Does Sega Have Secret Plans To Release A New Home Console?

[Weekend_Warrior]

[ Sega can't even convince long time Sonic fans to buy their newest bastardization of the franchise.

That's because long-time Sega fans know that none of these newer, foreign machines contain a "Blast Processor."

[the7k]

That's because long-time Sega fans know that none of these newer, foreign machines contain a "Blast Processor."

http://www.vgboxart.com/view/17402/supe ... replies=49

[lisalover1]

I always have some hope that Sega will release a new console. The info looks actually fairly promising, and I just hope that someday, we will get our old Sega back. Also, I noticed something odd about the Sega project Needlemouse trailer. It says "built from the ground up..." then stops. It doesn't specify a console.

[CAv]

The best thing Sega could possibly do is somehow free themselves from that stupid pachinko company and become a second party of Microsoft. That's our only hope of seeing Sega return to a fraction of its former glory. I don't think there will ever be another sega system. The closest we'll ever have was the Xbox, which had tons of sega influence. Besides, in their current state, any system sega would put out would suck, because, lets face it, sega ain't what it used to be.

[the7k]

Honestly, Sega as a third-party isn't a bad position. They can sell games on all platforms instead of just one, and they don't have to worry about making expensive gaming hardware and then selling it at a loss. The only money they'd make would be from game licensing, but like I said, EA wouldn't support them and Activision probably wouldn't either.

[elvis]

Hey, business is business. Nintendo dropped the merger with Sony to design the cd add-on for the SNES that eventually became the PlayStation. Sony then went on to finalize the product and sold it at a major profit and started a whole new gaming franchise. You really think Sony gives a rat's ass if it pissed Nintendo or anyone else off?

Sony aren't selling their games on Wii. The comparison of Sony to SEGA is not accurate in this regard.

Business is business, everyone's in it to make money.

Correct. SEGA stopped making consoles because they were losing money. I'm quite certain they still remember that pain, and aren't keen to return. Now SEGA know it's easier for them to make money as a software developer and publisher for a wide range of hardware that someone else is footing the bill for.

Play the hypothetical game for yourself: would you, as SEGA, consider either of the following:

1) Make your own hardware (at enormous expense in an already saturated market), and compete directly with the "big 3", releasing your games on your platform as well as others possibly at the detriment of sales published on your own platform?

2) Make your own hardware (at enormous expense in an already saturated market), and compete directly with the "big 3", releasing your games on your platform exclusively risking that people who already have one or more of the other consoles in the market don't even bother with yours?

The third and far more obvious choice is to stick with being a software developer/publisher. Because that's what saved SEGA from bankruptcy last time, and unless a far better (and more guaranteed) business opportunity arises moving away from a proven money-making business is just plain dangerous.

Unless you can give a convincing counter-argument (that applies to real-world business). Again, the fanboy inside me would love to see a new SEGA console. And I'd sure as hell buy it. But my love for SEGA doesn't change real-world economics.

[elvis]

All it would take is a few great exclusives and some quality third-party support, my good man

I love how you say that like it's a trivial task to pull off. You'd make superb middle management.

Making it work is more than just chanting "go team go".

I'm quite surprised by the negativity and pessimism on this board.

Ok. So if Sega designed a great and easy-developing platform to work with.. what makes you guys think that Sega couldn't get quality third-party support?

Four things make me think Sega couldn't get good third-party support:

1) SegaCD/MegaCD
2) 32X
3) Saturn
4) Dreamcast.

That was SEGA's road to near bankruptcy, with diminishing support along the way. I think by the time the Dreamcast arrived, Capcom was the only third party left supporting SEGA. All the other big name developers had jumped ship.

Your optimism is noble. But you have your head in the clouds.

Honestly, Sega as a third-party isn't a bad position. They can sell games on all platforms instead of just one, and they don't have to worry about making expensive gaming hardware and then selling it at a loss. The only money they'd make would be from game licensing, but like I said, EA wouldn't support them and Activision probably wouldn't either.

This here is what we call "common sense". Note how he references real world business cost concerns - these are the things discussed at board meetings. Not just "wouldn't it be great if..." sentiments.

The best thing Sega could possibly do is somehow free themselves from that stupid pachinko company and become a second party of Microsoft.

Ask Bungie and the Flight Sim team what becoming a Microsoft second party feels like. Because all of them got the sack not so long ago.

As a third party, SEGA are in control of their own destiny. They don't have to follow the rules and regs of the first-party hardware owner, and their creative staff aren't faced with the prospect of being shoe-horned into a single hardware system (whether their own or someone else's) which means a limit in target market.

A common code-base for a game and releasing said game on 2 or 3 different bits of hardware means a wider target audience, and the freedom to dump a hardware vendor should they start to show signs of weakness (like everyone did to SEGA in the Dreamcast days). It's a good place to be.

SEGA pumping out a new console today makes as much sense as Namco/Bandai, EA or Activision doing the same. In fact, those last three companies I named have more capital to do so, and would all be lower business risks than SEGA.

[vlame]

UPDATE: Sega has issued a statement denying the entire story. Sega of America PR director Charlie Scibetta confirmed what we suspected: that Sega "has no plans to get back into the console business."

"We're very happy being a platform agnostic company and have moved up the ranks the past three years from number 11, to number 9, and now stand at number 6 in terms of our market share by units among third-party publishers," Scibetta said. "We like our current strategy and have no plans to change in the middle of this outstanding growth."

Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

[Weekend_Warrior]

UPDATE: Sega has issued a statement denying the entire story. Sega of America PR director Charlie Scibetta confirmed what we suspected: that Sega "has no plans to get back into the console business."

"We're very happy being a platform agnostic company and have moved up the ranks the past three years from number 11, to number 9, and now stand at number 6 in terms of our market share by units among third-party publishers," Scibetta said. "We like our current strategy and have no plans to change in the middle of this outstanding growth."

Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

I'm pretty sure that's an old statement that stemmed from some of the earlier patents. That has nothing to do with the RingEdge and RingWide projects.

Links?

[Erik_Twice]

Those new arcade hardwares are nothing rare, all companies that create arcade games (like Konami or Namco) do the same. Patenting controllers is also very common, patenting is cheap and you can sell those later for some money.

Comparisons to Sony or Microsoft are not accurate. Those companies don't rely on videogames so as to make a profit and in Microsoft's case they don't even care about losing money. Microsoft is losing millions on the Xboxes but he doesn't care.

Being frank, why can Microsoft sell his product at a lower cost than his production cost? Isn't that unfair competence and, as such, against the law?

Being a third-party is a good position. It has a very low risk, if they don't have money they can stop making so many games, if they do, they can make more. They don't have to keep a console up against the tactics of three rivals. They can diversify, they don't need to put all their eggs in one basket.