• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox’s console decline mirrors that of Sega

The trajectory of both Xbox and Sega consoles and their decline has a lot of striking similarities the more I think about it.

While Microsoft as a whole aren’t deep in the red as per Sega in 2000/2001 parallels between the Xbox division and Sega that are worth discussing, especially when it comes to their generation transitions and market trajectory.

Xbox = Master System
Debut console releases way after the established market leader (PS2/NES), is much more advanced graphically but ultimately only manages to gain success in a single market (America for Xbox, Europe for Master System).

Xbox 360 = MegaDrive
Second console launches well ahead of competition (PS3/SNES) with success being more global compared to a single territory. This is the golden age in terms of sales, brand mass awareness and overall positivity. Eventually the established competitor’s console sales overtake it, but they’re more than in the race having stolen marketshare. However towards the end of the generation there’s a focus on hardware add-ons (Kinect, MegaCD, 32X) which begins to annoy the fanbase and results in a lack of focus.

Xbox One = Saturn
A series of boneheaded decisions and lack of understanding of the consumer base culminate in a disasterous E3 reveal. The console launches at a way higher price than the competition (PS4/PS1) with multiplatform games running much worse resulting in a lot of marketshare being lost. To compensate, there’s a shift towards releasing the biggest games on PC. Only manages to do well in a single market (America for XBO, Japan for Saturn)

Xbox Series = Dreamcast
Much smarter decisions are made in the development of the console meaning that graphically the machine competes well with the rival (PS5/PS2). However their competitor is doing well and most people see no need to switch, especially when backwards compatibility is being offered. There’s also a HUGE focus on online that doesn’t pan out as well as expected (GamePass = SegaNet). Eventually, games start to be released on competitor’s consoles.

Halo = Sonic
The first 3 or 4 games are a huge critical and commercial success becoming the face of the entire brand. Following this the franchise is handed to another developer (343 Industries and Traveller’s Tales) who manage to make some decent games but are nowhere near in terms of critical acclaim and success of the first 4 games.
 
Last edited:

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Them buying up big publishers ensures relevancy, at least for the short term. The tricky thing will be to make sure their big studios stay relevant, and that they don't run into huge talent issues and institutional decay like we saw with 343.

But yeah, from a hardware standpoint, they will carve out a niche but won't be competing much in that area....mostly going for something to keep the dedicated fans happy that bought into their ecosystem.

Will be interesting to see how all this plays out over the years. It's a big gamble they made buying up so many studios.
 
Them buying up big publishers ensures relevancy, at least for the short term. The tricky thing will be to make sure their big studios stay relevant, and that they don't run into huge talent issues and institutional decay like we saw with 343.

But yeah, from a hardware standpoint, they will carve out a niche but won't be competing much in that area....mostly going for something to keep the dedicated fans happy that bought into their ecosystem.

Will be interesting to see how all this plays out over the years. It's a big gamble they made buying up so many studios.

I mean in 2024 Sega are still doing well as a games publisher.

In a decade or two down the road I see Microsoft still being a big publisher too.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
What a dumb thread....
xbox one and the xbox series consoles did so much better in every way and last much longer than their "mirrored" sega counterparts. End of thread. Goodbye.

Not really a fair comparison though, the gaming industry was much smaller back then.....but Sega I would argue had a lot more interesting and exciting exclusives they brought to the table, they didn't have the warchest that Microsoft has to keep the failure going.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Fanboys:

Not Listening Dumb And Dumber GIF
 

nial

Member
Regarding the shift to 3rd party, I remember in magazines and on the internet the mounting rumours of Sega porting games to other consoles increasing each month.

I was loving my Dreamcast in 2000, but all the talk did kinda take the shine off thing.

In fact it was this post that inspired this thread…


I can't believe that they were preparing those ports for like a year before they were released. It was truly over, damn.
 

Stu_Hart

Member
Not really a fair comparison though, the gaming industry was much smaller back then.....but Sega I would argue had a lot more interesting and exciting exclusives they brought to the table, they didn't have the warchest that Microsoft has to keep the failure going.
Sega lost a lot of 3rd party support, MS was and still is getting major 3rd party games. Xbox one and the series consoles aren't failures. They are fine.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Sega lost a lot of 3rd party support, MS was and still is getting major 3rd party games. Xbox one and the series consoles aren't failures. They are fine.

I don't know how you can claim they aren't failures. Each successive generation has sold worse than the prior one since the Xbox 360, and it HAS lost third party support - from many Japanese publishers deciding to sign deals with Sony for exclusivity because they don't really see a big ROI with keeping games on Xbox, to things like Baldur's Gate 3 not releasing on Xbox for a long time, as well as Wukong....

"They are fine" is not true when they've started abandoning console exclusivity....Sony is simply too big for them to continue ignoring. That is not the case for Sony or Nintendo vs. Xbox.
 

Fahdis

Member
Remember when Xbox was dying and then they released the 360? Console gamers are fickle as shit. They will go where the games go and the smartest thing to do would be to become platform agnostic or become part of PCMR where you just buy games and never play them 😂. Xbox is not failing as a brand, its failing to deliver on its promises at the moment with exciting content. And even if it does, it would be nice to just have them as a Publisher. PlayStation 5 has 3 platform exclusives from 1st Party if we're going by perceived value.
 
Sega lost a lot of 3rd party support, MS was and still is getting major 3rd party games. Xbox one and the series consoles aren't failures. They are fine.
The Dreamcast was not a failure too, hardware wise. The question is will the Series S/X continue to sell next year with the fact that the PS5 Pro on the high end and the Switch 2 on the "low" end will be eating on they sales prospects. As for 3rd party support, times are different and having games on their console is not the problem. Selling enough to be relevant and competitive is. Think of it like the Wii, who died earlier than the PS3 and 360 because they did not have the potential to endure long term. The rumors of a early next gen from Xbox won't help the Series S/X too. Of course Xbox have the advantage of Gamepass to maintain a certain number of users so they probably can't collapse like Sega did. This Chrismas season will show us how much resilience Xbox have.
 
Xbox is just fucked because of bad leadership nothing else.
What is Xbox ? A Game console , for like 6 years Phil promised games are coming and when they eventually did now they are also coming to pc and ps.
So why should I buy the specific Xbox as a console when pc and PS gets it's releases.
Last gen was single handedly fucked by don mattick with kinect , always online and underpowered console.
This gen was solely fucked by uncle phil
 

Soodanim

Member
There are interesting parallels here, I like it. We've already had a year or two of rumours that Xbox will be software only, let's see.

I don't care if it isn't a perfect 1:1 comparison and how the thread will be mostly people picking holes as if OP thinks time is cyclical.
 

Calverz

Member
Kinect 1 helped the Xbox 360 sell about another 3 million units. It wasn’t the add on that annoyed the fan base. It was the lack of traditional style first party games (studio closures) and the x1 reveal.
 

NeoIkaruGAF

Gold Member
No, not really.

Sega never had a clearcut plan beyond the unexpected western success of the Genesis. The Japanese branch hated the American branch for being successful. They didn't understand what sparked that success, and couldn't replicate it. They never really had the pulse of the market. When the edge of the early 90s started fading into something else, they didn't know how to keep their audience.
MS always had plans, and always understood the importance of gamers' tastes and feedback.

Sega was an arcade game maker. They were behind the times with most of their lineup for the Dreamcast because of their desire to finally bring that exact arcade experience at home, and incredibly ahead of the times with a couple of games (PSO and Shenmue) that had limited appeal for the audience at large. They squandered tons of money trying to make people buy their hardware and accept their out-of-touch vision of the market.
MS may not have had the hottest game for a while, but they were never out of touch and course corrected many times. Sega sailed straight and willingly into the falls at the end of the earth.

OG Xbox isn't comparable to the Master System. It was, more accurately, the PC-Engine/Turbografx of its generation. Way ahead of the competition in hardware, with a much clearer vision of the future of the market than its competitors, and with tons of great games, but facing an uphill battle with a behemot way beyond its efforts, and with disastrous marketing decisions outside of its homeland.

Your Series/Dreamcast comparison is so flawed, we don't need to go through every sentence. Completely different situations. Let's just say that Dreamcast fell off a cliff so quickly in every respect, they pulled the plug after barely 3 years on the market in Japan and 2 years in the west. Also, comparing Sega Net to GamePass? Really?

The mascot comparison has some truth in it. It's interesting that both companies understood that they should leave their mascots aside for a while at one point. Sega pretty much completely dropped Sonic in the Saturn era - but they thought it could be replaced by fucking Nights, that's how much the cult of personality ruined Sega. MS expanded their portfolio way beyond Halo when they had enough support and had more space in the market. The difference is that Halo was a revolution in console gaming at launch, and it mostly stayed solid in time. Sonic was always just barely competent beyond its graphics and speed, and it quickly ran out of things to say, turning into gaming's favorite meme and source of cheesy music.
 
Tbh.. Original Xbox feels more like N64, being late but powerful. The PC Engine was the first of the 16bit gen not the last 8bit. (Famicom 1983 - PCE 1987...)

360 and the Megadrive could be a good analogy.

The other ones, I don't know. Sega Saturn ended up being cult-niche console with lots of exclusives right after its commercial life ended in Japan back in 2000. I don't see Xbox One having any following whatsoever, never.

And the series? Same.

Still, I get your point. Reaching a bit, but It's a fun analogy though.

Ps: Sega Saturn rules. Master system sucks.
 

Mibu no ookami

Demoted Member® Pro™
The biggest difference between Sega and Xbox is the advent of digital gaming and subscriptions.

Microsoft makes so much revenue from GamePass and game royalties. Microsoft makes a ton of money from EA and T2 for example just from the sports lineup.

They're still selling decently well in North America.

The question is if Nadella is willing to double down on something that is in clear decline.
 

Nitty_Grimes

Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
The biggest difference between Sega and Xbox is the advent of digital gaming and subscriptions.

Microsoft makes so much revenue from GamePass and game royalties. Microsoft makes a ton of money from EA and T2 for example just from the sports lineup.

They're still selling decently well in North America.

The question is if Nadella is willing to double down on something that is in clear decline.
Xbox is the 'brand' now not the console. So you can play 'Xbox' anywhere. Nadella will be down with that.
 

Nitty_Grimes

Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
I wonder if Xbox will rebrand going into next gen, keep the X in the circle logo, but use naming like this…

Xbox (desktop PC)
Xpad (SteamDeck rival)
Xpass (subscriptions)
Xcloud (game streaming)
All they want is for each person to have a subscription tier (like paid for O365) - they'd rather get £15+ a month / £240 a year off everyone. Then if you use cloud, tv, phone, fisher price speak and spell to play on they don't give a shit WHERE you play 'Xbox'

Like me with Amazon Prime as an example - I pay £9 a month - I don't use it every day they but they still get the money off me.
 
Last edited:

djjinx2

Member
If we compare Dreamcast in 2000 to Xbox in 2024 then no, they’re not…

Dreamcast
Shenmue
Jet Set Radio
MSR
Skies of Arcadia
Crazy Taxi
Virtua Tennis
Ferrari F355
Chu Chu Rocket

Xbox
Hellblade II

Flight Simulator
Stalker 2

?

There's more than that but my point stands

And don't say PC as that wasn't a huge platform for games way back so not a valid argument
 

Elios83

Member
The end result is pretty much the same, the demise of their console brand.

But the circumstances are very different.
Sega was an arcade gaming company first with Japanese and American branches in direct competition trying to hinder each other while creating confusing situations for consumers and business partners that ended up eroding trust.
Sega also had financial issues and these were ultimately behind the Dreamcast demise.

Microsoft is a productivity software company that does not get the creative process behind games and just wants to conquer markets and spend competitors out of business.
Xbox was always a tool for something else and never existed for itself.
It simply failed to have the success they expected, it wasn't able to beat or stop Sony as a console, it wasn't able to be the gateway to make Gamepass the next Netflix, it wasn't able to make people migrate to Microsoft’s ecosystem or impose the things Microsoft wanted (TV TV, DRM, cloud everywhere using their services and so on).
The management has understood it's time to change strategy especially after the huge investements they made.
Now the goal is to be successfull in gaming as a leading multiplatform publisher, it's the strategy that makes most sense for them, but Xbox has basically run out of its purpose although they'll keep the brand for their dedicated gaming hardware products.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom