I've seen someone say this again and so I feel like talking about it: one of my little pet peeves with the way people talk about SEGA is whenever someone brings up the fact that they started out as an American company to justify them focusing on catering to Americans. You can think whatever you want in that regard, but I've always found this to be a disingenuous argument because it's frankly such a distant part of their history that just isn't the reality of how they've operated for a good 6 decades now. People invoke it to push this narrative of an American focus that runs in their blood throughout their history, essentially saying that despite mainly operating in Japan, they and their legacy are fundamentally American at their core, and not only is that just not really true (even other eras which saw a big focus on their US division are pretty distanced from what happened then), I feel like it also has the potential to invite some.....really problematic undertones. It feels like the people who invoke that argument don't actually know or care about that period in history and are only using it as a gotcha after reading about it on Wikipedia, and I don't like how it's often used to essentially dismiss the company's Japanese history, which is extremely interesting in its own right, just as fundamental to where they are now, and just as deserving of study.
The new Sega guy strikes me as trying to make "Nintendon't" strike again, not realising that campaign worked because 1. Nintendo had a legitimately damaging effect on the gaming industry as a whole that consumers were at least somewhat alert to, and 2. the Genesis was an objectively better product than the NES from a strictly specs perpsective, as opposed to modern Sega which doesn't have a product and the modern gaming fandom that tends to condemn competitive hostility (be that from players or companies) in quite an uhh... hostile fashion. This "super game" thing sounds ominously terrible especially.