s on mass market consoles, that was actually quality, was not easy.



If SEGA stayed as a platform holder, Sonic Heroes would've been better at launch same with Sonic '06 (which was literally halved in dev resources so they could get a Wii Sonic game out in 2006 as well).



Yep; SA1 & 2 definitely aren't perfect but they're a lot better than people give them credit for these days. And if you look at some of the code & features of SM64 you'd realize just how haphazard aspects of that game are, and how parts of its design are literally held up by duct tape.

Very fun duct tape, but duct tape all the same.



What made a lot of SEGA games in their console run great was that, they always had a strong pick-up-and-play mentality with mechanics that had a lot of depth without getting overinvolved in minutia obscurities and excessive micromanagement, while also generally having strong pacing. Even in very console-orientated games like Shining Force III (currently playing Scenario 2), Panzer Dragoon Saga, Sonic Adventure etc. you can see this, and it's likely influenced by their arcade pedigree.

So that, emphasis on high framerates, clean visuals with bright & poppy colors, high-energy soundtracks, and games that did well at not taking themselves too seriously or trying to make grand statements on issues gamers play games to typically get away from....I feel a lot of that either died or dropped off heavily once SEGA stopped making consoles. You still see it in some Nintendo games (ironically they also have a long arcade history although it's more subdued than SEGA's), and certain 3P games & franchises (i.e maybe some Capcom & Bandai-Namco games, various indies), but it's not a driving force in the industry anymore like it was when SEGA still made consoles.

And that's a sad reality, increasingly so when I see the general state of the industry these days just deteriorating on multiple fronts.



GTA3/Vice City/San Andreas & PS2 had just as much if not more an impact than Xbox & Halo, and even if Halo wasn't a thing (it would've been; they were originally making it for the Mac), games like Half-Life 2 would've still came and innovated FPS genre.

I think without Xbox, we wouldn't have seen the rise of Western PC devs shifting towards prioritizing console development with 360. But then, they would've just stuck to PC, MS would've focused on PC and maybe PC gaming wouldn't have gone through a dark age it almost died to if it weren't for Valve & Steam.



I think this is an interesting way of seeing MS's early effect on gaming; they basically took the controversial approach that worked with Windows & PC, and applied a form of that to console gaming. Even if they just got out of an antitrust lawsuit, console gaming was a smaller industry than computers & computer OSes, and not seen as a vital market either (i.e you didn't need a console for business, school & work).

So if regulatory eyes weren't really eying the console market too much during that time, it wouldn't have been hard for MS to take some of the Wintel strats and apply them to gaming. One thing I have to disagree with you on, though, is SEGA not charging for online play. They definitely did; if you remember, they did a $199 rebate with Dreamcast during 2000 where you basically got a year of SEGA.Net free with the rebate, as long as you bought the Dreamcast.

It was SEGA's way of a last gambit to drive sales ahead of PS2's American launch, but it didn't work.



Basically true. Although, considering the market at the time, the Master System was somewhat successful in Europe and Brazil. Same with Genesis/MegaDrive.

Though on that note, yeah, I think the leaked fiscal document definitely showed that Genesis's success in America might've been exaggerated. Retailers pumping the channel with tons of units for holiday shoppers and then forcing SOA to rebuy all unsold stock afterwards was devastating to the finances. That SEGA didn't even have consolidated accounting at the time just delayed any chance of fixing the problem sooner vs. later, which screwed them over in the end.

It actually makes me wonder if the Genesis ever outsold the SNES in sold-through numbers, in America, any point post-SNES's release. Basically, any year between 1992 and 1994, I wonder if SNES actually outsold Genesis in sold-through during the time. And, if the typical numbers we get about Genesis market share in those years are based on sold-in amounts (and maybe even only looking at the hardware sales)?

Certainly possible in hindsight. Still though, none of that diminishes the Genesis in my eyes; it's still my first game console ever and I love it dearly.
Click to expand...

Soon as I wrote it, I said to my self what about the Master System and the UK primarily. That is probably the one bright spot for Sega. Great machine, under appreciated in North America. I loved mine to bits.

If we believe the theory that the Genesis and Sega paid it forward, had plenty of stock returned later, and unsold consoles sitting on shelves in warehouses (which counted towards 'sales' only to be returned and unsold). It does bring into question the sales numbers for the consoles in North America. They may have done really well in 91/92, then bleed returns and money starting in 1993 into 94/95. From what I recall even Sega of Japan was duped by Sega Usa and their creative accounting of sold/shipped/returned.

At the end of the day, Genesis was a great console with great games. I still prefer it over the SNES.
 
Sega made plenty of mistakes...but man I miss the energy around the Dreamcast. That console just had so many weird ass games (Seaman, Skies of Arcadia, Space Channel 5, Power Stone, etc.), the VMUs being these memory cards that also worked as little mini-game portables, and you still had oodles of great arcade ports. For console that had 1.5-2 years of life in the States, there was so much stuff on it I liked.

If Sega didn't fail in the hypothetical, that would mean that all the arcade stuff would've likely still lived on, and maybe arcadey sports games wouldn't be near dead on the vine outside of indies.

I don't think PC gaming would've changed much beyond Microsoft putting potentially more effort in it, and Sega already had a relationship with them on the Dreamcast, so I think the everything multi-plat present we live in would've happened regardless. Valve would've taken over regardless of Sega succeeding or Microsoft not putting out a console.
 
Easy. Phantasy Star would have killed the Final Fantasy series & we'd currently have Phantasy Star 16 & Phantasy Star online 14. ;)
 
PlayStation 1 would have had to complete against another "cool teenager" console, maybe wouldn't have tried it at all because of a perceived market saturation.

PC was (and still is imho) on another level games wise, and isn't influenced by consoles.
 
Last edited:
bad guy said:
PlayStation 1 would have had to complete against another "cool teenager" console, maybe wouldn't have tried it at all because of a perceived market saturation.
Click to expand...
5th gen wouldn't change in this what if scenario it starts at gen 6 if Microsoft didn'r join and Sega didn't leave.
 
NT80 said:
The Shenmue series would've been completed.
Click to expand...
I do wonder if Yu Suzuki is a Trails in the Sky fan. Seems like Falcom are doing exactly what Yu Suzuki was planning, with this big-ass overarching story, spanning a multitude of games.
 
PC would of still been 1st party like it was in the late 90's and there would of been less bad ports over the years, can't answer for Sega, but they would probably be still releasing Consoles, maybe.
 
ShadyAcshuns said:
We probably wouldn't have achievements and trophies, no subscription services, no mtx, no GaaS games and more single player games. In other words: it would have been great, probably.
Click to expand...
SEGA was already in that space with their early mobile phone games in japan from 2001 onwards. So had they still been involved in mainstream gaming consoles, the gaas would have most likely be part of it.
 
luxsol said:
This is absolutely ignorant of the history of online gaming.

There were a bunch of pay to play online services back in the 90s on PC. heat.net, kali, and various others. Others like Gamespy had a tiered service where online gaming was free, but something like voice chat required a monthly fee. And all of these services basically existed because most publishers/developers only allowed multiplayer by directly connecting to one another, with your computer dialing up with its modem to directly connect to another computer. So these services actually offered a substantial boon for gamers.
And when developers/publishers started making their own online matchmaking services for their games, the vast majority of these services died or became free. Blizzard basically started a trend with battle.net that other companies copied: they'll sell more games if you make it easy to play against people.

So in comes Microsoft with Xbox Live. MS basically cockblocked publishers/developers from using their own services that they started in the late 90s/early 00s and instead they needed to use MS's tools/services. How did MS convince these companies to go along with the Xbox Live scheme? Moneyhats. Various forms of compensation and promises. No other company but MS could bankroll so many companies like this and a lot of companies took advantage of MS's generosity in many ways (level 5, sega, etc). So now companies expected to be compensated and given tools for free for putting their games online for consoles, especially after the Xbox 360 became popular.
If MS hadn't come in with their backwards 1990s scheme, video game companies would still be chasing after higher sales for their games by making their own free services. And no company had piles of cash just laying around to waste on going backwards like MS did (muchless even lower a licensing fee for dozens of companies) to put their games behind a pay wall to convince consumers to pay up.

And this brings up another problem with MS, they basically made paid exclusives a thing too. SEGA, Nintendo and Sony before that weren't paying millions of dollars to make a game exclusive for their consoles. Exclusives before Xbox were basically limitations of technology (CDs vs carts) or small budgets/teams where they couldn't port games.

Seriously, MS got fucking lucky that online gaming was still so limited for consoles when they brought in the Xbox. The Dreamcast was the first console to come with a modem included, so if it hadn't failed, it would have had more popular online multiplayer games. Console gamers would have gotten used to NOT paying to play games online and this would be the expectation for console gamers going forward. This is why it's so difficult to get PC gamers to pay for any gaming services since the 00s, because PC gamers are used to NOT paying to play their games online. Maybe you're right that in 20 years, maybe another company would come along to try and rip people off like Microsoft did with Xbox Live, but the vast majority of console gamers wouldn't put up with it after experiencing free online play..
Unfortunately, the reality is that console gamers got used to paying to play online and it's now seen huge source of profit for console makers now.
Click to expand...
I agree with many of your points but I don't think SEGA would have been that much different to what MS and sony did when it comes to live gaming. You mentioned HEAT.Net. Well HEAT.Net was a subsidiary of SEGA via their Segasoft operation. When you add the MegaModem on the japanese megadrive and how they were operating when it came to payment, It doesnt take much to assume had SEGA not left the home game console market, that live service games would inevitably come into play. Would it have followed the format we have now? Personally it might have since SEGA had those type of pay to play the next level type of games etc for mobile phones as early as 2001 to 2003. And that model or a similar one crept into home console gaming. So i'm not sure SEGA wouldn't have done it had they not left the console market considering they were fully into it.
As for MS, the only reason to me why they were successful with the first Xbox was because they capitalized on SEGA's dreamcast assets. Halo was originally a Dreamcast game and project gotham was basically Metropolis Street Racer. As well as the whole PC in a box marketing which SEGA also used to a degree with DC in getting some main PC titles to the platform. To me, SEGA's issue when it comes to consoles has been the Japanese management. My assertion was the Dreamcast needed another full year in the states. Considering that was the DC's best market. The fact that SOJ pulled the plug yet carried on releasing games for it into 2002 in japan, its least successful market, was a slap in the face to many western DC fans at the time. SEGA could have easily just carried thru with the games that was due to be released for DC in 2001 while at the same time shutting down their japanese DC operations and switch to third party instead of doing it the other way around. Because of this, MS was free to pick up the pieces and establish their own brand.
 
If Sega hadn't fallen with the Dreamcast...it would have fallen with the next one, trying to build a machine on par with the PS3 and going bankrupt. It already had too many errors, MegaCD, 32X, Saturn, Dreamcast, etc...
 
Horseganador said:
If Sega hadn't fallen with the Dreamcast...it would have fallen with the next one, trying to build a machine on par with the PS3 and going bankrupt. It already had too many errors, MegaCD, 32X, Saturn, Dreamcast, etc...
Click to expand...
my guess is they would have used off the shelf x86 pc parts instead of something like CELL
 
Horseganador said:
If Sega hadn't fallen with the Dreamcast...it would have fallen with the next one, trying to build a machine on par with the PS3 and going bankrupt. It already had too many errors, MegaCD, 32X, Saturn, Dreamcast, etc...
Click to expand...
The Mega CD/SEGA CD wasn't an error and I dunno why people assume it was. It was quite a successful add on. The 32x/Saturn was an error, 32x shouldn't have been made while the saturn's real downfall was internal politics that messed up its american launch. Not that it would have changed much due to the consumer base brought in by sony after 97 was not the same base that was around in 95. And I doubt SEGA would have had much trouble with the PS3 since the DC didn't have trouble when it came to PS2 graphics wise.
 
The games would be basically the same, there would just be less FPS.But it's hard to think of Microsoft outside of this business, because Microsoft is directly related to the sabotage against Sega behind the scenes.

source Bernie Stolar and former Criterion employee
 
Geometric-Crusher said:
The games would be basically the same, there would just be less FPS.But it's hard to think of Microsoft outside of this business, because Microsoft is directly related to the sabotage against Sega behind the scenes.

source Bernie Stolar and former Criterion employee
Click to expand...
Would there have been? SEGA out of all the japanese companies in the early to mid nineties, were heavily invested in western development. As FPS started to emerge, SEGA had at least several FPS games they were involved in during that time including Congo for Saturn and Vigilance a TPS from Segasoft. Had the DC not died in 2001, and Halo was released for DC and became the breakthrough for the genre on that platform, things would most likely have played similar to what happened with Xbox and the following 360 era.
 
CLW said:
I doubt we have subscription services at all and online play is probably free
Click to expand...
Sega had the "Sega Channel" in the mid 90's.. downloadable genesis games
Also SegaNet in the US for $22 a month for Dreamcast

They were well ahead of their time with subscriptions
 
Last edited:
SEGA was and is a huge part of video game history. They had the right people making games that's for sure. SEGA has been on a comeback lately and with the OG games getting reboots soon I'm excited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What are the games stuck on Consoles that you would like to see on Steam?
2
84
3K
MrRibeye replied
  • Poll
Are Microsoft quitting the console hardware market?
2
86
87
Kvally replied
Forbes: Marathon Info - Bungie's "Morale is in “free-fall” - “The vibes have never been worse.”
8 9 10 11 12
553
1K
ChorizoPicozo replied
What old game(s) would you like to see the Oblivion Remaster treatment?
2 3
134
848
Dr. Wilkinson replied
Xbox console gamers, would you like the next console to be a pc/console hybrid?
2
94
4K
SteadyEvo replied
Top Bottom