Matt_H wrote:
@ madsjm
They didn't really do anything to actively kill the Dreamcast, but when it was suffering after the release of the PS2, they certainly didn't try to help it or do anything that one might expect from the definition of "partner." Instead they used the experience to get a foot in the door for the XBox.
In the console business, are you aware of what the definition of a partner is?
IBM is a PARTNER of Microsoft AND Sony. They developed the Cell and the Xenon. Did IBM let down Microsoft by concurrently developing for Sony?
M$ “letting Sega down” would have been if the OS promised did not work well, or was not done on time or had run into cost overruns. One of he reasons you hear so much about M$ being a partner to Sega on Dreamcast is because Sega wanted to add weight to the argument that Dreamcast was a very well designed system (Sony point to the IBM Cell to add similar weight, but do not expect IBM to help bail out Sony in any way is PS3 tanks.) Also, M$ wanted to legitimize Windows CE by showing how scalable it was and how fast they could deliver to a big client in a time-sensitive situation. Hate M$ as you may, you have to admit that they hit a home run for Sega.
This entire thread is insipid. Amazing how little this group of nerds seems to know about video game consoles. Really.