Why did Nintendo fare much better than Sega did?

[Deleted member 249]

So over the last few days, I have been looking a lot into Sega, and their really troubled history (you can read my threads on the subject here and also here). Through all of this, one thing that has occurred to me is the similarity of the struggles Sega's share with Nintendo's; both companies saw their most successful console ever (the Genesis, Wii), followed up by a successor system that was their least successful, and ended up losing their marketshare, mindshare, and third party support to the extent that they became a complete non factor to the larger industry. As far as consumers and developers went, Sega and Nintendo ceased to be a factor with the Saturn and Wii U respectively (both consoles also lost their companies money).

The question for me is, why did Nintendo fare so much better in the end than Sega? How were they able to mount a successful comeback with their hail Mary gambit (Switch) where Sega was not able to with theirs (Dreamcast)? Basically, how was Nintendo able to comeback from its nadir to what might end up being its strongest showing yet, while Sega was never able to recover? What did Nintendo do differently?

 

[SuperL]

Nintendo's Japanese and American branches were in harmony. That's a REALLY big factor.

 

[Escalario]

They had more than 1 important IP and didn't fuck it up with trash games. Even the worst mainline Mario is better than the best Sonic game. And, of course, there is Pokemon. Which is another funny case considering how Sega-centric GameFreak was before it.

 

[Khanimus]

Nintendo didn't pull a Saturn which put them in a nightmarishly bad position.

Even in their worst position, they had a leg to stand on.

 

[Vorundor]

By the time Nintendo had their Sega moment, Nintendo had a lot more original IPs people still loved regardless of the system failure.

 

[chicken_pasta]

Nintendo has handhelds and the strongest portafolio of IPs in the gaming world.

That's pretty much it, I think.

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

Nintendo had a huge amount of money in reserve from the Wii/DS era that they could continue on despite Wii U, and the 3DS was still a relative success either way.

Sega didn't really have a 3DS like - lifeboat to keep them going and they blew all the cash they had on development of the Saturn and Dreamcast wasn't able to get anywhere near closing that gap, and sega simply couldn't afford to keep trying.

 

[Argot]

Sega only had one truly unmitigated successful console with the Genesis/Mega Drive while Nintendo has had more successes under its belt. Nintendo also had the handheld line to prop it up in lean times. Sega had something of an equivalent in arcades, but obviously that revenue source began to collapse pretty quickly in many parts of the world.

 

[Redmond Barry]

Nintendo might have actually benefited from the state of oblivion they found themselves in in the console sphere with the Wii U, so it may have been relatively easy to reboot. Sega's fumbles with the Genesis add-ons and the failure of the Saturn in the west were fresh in gamers' minds, meaning the Dreamcast was practically destined to fail.

 

[Bandage]

Nintendo invested into their systems properly, owned more high selling IPs and didn't over reach their abilities.

 

[FrostyLemon]

Personally I think Nintendo takes extreme care with their IP and ensures that each release is a quality title. If you look at the way they have treated Sonic, it's like night and day.

 

[Kinggroin]

Better hardware, better first party, broader appeal, and history.

 

[Spinluck]

SEGA was managed poorly when compared to Nintendo. Especially towards the late 90s. The quality difference in their software was staggering post 90s.

I don't think they quite landed the transition to 3D graphics quite as well as Nintendo either.

People like to credit PS2 for killing the Dreamcast, but I felt like SEGA deserved most of the credit for that. Shame because in their prime, they were fucking amazing..

 

[Platy]

I think the biggest difference is that Nintendo never went all in.
Like even with the virtual boy and the wiiu it was not like they tryed to make the most expensive console ever ... it was all controlled risks.
Even with the gamecube they cut some costs and didn't took looses per unity for a long time.

They learned soon that they could not be in the same graphical run as Sony

 

[HockeyGuy412]

Nintendo has the capital to back up failures that happen

 

[Kucan]

Better marketing and less in-fighting mostly. Unless we're talking about the UK, where Sega held off Nintendo until Sony came around. As for why their hail marys went differently, Sega lost so much money and went up against the PS2 that they couldn't get solvent again whereas Nintendo has billions in reserve and could fail over and over til something worked.

 

[Deleted member 1413]

I'm guessing it's something that happened between the Genesis's launch and the Saturn.
Their devs struggling and juggling multiple add ons, arcade machines, and systems.
Saturn, more than the Dreamcast, is likely what did them in.

Nintendo properly transitioned into the 3rd dimension, likely due to taking their time and experimenting with the FX.

 

[inner-G]

They made better games

Gameplay, design, sound, characters... just stronger IPs that resonated with the market more.

The hardware would have fallen into place if the games and demand were there.

 

[Panther2103]

Nintendo had proper funding, and money in the bank in case they failed and were willing to take extreme chances like on the Wii. Sega as much as I love them didn't have enough funds or exclusive games to keep up with the lack of console sales. I love the Dreamcast and the Saturn, but I also love obscure games which both of those have plenty of.

 

[TheMoon]

Actual mass-appeal franchises with longevity and consistent quality.

 

[EdgeXL]

They bullied retailers and developers.

 

[commish]

Why are people acting as if Nintendo was on its deathbed or something? Nintendo sold something like 70 million 3DSs. It's not like they were dead in the water and rose from their grave.

It's silly to compare Nintendo and Sega's situations like this.

 

[Deleted member 31923]

Sega had the Saturn and Dreamcast both in a row, as opposed to the Wii U followed by the Switch. Plus, Nintendo still had a handheld line in the 3DS during the Wii U days, and while not a DS success, it still made them a lot of money. Nintendo also tried something new that worked and was different with the Switch. Sega tried a bunch of new things, but they didn't work in the 90's. Recall all the systems and add ons such as the 32x and Sega CD, which all never matched the success of the Genesis.

 

[DevilPuncher]

The fact that Nintendo didn't piss off retailers with a surprise console launch probably had a factor. Also, the ease of Dreamcast piracy.

 

[Cantaim]

Nintendo's Japanese and American branches were in harmony. That's a REALLY big factor.

Click to shrink...

This the corporate politics of Nintendo were not nearly as toxic as Sega.

 

[GDGF]

Nintendo actually worked on fixing their issues and didn't sabotage itself.

 

[UltraGashInferno]

The path from Genesis to Saturn was wayyy more rocky than the path from Wii to Wii U. The wii gave nintendo infinite money. It was easy to recover from Wii U. Sega probably couldve recovered from Saturn but they had the added bonus of fucked up managment.

 

[grand]

Nintendo has huge cash reserves, large properties that still generate cash outside of gaming (i.e. Pokemon), no internal strife between divisions and even at their worst, they still had a healthy handheld to lean on.

Sega and Nintendo's situations only seem similar on the very surface (console that did poorly). Otherwise they couldn't be more different.

 

[Bigg]

Nintendo has always been extremely good at saving money and they could always afford to make mistakes. I remember hearing Nintendo had something like $6 billion in the bank during the Gamecube era. Sega never had that kind of luxury.

 

[bionic77]

I think Nintendo was in better shape financially than Sega after their Saturn moment (the Wii U).

I do wonder what would have happened if Sega had more money to keep the DC going because it had the content and the hardware was good enough (IMO).

 

[Inuhanyou]

Sega made a lot of shitty decisions one after another(Sega CD, 32X, Neptune, Saturn) and Nintendo didn't. They made their own share of shitty decisions, but nowhere near enough to put them in a position of danger.

 

[Indelible]

They didn't make terrible business decisions like Sega did and there is actual communication between the American and Japanese branches of the company.

 

[Deleted member 3017]

Hiroshi Yamauchi
Gunpei Yokoi
Minoru Arakawa
Shigeru Miyamoto
Howard Lincoln

Yamauchi hired the right people and gave them the tools necessary for global success. And NCL trusted the leadership of NoA. Certain things have changed, but this foundation has allowed Nintendo to mount numerous comebacks over the years.

 

[EdgeXL]

Also. Sega gave distribution rights for their 8bit console to Tonka in the USA. Tonka had no clue how to market a console. Sega took the rights back in 1990 but they were mainly focused on Genesis by then.

 

[Deleted member 34949]

They had more than 1 important IP and didn't fuck it up with trash games. Even the worst mainline Mario is better than the best Sonic game. And, of course, there is Pokemon. Which is another funny case considering how Sega-centric GameFreak was before it.

Click to shrink...

What a delightfully reductive answer.

Nintendo's Japanese and American branches were in harmony. That's a REALLY big factor.

Click to shrink...

This. Sega was terribly mismanaged, and the animosity between the Japanese and American branches during the Saturn era stands as a testament to that. The company was already on borrowed time as a console manufacturer by the time the Dreamcast (seemingly) started to right things.

 

[Phendrift]

They make better games, their IPs are better and more famous, and they run themselves better.

I really think that's what it comes down to.

 

[Meelow]

After the Genesis released, Sega just kept pulling bad moves. With the add-ons, surprise Sega Saturn launch, Dreamcast not having DVD playback, etc.

EA also pulling out of support hurt them badly. Yeah EA did the same with the Wii U but Nintendo has the IP's to deal with it.

 

[Ikaruga]

Long Story short: They had Miyamoto, Iwata and Aonumao alongside some of the most talented people of Japan on board. -Sega didn't.

 

[modoversus]

Nintendo's Japanese and American branches were in harmony. That's a REALLY big factor.

Click to shrink...

Yes, also, Nintendo business practices are ruthless, and tends to maximize any chance they get for profit. Will do whatever they can if they think they can get away with it, like in Europe where they were caught price fixing, or in my country, where they do this but it is allowed.

And can't forget that their library of games may have been back then smaller than Sega's, but it is difficult to argue that it was not better. They do amazing games that last.

 

[Deleted member 31923]

I will also add that they were able to build on the failure of the Wii U. It's essentially a Switch, but they moved the core of the system into the controller, added joycons, and allowed you to take it anywhere instead of 30 feet (if that, watch the walls). Sega never build on their failures or used them as a prototype for later success.

 

[mas8705]

Sega was way too ambitious when it came to what they wanted to do and you could say that it showed itself from the start to the very end. It also doesn't help that if we look at the games that were produced after the DC days ended that you can definitely see a drop in quality from Sega. Not to say that all games were poorly received, but there's kind of a reason why people still love to refer to that one game simply by "06 Sonic."

 

[Deleted member 5491]

NCL always had the control while NoA's then poresident was Yamauchis Son in Law so unlike
SEGA Japan and America there was no confusion about who does what wiothout telling the other one.

Nintendo made less stupid hardware decisions that lead to confusion and distrust +
made more money with per game.

Nintendo even with falling back in the console market had the only real strong handheld segment
with games like Tetris and Pokémon. So they still made money even in the N64/GCN era.
And right now, they have the biggest lineup of strong IPs

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

Difference is mismanagement aside, there is surely an considerable gap between the Genesis success and the Wii success (let alone + the DS and 3DS), more of a safety net there.

 

[Deleted member 9971]

They make better games, their IPs are better and more famous, and they run themselves better.

I really think that's what it comes down to.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much my thought aswell.

 

[Molto]

Cuz Sega were complete garbage at everything besides making good video games. They made some shockingly bad decisions after the success of the Genesis.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

Because Nintendo actually believes in their products and they don't sweep them under the rug when they fail (except for the Virtual Boy).

 

[Aaronrules380]

Honestly, considering that every other Sega system sold millions less than the Wii U did, i'm Inclined to think the Genesis was more of a fluke than anything

 

[Illusion]

Nintendo's Japanese and American branches were in harmony. That's a REALLY big factor.

Click to shrink...

Actually America had a lot more freedom to do what they thought was best for America.
As opposed to now they listen to Japan more forcibly and directly.

 

[NuclearCake]

Because they had more than one good gaming system.

 

[WestEgg]

Sega was largely built up in the 90s as the anti-Nintendo, and aside from Sonic, built their fanbase on teen and adult oriented titles, especially sports. This audience loved games more than they loved Sega itself, and was pretty much completely absorbed by the original PlayStation, which did everything the Saturn did better and cheaper.

As for Nintendo, they have a far larger devoted fanbase than Sega ever did, and way more revenue streams from their handheld line, to amiibo and other plentiful merchandise, and even things such as the Zelda Symphony and NES classic. And from what I've heard, and please correct me if I'm wrong, while the Wii U was disastrous from a market and mindshare perspective, it actually became profitable eventually.