When Nintendo fumble their hardware, they re-design. When SEGA fumbled their hardware, they patched it with more hardware. This philosophy made all the difference, and explains why one is still at the forefront and why the other has been reduced to software.
Sega only ever fumbled the hardware for one console, the Saturn, which was powerful but poorly-designed. It was the Mega Drive/Genesis, which was both powerful and well-designed for a late '80s console, that they attempted to extend with add-ons.
In comparison, Nintendo fumbled with three weak consoles in a row (Wii, Wii U, Switch), while Sony fumbled with two poorly-designed consoles in a row (PS2, PS3). And yet Nintendo and Sony got through it, whereas Sega didn't.
You're making the argument that a bad console design is an under-powered console. This attitude is exactly why SEGA and other hardware fails - they're emphasizing the wrong features.
Power does not guarantee market take-up, it guarantees high production costs and console sales that are made at a loss.
You didn't acknowledge that Nintendo does not make add-ons for forwards-compatibility, which sega has does twice.
Patching hardware to incentivize sales is something only SEGA did, and SEGA is now the only legacy corp of significance out of the business.
When Nintendo fumble their hardware, they re-design. When SEGA fumbled their hardware, they patched it with more hardware. This philosophy made all the difference, and explains why one is still at the forefront and why the other has been reduced to software.
Youtubers are nowhere near as reliable and independent as you think. Do you really believe for a second that the multi-national corporations haven't got their fingers in that pie?
Log in to comment