Quote Originally Posted by Baloo View Post
The failure is put on Sega because Sony wanted to team up with Sega in the beginning, but Sega pushed them away. They also had the chance to get Silicon Graphics for the Saturn, but again, Sega snubbed out SoA like the assholes they were. So they could've gotten both their competitors early on, but they were too stupid. Not to mention Bernie Stolar killing the US Saturn library with his "3D is the future, no 2D games" policy, since the Japanese Saturn library could've saved the Saturn due to how many good games it had. But it wasn't all his fault, the blame should be put more on SoJ.

So yeah, it really is all Sega's fault.
Sega snubbing Sony is still about Sony and Sega having the chance to have had N64-like graphics is still about the N64, which still failed against the PSX.

Hypotheticals are still just that. Sure if Sega had merged with Sony and Nintendo and there was no competition they would've come out on top. But even if they did most things right (like they did with the Dreamcast), they still could've done just as bad/less-good or worse.

If NEC had included SuperGrafx hardware in the Duo systems, would they have automatically beat the Super Famicom? The SMS was a beast compared to the NES. Nintendo may have used business style to win the 8-bit generation, but so did Sony later on.

I'm not saying that Sony would've won in any scenario, but Sega wouldn't have automatically won if they'd done a few things different either. Plus, if they had, they wouldn't have been the Sega that everyone loves.