Sega fanboys always changing reality to avoid the blunt truth of the matter.
The only thing blunt here is your lack of education on the topic. Wipe the condensation off the goggles sometime
The Cd-i was a media format, it was not a gaming device (which was first to create a full online ecosystem predating the dreamcast so if MS did care about them they clearly would have reacted earlier in 1996.)
Doesn't matter; they pivoted it as a gaming platform post-launch after initial tepid sales. Also massive L on your part trying to jockey-position CD-i's "ful online ecosystem" (in this context what does that even mean, given it lacked amenities later online ecosystems would feature) as something of having any notable industry impact.
Essentially it was a footnote; things like Xband, Sega Channel, Netlink and Yazore...hell, even the online connectivity of the Apple Pippin, had more of an impact on the then-future of online gaming Microsoft would later push with Xbox Live, than anything CD-i did on that note.
3DO would literally be a new console.
...and? It had a massive marketing push, from the biggest 3rd-party publisher in the industry at that note who had tons of rapport among PC and console gamers, ran by a man who launched said publisher to success. Doesn't change what happened.
Why would MS look at something that would have been dead in NA 2 years before and likely may not even have known it existed?
Maybe because they would've known it existed as it was flippin'
NEC (one of if not the most prominent Japanese electronics companies of the 1980's/early 1990s'), and already had presence in Japan themselves through Windows and DOS, both of which found their way on...NEC computers (among others, like Fujitsu) via variants...let alone devices like the MSX?
This may all be news to you but that's a you issue.
Atari wouldn't even have launched the Jaguar nation wide yet (which was 1994, 1993 was a market test where they sold all their produced units)
Doesn't matter; you're being very limited in how these corporations would be viewing and knowing of this stuff. Who do you think were manufacturing the Jaguars? It was IBM. Who were one of the major tech companies IBM had relations with at the time? Microsoft. People at these companies...know other people at the other companies. They "talk". So they are at least somewhat cognizant of certain developments that might be happening, even if they don't have the details.
1993 was not their market test, dude. That was their launch year; they always intended a 1993 launch, that is one of the reasons the Panther was cancelled. They couldn't reach promised numbers due to IBM, Atari's manufacturing partner for the Jaguar. But maybe this is also news to you as well...
The problem here is your fanboyism isn't paying attention tot he timeframe, this is BEFORE the Saturn launched early on before even the specs released and the PSX last second change. It is clear based on this that something caused the deal to break, and since the Dreamcast had Sega partner with Microsoft it's clear that Microsoft still though there was some viability in dealing with Sega, but at the same time as that they still had the Xbox in the background and were going to launch it, it was not a safety net incase the DC exploded, a legend spread by the fanbois.
Welp, at least we can see your true colors on these type of topics now. I gave the benefit of the doubt before but I'm done with that, it is what it is. Going by how many details I had to correct on your end above, you're in no position to try calling anyone else as being unaware of the full timeline, because at least other people ITT (to my knowledge) haven't been doing Olympian-level mental gymnastics to distort details to pin a point of blame on a certain thing or company just to feed some uncontrollable bias.
Anyway...maybe your memory is foggy, because I gave a clear-cut reasoning as to what most likely caused that Microsoft/Saturn deal (if it was every real btw; you never once question the validity of that rumored printing but cannot pull up even a second case of that rumor surfacing from a different publication of the similar time period. There's this thing called "cross-referencing", might want to try it sometime
): Sega of Japan. Let's try following the pattern, shall we?
SoA tries netting deal with Silicon Graphics: SoJ rejects. SoA tries netting deal with Sony (they previously agreed to work with Sony of America on Sega/Mega CD support): SoJ rejects. SoA tries getting new Eternal Champions, Streets of Rage, Vectorman made: SoJ rejects. Microsoft, an
American company, most likely tries netting a deal with Saturn through Sega of
America (also an
American company, hence "
American" in the title). Now, who d'ya think would've likely rejected
this?
Not much a point touching on the Dreamcast stuff as I already did so in the last post, and honestly, you don't seem either willing or able to comprehend the logical outcome of this Microsoft OS/Saturn deal (which, again, is a rumor that AFAIK has a single source from some obscure article and may not have even been an accurate rumor, since we have no other proof of this speculation proliferating with other publications during the period).
The only logical conclusion is that Microsoft, despite find a partnership viable, did not have enough faith for a real full-on partnership with Sega. In addition the other part of the reasoning behind approving that internals teams Xbox project was because of Sony domination so it would also be logical to assume that MS never saw Sega as a way to deal with that.
What's any of this got to do with the article clipping you posted in the OP? Did you even read my post on this particular talking point regarding Dreamcast? If you did you'd see I had some similar sentiments but at least I can express mine with some neutrality.
As for the Saturn deal, Microsoft wasn't even interested in purchasing Sega at the time, but in just under two years they were interested in buying Nintendo to expand their gaming arms and try to block Sony before there was even an approved greenlight to go forward with the consoles, just some prototypes some inside team was fiddling around.
Don't forget Microsoft was in talks about buying Sega and adding BC to Xbox for the Dreamcast not long before the production and MS shot both down.
Wow, way to strawman, this is extremely poor logic & reasoning on your part. I know exactly why you mentioned that first sentence (because you are reading like a simple book at this point): you just want to insinuate a quality valuation between those companies to Microsoft's acquisition desires and, going by some of your previous comments, this is probably a quality valuation that isn't merely business-related but also (erroneously) tied to software quality, knowing you. This is the kind of thing I refer to when speaking on your tendencies as displayed in the OP, it's even led to you drawing illogical strawman conclusions.
If you're gonna refer to MS not adding the BC or purchasing Sega at that time, you should at the very least go into the reasons why but...maybe this is yet more knowledge that escapes you? Sega and Microsoft had terms for the BC that could not find a mutual agreement. The acquisition of Sega did not occur because they received a large cash investment allowing them to stay independent, and board members at the company wanted them to go 3rd-party. That...kind of would've been defeated if they got locked into Microsoft as a 1P dev/pub.
Yeah...I think we're done here. I've nothing more to say to you on this.
