snapdragon
Member
I'm sure this topic has been done to death, but I love alternate history
Context with how Sega's console division could've potentially held on
Scenario 1. Saturn releases when it's originally supposed to release, it doesn't beat the PS1, but is a stable second place for the entire generation
Scenario 2. Sega Saturn gets a better exit, (the system isn't discontinued in western markets until 1999, many third party releases still come out in 1998 with the saturn seeing a mini rennisaunce with games like PD saga, and shining force 3) strengthening consumer/developer trust, DC is launched in spring 1999 with enough chip supply from NEC, and with finished launch titles in Japan instead of the botched late 1998 launch, and the DC is launched at 250$ instead of 200$ internationally, allowing sega to break even on each system sold, Sega probably would still be operating in the red in 98,99,2000, and 2001 but not nearly to the same extent as in our timeline which would give the company enough time to hold out until the Dreamcast could start bringing in a profit
Also the reasons for the DC failing had little to do with its respectable market performance in our timeline. Jehovis' video on the system debunks a lot of misconceptions about the failure of the dreamcast and Sega's console division as a whole in the late 90's
Some of my own predictions for scenario 2
The Dreamcast manages to hold out well against the PS2, Xbox, and GC, due to its already large install base, it being the cheapest system on the market, and Sega showing that they could hold out against the PS2 for a full year. Final system sales for the generation would be PS2 135-150 million units sold, Dreamcast 25-30 million units sold, XBOX 20-25 million units sold, Gamecube 15-20 million units sold.
Sony obviously won the console generation by a landslide. They are still cocky, and I believe they would make the same errors they did with the early PS3. Nintendo was the loser of the generation, but 2 of its other competitors only performed moderately better. For Microsoft, the XBOX takes an even larger loss than in our timeline, and they wrongfully predicted that Sega no longer had the means to compete in the hardware market, but they are still by far the wealthiest company out of the 4, and the XBOX still occupied a decent share of the console market, especially in America. For SEGA, the Dreamcast brought back a lot of market share lost from the Saturn years, it made SEGA a profitable company, and it placed second in the 6th generation, although its market performance suffered in 2004 as the system became too weak to get significant third-party support, however SEGA are still by far the financially weakest company out of the 4 and the costs for RND and development of software would only continue to rise.
If Microsoft wants to continue on with the Xbox, I could still see SEGA bowing out of the console market in a much more financially stable position. Without the merger with Sammy and financial issues from losing millions to both a failed game console and the dying arcades, Sega actually succeeded at becoming a major publisher, we wouldn't see the huge drop off in the overall size of the company and its quality in the 2000s. If Microsoft doesn't want to continue on with the XBOX, I could see Sega's future consoles being somewhat like mixes of Nintendo's and Microsoft systems (hardware that is significantly more powerful than Nintendo's but noticeably weaker than Sony's, its still capable of receiving most third-party titles but generally inferior versions of them, sega has a large focus on the online capabilities of their system with its online services being far superior to sony and especially nintendos, and due to sega not being able to secure as many exclusivity deals with third parties due to them not being as wealthy as sony, they are heavily reliant on their own first party software although not to the same extent that Nintendo is, I think overtime SEGA, Sony and Nintendo basically secure their own parts of the market and no longer directly compete with each other due to how radically different each systems software and hardware are.
Context with how Sega's console division could've potentially held on
Scenario 1. Saturn releases when it's originally supposed to release, it doesn't beat the PS1, but is a stable second place for the entire generation
Scenario 2. Sega Saturn gets a better exit, (the system isn't discontinued in western markets until 1999, many third party releases still come out in 1998 with the saturn seeing a mini rennisaunce with games like PD saga, and shining force 3) strengthening consumer/developer trust, DC is launched in spring 1999 with enough chip supply from NEC, and with finished launch titles in Japan instead of the botched late 1998 launch, and the DC is launched at 250$ instead of 200$ internationally, allowing sega to break even on each system sold, Sega probably would still be operating in the red in 98,99,2000, and 2001 but not nearly to the same extent as in our timeline which would give the company enough time to hold out until the Dreamcast could start bringing in a profit
Also the reasons for the DC failing had little to do with its respectable market performance in our timeline. Jehovis' video on the system debunks a lot of misconceptions about the failure of the dreamcast and Sega's console division as a whole in the late 90's
Some of my own predictions for scenario 2
The Dreamcast manages to hold out well against the PS2, Xbox, and GC, due to its already large install base, it being the cheapest system on the market, and Sega showing that they could hold out against the PS2 for a full year. Final system sales for the generation would be PS2 135-150 million units sold, Dreamcast 25-30 million units sold, XBOX 20-25 million units sold, Gamecube 15-20 million units sold.
Sony obviously won the console generation by a landslide. They are still cocky, and I believe they would make the same errors they did with the early PS3. Nintendo was the loser of the generation, but 2 of its other competitors only performed moderately better. For Microsoft, the XBOX takes an even larger loss than in our timeline, and they wrongfully predicted that Sega no longer had the means to compete in the hardware market, but they are still by far the wealthiest company out of the 4, and the XBOX still occupied a decent share of the console market, especially in America. For SEGA, the Dreamcast brought back a lot of market share lost from the Saturn years, it made SEGA a profitable company, and it placed second in the 6th generation, although its market performance suffered in 2004 as the system became too weak to get significant third-party support, however SEGA are still by far the financially weakest company out of the 4 and the costs for RND and development of software would only continue to rise.
If Microsoft wants to continue on with the Xbox, I could still see SEGA bowing out of the console market in a much more financially stable position. Without the merger with Sammy and financial issues from losing millions to both a failed game console and the dying arcades, Sega actually succeeded at becoming a major publisher, we wouldn't see the huge drop off in the overall size of the company and its quality in the 2000s. If Microsoft doesn't want to continue on with the XBOX, I could see Sega's future consoles being somewhat like mixes of Nintendo's and Microsoft systems (hardware that is significantly more powerful than Nintendo's but noticeably weaker than Sony's, its still capable of receiving most third-party titles but generally inferior versions of them, sega has a large focus on the online capabilities of their system with its online services being far superior to sony and especially nintendos, and due to sega not being able to secure as many exclusivity deals with third parties due to them not being as wealthy as sony, they are heavily reliant on their own first party software although not to the same extent that Nintendo is, I think overtime SEGA, Sony and Nintendo basically secure their own parts of the market and no longer directly compete with each other due to how radically different each systems software and hardware are.
