I question if billions was the ante for most of history's players. Did 3DO, CDi, etc. lose billions each? The cost of entry has surely increased as the industry has progressed over the decades from million dollar industry to billions.
3DO was backed by AT&T, EA, LG, Matsushita, MCA and Time Warner, while CD-i was backed by Phillip. I doubt consoles with $700 dollars price tags and heavy hitters for backers would be try to conquer the gaming market while keeping operating, marketing, R&D and production expense under a nine figure cap.
Really? I thought GameCube was profitable. I thought SEGA was profitable when playing second fiddle to Nintendo for two generations.
Hence... "while its competitors scrapped by with limited ability to recoup their investment on the console." But you must recollect something I forgot, because outside the 2 nintendo consoles, I can't find a 2nd tier console that I would readily surmise reached profitability with investments totally recouped that wasnt release during or before the 80s. I can readily name about 6 launched since the 90s that have failed to become profitable and 2 more that is more likely to join them then join the n64 and GC in reaching profitability.
Not sure I'd be willing to enter a market on the hope the previous successful champions would screw up! I'd want some pretty solid projections that there's a market for what I'm producing.
Nevertheless, not one manufacturer has ever wrestled market leadership without major mis-steps of the dominant player. Only MS with its huge reserves of cash and its dominant OS market position can readily invest billions over several generation to establish a major market presence. MS and Nintendo route is hardly going to be achievable by anyone else. Either they are going to lack the capital or the know how (MS has the capital and Nintendo is a publishing behemoth). Hardly advantages most companies can replicate.
No, because they are chasing clear future revenue streams. Why is MS so profitable? Because it produces low overhead software. If you could get money for shigfting bits down a network line, that'd be the most profitable business possible I think. So whoever gets a cut of every song, film, games etc. over the networks is the victor. That's why MS were willing to spend billions on XB instead of pulling out, because they were creating a beach-head into the living room. Any other company would have given up long before those losses.
There nothing "clear" about future revenue streams. Ask Sony. Chasing potential revenue streams is what everyone is doing regardless if they existing in the current market or trying to establish a presence. The potential you speak of is why it makes sense for Sega to try to reestablish itself as a content platform provider.
Sega as a publisher will have a harder time trying to be the next EA or Activision then it would have trying be the next Wii. The console market aburptly resets itself every five years and that in of itself has always been the major weakness to market leaders. The one thing I consider harder than obtaining market leadership in the console realm is building a publisher with efficiency and prowess of Nintendo. Sega potential is so much bigger as platform provider versus a content provider. Furthermore, with Sega the experience and knowledge is already there. It be illogical for them not to give a go and try again. And given how the Wii has made us all redefine the market and see that everyone is not looking at eye candy and toutings of supercomputer prowess, it makes sense for Sega to try now with an alternative strategy that moves away hardware towards a service oriented product.
this is just leading back to previous "SEGA reentering the hardware market" dscussions though, that we've been over before. Unless there's a sensible market strategy that can be presented for SEGA, to tackle the existing three with their substantial reputations, brands, and network services, there's no point in them trying. Further, as a potential investor in SEGA, would you at this point be looking at their future and thinking 'wow, dropping support for the existing consoles, their only real income source, and creating a competiting platform in this extremely high risk and crowded market, seem like a good horse to back to me!'? If a fourth horse enters, it'll be Google or Apple, someone else with reputation and an eye on lucrative network content
Given the outlook that the big three will delay their next gen launches. It may give Sega the opportunity to reenter the market without major headwind until we see new hardware from the big three. There is nothing to say Sega can't reenter the market with a ideal of a subscription based model with little or no upfront cost for the console itself based on tech thats only a small increase of what we have now. Producing a console in 2010 that looks better than what was leading edge for a console in 2005-2006 isn't going to be that costly.
Is there a huge amount of risk involved and the chance of failure great for Sega. Yes it is, but thats an inherent characteristic of any plan (good or bad) when trying to enter a volatile and unstable market such as console gaming. There is no clear cut strategy for reliably entering the market. Every successful foray depended on luck as much as good execution other than MS strategy of patience and 10-15 billion dollars.