Support NeoGAF

[RoboFu]

Is this some kind of dogma or mantra? I already explained that the PS1 sold a lot of games and that the money was reinvested.

It's not a mantra it's just the truth. Sony leveraged it resources to block games going to Saturn.

But also Sega hurt themselves and helped push publishers away from the Saturn so it wasn't JUST Sony"s excellent marketing and business tactics. Sega had multiple chances courting third parties but just had too much internal turmoil to get anything done.


If you really think about it.. Sonys PlayStation rise was a perfect storm of both Nintendo and sega massively fucking up across the board. It was a 1 in million shot where the stars aligned perfectly.

 

[cireza]

Odd of you to, out of the blue, rope N64 into this.

I didn't. It was brought by the person I was answering to.

 

[Alexios]

Everybody falls back to the PlayStation sold more argument like that proves everything Sony was superior and everything Sega sucked basically, but sure didn't want to sing the same tune when Wii/DS dominated everybody (I mean, look at the big clown's frothing over Nintendo's success tag)​

I have many of the games on your list and they run just fine.

Yes, I don't see how these are amazing on PlayStation/shit on Saturn, overblown bs. Blam! Machinehead is fine on Saturn (which got the better AMOK). Random shovelware like Die Hard Trilogy/4x4/Toshinden that is (in not all iterations) crappier on Saturn, this is what they bought/love PS for?

But Die Hard Arcade/Virtua Fighter Remix/2/Cop/2/Sega Rally etc. aren't good enough? I'd stick to 16bit games over the above! Trolls always make sure to skip (bigger & better than Die Hard Trilogy etc.) games that are roughly equal or better on the Saturn when building these "random" lists



But okay, I get it, slightly lower framerates/mesh transparencies make Saturn 3D shit, lower frames in characters/backgrounds/everywhere and missing layers/whatever on the PS in 2D/2.5D games don't matter, look identical to me/in stills, fuck off my beloved PS sold more & got more games

Of course one can always enjoy PS exclusive games like Syphon Filter with far from flawless framerate, they're amazing because they're ambitious games that push the system, but multiplatform games like Tomb Raider or WipEout XL that run similarly or better on the Saturn are unplayable shit​

 

[diffusionx]

It's not a mantra it's just the truth. Sony leveraged it resources to block games going to Saturn.

But also Sega hurt themselves and helped push publishers away from the Saturn so it wasn't JUST Sony"s excellent marketing and business tactics. Sega had multiple chances courting third parties but just had too much internal turmoil to get anything done.


If you really think about it.. Sonys PlayStation rise was a perfect storm of both Nintendo and sega massively fucking up across the board. It was a 1 in million shot where the stars aligned perfectly.

it's easy to say in hindsight but Sega has massive advantages over Sony going into that gen, like, you know, development studios, experience with hardware, knowledge of the videogame market, relationships with videogame studios, success against an entrenched competitor, and a base of loyal fans. That is all stuff that is, if anything, more important than money. Sega managed to build an audience when Nintendo had a de facto monopoly and had an entire business model built around blocking games going to Sega systems.

The fact that they frittered it all away has very little to do with Sony and everything to do with Sega's bad management.

 

[RoboFu]

it's easy to say in hindsight but Sega has massive advantages over Sony going into that gen, like, you know, development studios, experience with hardware, knowledge of the videogame market, relationships with videogame studios, success against an entrenched competitor, and a base of loyal fans. That is all stuff that is, if anything, more important than money. Sega managed to build an audience when Nintendo had a de facto monopoly and had an entire business model built around blocking games going to Sega systems.

The fact that they frittered it all away has very little to do with Sony and everything to do with Sega's bad management.

I agree but that still doesn't negate the fact that Sony DID indeed make agreements with publishers to block games from going to the Saturn. Both things can be true.

 

[diffusionx]

I agree but that still doesn't negate the fact that Sony DID indeed make agreements with publishers other than block games from going to the Saturn. Both things can be true.

it is true - but Sega did well against a competitor that did the same thing in the past, in fact, much worse. There were Psygnosis games on Saturn.

 

[cireza]

Or games like Die Hard Trilogy that were crap on both just slightly crappier on Saturn

The racing game is actually pretty well done on Saturn as far as I remember.

 

[RetroAV]

I honestly don't get how anyone can pin Sega's downfall on Kalinske or Sega of America. These are the same people who ended Nintendo's monopoly and turned Sega into a household name with the Genesis. Without them, Sega never even gets to the point where the Saturn matters.

The real failure came from Sega of Japan. They ignored Kalinske's warnings, pushed out an overpriced, overly complex Saturn that wasn't built to compete with Sony's 3D focus, and then left Sega of America holding the bag. Blaming the 32X is just lazy. It was a stopgap, abandoned almost immediately, and moving its tiny library to the Saturn wouldn't have saved anything. The idea that it "killed" the Saturn is revisionist nonsense.

And let's be clear: the Genesis was still profitable in '94–'95. Supporting it didn't sink Sega. The Saturn did. That system bled money at a scale the Genesis never could. If you want to point fingers, point them where they belong — at Sega of Japan's shortsighted strategy and refusal to listen to the people who had just led Sega to its greatest success.

Trying to rewrite history so that all of this lands on Kalinske is not just unfair — it's flat-out wrong.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

It made money sure, but the initial investment was just insane.

I already said that Sega's initial investment was the same, in the same hierarchy. The difference is that Sony made a lot of money selling its games while on the Saturn the games flopped (in that period the Saturn's installed base was bigger than the PS1's).

And these games that sold, where did they come from, and how, to begin with ? From third parties, through marketing deals and partnerships.

Sega also made deals but none of that matters if the consumer of Sega products doesn't buy the games.
Even without third-party games, Sony's first-party games outsold Sega's games, especially 1996 games like Twisted Metal 2, PaRappa the Rapper, and more.

 

[cireza]

I already said that Sega's initial investment was the same, in the same hierarchy.

You have nothing to backup this claim and it goes against what we witnessed back then.

There is no way that the investments from SEGA are comparable in any scale to the total amount of money Sony poured into making the PS1, manufacturing themselves the components and cd-drive, buying the companies they needed to make the tools, buying the third parties partnerships through marketing deals, totally flooding the video-game communication landscape with ads everywhere including TV, and buying total exclusivity for games and series. And, finally, buying the developers entirely.

 

[NeverYouMind]

What stops the N64 to have arcade perfect ports of CPS2 games like the Saturn had, if they used the 32MB carts? Theres plenty of CPU speed, more RAM and a capable video hardware for the task.

The single worst controller ever in a genre that relies on having responsive and ergonomic controls. You would literally be better off using a Guitar Hero controller to play CPS2 ports on PS2.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

There is no way that the investments from SEGA are comparable in any scale to the total amount of money Sony poured into making the PS1

but it was, even if you refuse to believe it
You're wrong to think that Sony's strategy had a high cost while Sega's was done at zero cost.
I have data compiled from various sources, from magazines to later interviews, that proves that for 18 months, Sega and Sony competed on equal terms. You look like the xbots that confuse the xbox division and Microsoft corporation.

 

[cireza]

but it was, even if you refuse to believe it
You're wrong to think that Sony's strategy had a high cost while Sega's was done at zero cost.
I have data compiled from various sources, from magazines to later interviews, that proves that for 18 months, Sega and Sony competed on equal terms. You look like the xbots that confuse the xbox division and Microsoft corporation.

First of all, I certainly didn't say SEGA had invested zero. Where did you even take this from ?

Secondly, you always talk about your famous data or whatever. Share this data if you are that confident in it, after all, you made this thread.
But data doesn't mean much and getting the full picture through extracts of old data, out of context, partial etc... is going to be hardly convincing.
I would be also very wary of interviews of people 30 years later that are just going to say whatever other people want to hear.

However, having lived through that period in France, I can tell you that the constant communication bashing from Sony was unprecedented. And this, for sure, cost a shitton of money. The amount of TV ads, just name these, was absolutely insane.

Look, here is one :


Not a single frame of the actual visuals of the game. Typical Sony communication.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

It's not a mantra it's just the truth. Sony leveraged it resources to block games going to Saturn.

But also Sega hurt themselves and helped push publishers away from the Saturn so it wasn't JUST Sony"s excellent marketing and business tactics. Sega had multiple chances courting third parties but just had too much internal turmoil to get anything done.


If you really think about it.. Sonys PlayStation rise was a perfect storm of both Nintendo and sega massively fucking up across the board. It was a 1 in million shot where the stars aligned perfectly.

Tell me, why and how did Nintendo 64 manage to survive the PS1? no pokemon, question is about the N64

 

[NeverYouMind]

Tell me, why and how did Nintendo manage to survive the PS1? And why couldn't the Saturn do the same?

They did survive though... They released the Dreamcast. It was the PS2 that killed them. Regardless, Nintendo had a massively popular Gameboy to buffer their losses. Sega did not have the same luxury as both their handhelds flopped. Too premium for the mass market just like PlayStation Vita and NeoGeo Pocket.

 

[cireza]

Tell me, why and how did Nintendo manage to survive the PS1? And why couldn't the Saturn do the same?

And during the GC :

Also during the Wii U :

 

[Parazels]

Unlike Sony, SEGA couldn't afford buying a company dedicated to making the tools. The SGL was done in house by AM2 while they had work on all their other games.

It's a weird excuse for a company that once held 50% of the arcade and console markets!

What else did Sega lack? Office paper?

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

They did survive though... They released the Dreamcast. It was the PS2 that killed them.

PS1 killed them, because (pay attention) 30 million PS1s and 7 million N64s were sold between 1998 and 2001. People saw the Dreamcast and left the store with an N64 in their arms. Please don't resist.

 

[diffusionx]

It's a weird excuse for a company that once held 50% of the arcade and console markets!

What else did Sega lack? Office paper?

The company that took the fight directly to Nintendo when they held ~95% of the market and were synonymous with videogames somehow couldn't compete against a newcomer with a pile of cash. And that pile of cash was used to make up fake storylines and hypnotize gamers, not to deliver a great product that people wanted and enjoyed.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

And during the GC :

Also during the Wii U :

Pretty much.

Nintendo made more profits off handhelds than consoles back in the day. But it's one of those things similar to modern day smartphone gaming. Make shit loads of money, but when it comes to game forums, social media, trailers or any splashy gaming showcase or awards show nobody talks about mobile gaming.

Out of sight, but never out of mind.

Kind of like COD or Fortnite. Hardly anyone talks about these games, but they got tons of gamers. Back in the day, when a new COD game was coming out there were shit ton of threads and chat. Now, you'll be lucky to get one thread at release.

 

[RoboFu]

Tell me, why and how did Nintendo manage to survive the PS1? And why couldn't the Saturn do the same?

lol are you seriously asking me why the juggernaut Nintendo " Survived " . oh my I needed a good laugh. Nintendo who even at the time was sitting on a pile of money. The genesis gave the snes some competition yes but it was only a blip to Nintendo over all.
the snes with Donkey Kong Country was destroying the playstation and saturn during their launches.

You do realize that even with 40 million n64 console sold vs ps1s 100+ million that Nintendo made games sold great.. in fact Super Mario 64 outsold any single game on the ps1. Then you add in gameboy and that they were still selling NES consoles yet alone SNES.


It's interesting yet again you seem to act like everything was on an even across the playing field. That all 3 companies had the exact same reach, money, and resources. just saying that about any companies anywhere is a laughable statement.

 

[BlackTron]

PS1 killed them, because (pay attention) 30 million PS1s and 7 million N64s were sold between 1998 and 2001. People saw the Dreamcast and left the store with an N64 in their arms. Please don't resist.

Once again, if you were actually there and had your finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, you would know that PS2 wiped the floor with everything else (but you were still an amoeba). NO ONE bought a PS1 "instead of" Dreamcast. PS1 was just a good business, the same way Switch, despite having older specs, keeps selling in the context of new systems, but I wouldn't say "Switch killed Xbox Series" from looking at numbers, PS5 did heavy lifting.

People with PS1 looked at Dreamcast and said "those graphics are insane, but I'm waiting for PS2". I would even try to argue how good DC is, and get hit with a wall of "look, I don't even know how PS2 is going to be better. It just is. Get over it, we're waiting". No one compared it to PS1 though lol

 

[diffusionx]

People with PS1 looked at Dreamcast and said "those graphics are insane, but I'm waiting for PS2". I would even try to argue how good DC is, and get hit with a wall of "look, I don't even know how PS2 is going to be better. It just is. Get over it, we're waiting". No one compared it to PS1 though lol

that was my experience as well. It was easy to see how much better Dreamcast was, especially when you put the same game side by side. But... people with a PlayStation were happy with it and didn't want to switch. That's what good brand management and making customers happy does. A lesson Sega did not learn.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

the snes with Donkey Kong Country was destroying the playstation and saturn during their launches.
You do realize that even with 40 million n64 console sold vs ps1s 100+ million that Nintendo made games sold great.. in fact Super Mario 64 outsold any single game on the ps1.

You proved my point. What matters are the sales figures for each game. Nintendo had games that appealed to people, and I'm sure that if the N64 used the Sega Saturn's hardware, it would have sold more units than the Sega Saturn did. This is the essence of this thread.

 

[cireza]

with a pile of cash

Let's compete together. We both have to build a house. You have 200 000$ and I have 2 000 000$

couldn't compete against a newcomer with a pile of cash lol

 

[StreetsofBeige]

DC would had done so much better if EA fully supported them. No EA Sports = no buy for a lot of people. Didnt matter how good Sega Sports on DC were and how much better they were than their shitty Saturn versions.

The system sold great out of the gate. I remember it being the fastest seller. But then I guess it died off after Sega diehards fizzled out and everyone waited for PS2 (or GC/Xbox OG if those systems were even hyped up yet).

A shame too since the system was rock solid for a budget price of $200 US. A big improvement over Saturn. But a lot gamers had enough of Sega's shenanigans.

 

[diffusionx]

Let's compete together. We both have to build a house. You have 200 000$ and I have 2 000 000$

couldn't compete against a newcomer with a pile of cash lol

This is a stupid analogy. I already pointed out the massive advantages Sega had over Sony, or anyone else entering the market.

Microsoft tried to do this in the early 2000s and couldn't beat Sony, I guess money isn't the advantage you think it is.

 

[cireza]

This is a stupid analogy.

Yet it is exactly what you stated. Who cares if the Sony were a newcomer when they had ten times the money and could leverage all the factories they had, as well as the brand recognition.

Microsoft have just been insanely dumb all the time, making bad decisions one after another. Sony were smart, no one is denying that. They exploited the weaknesses of the current competitors (Nintendo and SEGA), exploited their mistakes. But still, they had insane advantages that the two others did not have.

DC would had done so much better if EA fully supported them.

Definitely. EA was huge, and having EA games on Saturn was cool, and I was happy to have them ! I played a lot of FIFA 98 and Nascar 98.
SEGA eventually caught up with them, and released games of even higher quality, but again, the recognition was not there yet.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Yet it is exactly what you stated. Who cares if the Sony was a newcomer when they had ten times the money and could leverage all the factories they had, as well as the brand recognition.

Microsoft have just been insanely dumb all the time, making bad decisions one after another. Sony were smart, no one is denying that. They exploited the weaknesses of the current competitors (Nintendo and SEGA), exploited their mistakes. But still, they had an insane advantages that the two others did not have.


Definitely. EA was huge, and having EA games on Saturn was cool, and I was happy to have them ! I played a lot of FIFA 98 and Nascar 98.
SEGA eventually caught up with them, and released games of even higher quality, but again, the recognition was not there yet.

No FIFA on DC is a huge gap.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

DC would had done so much better if EA fully supported them. No EA Sports = no buy for a lot of people. Didnt matter how good Sega Sports on DC were and how much better they were than their shitty Saturn versions.

The system sold great out of the gate. I remember it being the fastest seller. But then I guess it died off after Sega diehards fizzled out and everyone waited for PS2 (or GC/Xbox OG if those systems were even hyped up yet).

A shame too since the system was rock solid for a budget price of $200 US. A big improvement over Saturn. But a lot gamers had enough of Sega's shenanigans.

Sega had no chance, they didn't have IPs capable of selling even 3 million copies, you know creating a new IP from scratch and making it popular is possible but it's rare, Sony achieved this with Gran Turismo when PS1 reached 50 million units sold, they also created HZD on ps4 but Sega had no chance because they didn't have an IP like Persona and Total War back then.

 

[diffusionx]

Yet it is exactly what you stated. Who cares if the Sony was a newcomer when they had ten times the money and could leverage all the factories they had, as well as the brand recognition.

Microsoft have just been insanely dumb all the time, making bad decisions one after another. Sony were smart, no one is denying that. They exploited the weaknesses of the current competitors (Nintendo and SEGA), exploited their mistakes. But still, they had an insane advantages that the two others did not have.

like I said:

it's easy to say in hindsight but Sega has massive advantages over Sony going into that gen, like, you know, development studios, experience with hardware, knowledge of the videogame market, relationships with videogame studios, success against an entrenched competitor, and a base of loyal fans. That is all stuff that is, if anything, more important than money. Sega managed to build an audience when Nintendo had a de facto monopoly and had an entire business model built around blocking games going to Sega systems.

The fact that they frittered it all away has very little to do with Sony and everything to do with Sega's bad management.

We literally saw a newcomer try to enter the market with a pile of cash a few years later and got totally BTFO thus proving conclusively that the problem wasn't money.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

Sega had no chance, they didn't have IPs capable of selling even 3 million copies, you know creating a new IP from scratch and making it popular is possible but it's rare, Sony achieved this with Gran Turismo when PS1 reached 50 million units sold, they also created HZD on ps4 but Sega had no chance because they didn't have an IP like Persona and Total War back then.

They had Sonic

 

[nkarafo]

N64 software sales were actually very profitable for Nintendo. The console also sold 3x more than the Saturn (30m) worldwide so it was not that big of a failure either. I mean, it sold as much as the Genesis did. The only reason it's considered a "failure" is because it sold less than the SNES worldwide and Sony sold so many units, anything would look like a failure in comparison.

Even Sega didn't go down just because of the Saturn, the 32X and a ton of unsold Genesis software also helped with that. Sega did a lot of expensive mistakes in the mid 90's'




Of course, Sega hardcore fans who are still butt hurt in 2025 because their console died but not Nintendo's, will claim the N64 was just as big of a failure (enough to bring Nintendo down) and only survived because of Pokemon. Despite the franchise not having took off in US before late 1998.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

They had Sonic

On the N64, Nintendo had a dozen games that sold over 3 million copies.
At least 5 games with a sales potential of 3 million are needed for a console to exist on the market for 4 years.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

On the N64, Nintendo had a dozen games that sold over 3 million copies.
At least 5 games with a sales potential of 3 million are needed for a console to exist on the market for 4 years.

You never implied that you wanted 3 franchises.

Virtua Fighter 2 would have sold millions on the right platform.

 

[diffusionx]

You never implied that you wanted 3 franchises.

Virtua Fighter 2 would have sold millions on the right platform.

apparently tekken 1 sold 2.8 million copies on playstation, so probably.

but that's on playstation.

source:

 

[RAIDEN1]

N64 software sales were actually very profitable for Nintendo. The console also sold 3x more than the Saturn (30m) worldwide so it was not that big of a failure either. I mean, it sold as much as the Genesis did. The only reason it's considered a "failure" is because it sold less than the SNES worldwide and Sony sold so many units, anything would look like a failure in comparison.

Even Sega didn't go down just because of the Saturn, the 32X and a ton of unsold Genesis software also helped with that. Sega did a lot of expensive mistakes in the mid 90's'




Of course, Sega hardcore fans who are still butt hurt in 2025 because their console died but not Nintendo's, will claim the N64 was just as big of a failure (enough to bring Nintendo down) and only survived because of Pokemon. Despite the franchise not having took off in US before late 1998.

I wouldn't call it a slow death, it was boiling in the pan 6 years prior...

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

You never implied that you wanted 3 franchises.

Virtua Fighter 2 would have sold millions on the right platform.

it was implicit, what kicked Sega out of the market was that its games progressively sold less and less. Sonic 2 was the peak because Sonic 1 was a bundle. Note that Sega's success was tied to Sonic. On the Sega Saturn, VF2 sold almost 2 million copies and allowed the console to exist for a while, but as I said, in the same period, the PS1 had 8 games with sales of 1 million. If you want my opinion, Sega games lacked quality during the Saturn era. Every 2D Sega game is a ripoff of Shinobi 1987: walk, throw a sprite at an enemy, walk and repeat that for an hour. Even Super Mario World has a more interesting design. Yes, it's true. Castlevania SotN sold 700,000, but if any 2D Sega game on the Sega Saturn had that quality, I guarantee you there is no marketing campaign better than the inherent quality of a game.

 

[SomeGit]

N64 software sales were actually very profitable for Nintendo. The console also sold 3x more than the Saturn (30m) worldwide so it was not that big of a failure either. I mean, it sold as much as the Genesis did. The only reason it's considered a "failure" is because it sold less than the SNES worldwide and Sony sold so many units, anything would look like a failure in comparison.

Even Sega didn't go down just because of the Saturn, the 32X and a ton of unsold Genesis software also helped with that. Sega did a lot of expensive mistakes in the mid 90's'




Of course, Sega hardcore fans who are still butt hurt in 2025 because their console died but not Nintendo's, will claim the N64 was just as big of a failure (enough to bring Nintendo down) and only survived because of Pokemon. Despite the franchise not having took off in US before late 1998.

Nintendo also had Pokemon and Gameboy, that was huge in the late 90's so even if then N64 wasn't pulling it's weight that alone would be pushing the company high, same thing would happen with the Gamecube. In the home market the only proper revenue stream Sega had was Saturn in Japan, which alone couldn't pull the rest. Then Arcade revenue plummeted and it was all over.

 

[nkarafo]

In the home market the only proper revenue stream Sega had was Saturn in Japan, which alone couldn't pull the rest. Then Arcade revenue plummeted and it was all over.

Can't imagine how bad things must have been for Sega if the Saturn couldn't save Sega's console market in Japan, despite it being their most successful console over there.

 

[SomeGit]

Can't imagine how bad things must have been for Sega if the Saturn couldn't save Sega's console market in Japan, despite it being their most successful console over there.

Sorry by home market I meant on the home console market globally, to separate it from the arcade business, as in the losses in America and EU in the console business would drown the gains in the console business in Japan.

 

[RetroGamingUK]

They did survive though... They released the Dreamcast. It was the PS2 that killed them. Regardless, Nintendo had a massively popular Gameboy to buffer their losses. Sega did not have the same luxury as both their handhelds flopped. Too premium for the mass market just like PlayStation Vita and NeoGeo Pocket.

It was crazy seeing big retailers like HMV, Woolworths, Virgin Megastores and Toys R Us abandon Saturn in 1997 while the fucking 1989 monochrome GameBoy still seemed to be thriving...

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

I am enjoying this thread very much. Keep up the good work, everyone!

 

[MrJangles]

It was crazy seeing big retailers like HMV, Woolworths, Virgin Megastores and Toys R Us abandon Saturn in 1997 while the fucking 1989 monochrome GameBoy still seemed to be thriving...

Those prices

 

[RetroAV]

The last things I'm going to address here are the claims about Sonic X-treme and the so-called "inflated" Genesis numbers.

On Sonic X-treme: Sega of America didn't randomly decide to fumble Sega's most important IP. They understood better than anyone how crucial Sonic was for Sega's long-term success. The problem was that Sega of Japan wasn't interested in prioritizing a new Sonic for Saturn — their focus was on NiGHTS into Dreams. That left Sega of America in a corner: either push ahead with something, or risk Saturn going without a new Sonic entirely. Was X-treme a disaster? Absolutely. But it happened because Sega of America was forced into a no-win situation by Sega of Japan's lack of commitment to the mascot that had carried the Genesis. It wasn't indifference or incompetence — it was desperation created by internal conflict.

As for the inflated Genesis numbers: yes, Sega of America counted shipped units to retailers like Walmart as "sold." But that wasn't some shady accounting trick done to cover up failure. It was how retail worked at the time. Major chains wouldn't even carry your console unless you committed to large shipments upfront. Kalinske knew that if Sega wasn't on those shelves, they were dead in the water. So he played by the rules of the retail environment — and it worked, because Sega became a household name. Were there risks, like excess stock in some cases? Sure. But those risks came with the territory of scaling a console into the mainstream. You can argue about the business tactics, but you can't argue that they didn't succeed in getting Sega into millions of homes.

In other words, both of these criticisms ignore the bigger context. Sonic X-treme and the Genesis shipment numbers weren't examples of Sega of America recklessly dragging the company down — they were the result of SoA doing everything possible to keep Sega competitive in the West, often while being undermined or deprioritized by Sega of Japan.

 

[LarsQMorient]

As to why it succeeded in Japan and not the west, despite Sega winning the 3rd and 4th console generations in Europe…

- Almost no price difference, ¥39,800 for PlayStation, ¥44,800 for Saturn

Wasn't Saturn bundled with Virtua Fighter outside Japan?