The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It's the 90's, and Sega have got something big planned- a successor to the Megadrive; the only console to have ever rivalled Nintendo's machines.
To add to Sega's glee, Nintendo has just broken off a huge contract with Sony to produce a CD drice for the SNES. To think that Nintendo laughed at the Mega CD and 32X, and couldn't even make an add on themselves! HA!
To make things even more amusing, Sony is now making its own console... now, that'll never work!
Anyway, Sega's new console is a truely superb machine. Supper fast processors, high numbers of sprites onscreen at once, and some dazzling specs when compared to the Megadrive. To add to this, Sega's arcade division has just created the first ever 3D mass market games. So, just as Sega is about to control the console market, its hardware team is revolutionising the arcade scene with something that home consoles simly cannot provide- 3D gaming!
Well, I say home consoles cannot produce, because this is exactly what Sega thought. After all, with the exception of Starfox, all home console games were 2D, and all home console gamers were happy. The 3D graphics technology was too advanced for console to deal with!
A few months later, and Sega have given the release date of the console and developers seem to be working hard on games for the machine. Sony and Nintendo are silent about their machines... Until something disasterous happens...
Sony releases its console's specs; and they tell the gaming world one things:
3D gaming is the way forwards
The only way, in fact. The design of the so called "Playstation" is totally geared arou nd playing 3D games. It has its own graphics chips, sound boards, and vector processors. The machine is far in advance of Sega's lonely 2D Saturn.
Sega calls a board meeting. What to do? So, the following, outrageously stupid, plan was made:
*Get the folks in hardware to redesign the console so that it could compete with the Playstation... VERY quickly. In fact, the only thing that the hardware people could do was to stick a second processor into the console, to, in theory at least, double the power of the machine. The only problem was that nothing else in the console was redesigned to cope with this, and hence the console was extremely hard to program on. Almost impossible in fact, when compared to Sony's policy of helping developers with the best software tools, an easy to code for console, and some epert libraries of pre-written game code for free use.
*Beat the Playstation into homes. And so, the Saturn's release date was put FORWARDS by 6 months. Good idea... destroy the competition before it comes out! Only problem was that developers had no time to make games for the console!
*Because of the poorly designed specs for the console, and little time to make production facilities, the console had to be sold at a high price. £400 high! Far in excess of anything gamers would be willing to pay at that time.
And so it became true that the Saturn failed to sell. Developers were amazed by the simplicity of Sony's console, and gamers marvelled at the textured 3D game, Tekken. Nintendo had gone into the dark ages, and Sony was left all alone for over a year with no competition.
Remind you of something more recent???
Sonic
To add to Sega's glee, Nintendo has just broken off a huge contract with Sony to produce a CD drice for the SNES. To think that Nintendo laughed at the Mega CD and 32X, and couldn't even make an add on themselves! HA!
To make things even more amusing, Sony is now making its own console... now, that'll never work!
Anyway, Sega's new console is a truely superb machine. Supper fast processors, high numbers of sprites onscreen at once, and some dazzling specs when compared to the Megadrive. To add to this, Sega's arcade division has just created the first ever 3D mass market games. So, just as Sega is about to control the console market, its hardware team is revolutionising the arcade scene with something that home consoles simly cannot provide- 3D gaming!
Well, I say home consoles cannot produce, because this is exactly what Sega thought. After all, with the exception of Starfox, all home console games were 2D, and all home console gamers were happy. The 3D graphics technology was too advanced for console to deal with!
A few months later, and Sega have given the release date of the console and developers seem to be working hard on games for the machine. Sony and Nintendo are silent about their machines... Until something disasterous happens...
Sony releases its console's specs; and they tell the gaming world one things:
3D gaming is the way forwards
The only way, in fact. The design of the so called "Playstation" is totally geared arou nd playing 3D games. It has its own graphics chips, sound boards, and vector processors. The machine is far in advance of Sega's lonely 2D Saturn.
Sega calls a board meeting. What to do? So, the following, outrageously stupid, plan was made:
*Get the folks in hardware to redesign the console so that it could compete with the Playstation... VERY quickly. In fact, the only thing that the hardware people could do was to stick a second processor into the console, to, in theory at least, double the power of the machine. The only problem was that nothing else in the console was redesigned to cope with this, and hence the console was extremely hard to program on. Almost impossible in fact, when compared to Sony's policy of helping developers with the best software tools, an easy to code for console, and some epert libraries of pre-written game code for free use.
*Beat the Playstation into homes. And so, the Saturn's release date was put FORWARDS by 6 months. Good idea... destroy the competition before it comes out! Only problem was that developers had no time to make games for the console!
*Because of the poorly designed specs for the console, and little time to make production facilities, the console had to be sold at a high price. £400 high! Far in excess of anything gamers would be willing to pay at that time.
And so it became true that the Saturn failed to sell. Developers were amazed by the simplicity of Sony's console, and gamers marvelled at the textured 3D game, Tekken. Nintendo had gone into the dark ages, and Sony was left all alone for over a year with no competition.
Remind you of something more recent???
Sonic
Page:
Well the sega has some of the best games around but nobody seems to have paid attention to poor ol' Sega.
Well said Strafex... and that indeed will be the basis of my next topic.
But before I go on to write that, I'll just make a small amedment to the original topic.
You see, before the Saturn was even conceived, Sega was doing well in the West with its Megadrive. So the company decided to cash in on the console by releasing the Mega CD and 32X. Not only did these 2 add ons cost more than the console, but they also confused gamers, and more importantly annoyed developers who wanted to start making games for the next gen of console, and not continue with the dying generation. Add to that, Sega kept most of the add on's dev. kits for themselves.
That didn't make Sega too many friends either!
Sonic
But before I go on to write that, I'll just make a small amedment to the original topic.
You see, before the Saturn was even conceived, Sega was doing well in the West with its Megadrive. So the company decided to cash in on the console by releasing the Mega CD and 32X. Not only did these 2 add ons cost more than the console, but they also confused gamers, and more importantly annoyed developers who wanted to start making games for the next gen of console, and not continue with the dying generation. Add to that, Sega kept most of the add on's dev. kits for themselves.
That didn't make Sega too many friends either!
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> I wouldn't say Sony have luck... they have a brand name.
By marketting the
> original PS with the trendy Hi-Fi manufacturer label, Sony were able to shift
> units to previous non-gamers.
With the PS2, developers could be assurred that
> it would sell just as well, so went with this option over the Dreamcast... as
> did ganers who knew the PS brandname well. (see the topic on "time and time
> again").
You can see why many Sega zealots hate Sony though.
The PS2 beat the Dreamcast PURELY on hype and advertising.
Sony used heavy advertising and misleading statistics to lead devellopers and consumers away from Sega's machine.
It then took the PS2 atleast 6 months to produce the quality of games that could just about match the quality of Dreamcast games.
I think that's one reason why the Digitiser columist's (Tony Mott, Violet Berlin and "forgotten-his-first-name" Campell) always give the PS2 a hard time.
Sony made loads of promises that killed the Dreamcast, and once the Dreamcast was dead, didn't keep them.
The PS2 is worthwhile now with some first class games and a 200 pound price tag, but the ONLY reason it came on top of the Dreamcast is because of the marketing, which as you say, Nintendo REALLY needs to catch on to, unless it wants to sink beneath the corporate weight of Microsoft and Sony.
In other words Sonic, I suppose I'm saying that you're absolutely right! :-D
> I wouldn't say Sony have luck... they have a brand name.
By marketting the
> original PS with the trendy Hi-Fi manufacturer label, Sony were able to shift
> units to previous non-gamers.
With the PS2, developers could be assurred that
> it would sell just as well, so went with this option over the Dreamcast... as
> did ganers who knew the PS brandname well. (see the topic on "time and time
> again").
You can see why many Sega zealots hate Sony though.
The PS2 beat the Dreamcast PURELY on hype and advertising.
Sony used heavy advertising and misleading statistics to lead devellopers and consumers away from Sega's machine.
It then took the PS2 atleast 6 months to produce the quality of games that could just about match the quality of Dreamcast games.
I think that's one reason why the Digitiser columist's (Tony Mott, Violet Berlin and "forgotten-his-first-name" Campell) always give the PS2 a hard time.
Sony made loads of promises that killed the Dreamcast, and once the Dreamcast was dead, didn't keep them.
The PS2 is worthwhile now with some first class games and a 200 pound price tag, but the ONLY reason it came on top of the Dreamcast is because of the marketing, which as you say, Nintendo REALLY needs to catch on to, unless it wants to sink beneath the corporate weight of Microsoft and Sony.
In other words Sonic, I suppose I'm saying that you're absolutely right! :-D
Can't wait Sonic, I'll get my reply ready.... ;-)
Trust Pb...
Anyway, look out for the sequal to this topic... talking about why the DC failed... and it's far more than just the demise of the Saturn!
Sonic
Anyway, look out for the sequal to this topic... talking about why the DC failed... and it's far more than just the demise of the Saturn!
Sonic
Oooh. Lots of points here.
1) Sega vs Sony.
Nice and black and white, isn't it. Only one console manufacturer can exist at one time. Really? Well, perhaps the last 10 years of gaming where Sega and Nintendo made excellent consoles side by side was a dream?
Sony, of course, made consoles a more marketable commodity, therefore making competition more stiff and trying to corner the market. There was little room for Sega in the new user base that Sony had set up and Sega were building a console for the same people who bought their megadrive, Sony were after a much bigger audience. So Sony went for a mass market approach and Sega went for their usual audience, who gets the most sales? (no prizes).
The Saturn was a bit of a mess inside from a programmers point of view. The console did it's job though and sold to lots of beat-em-up fans who loved the 2D action. Plus it showcased the then excellent Tomb Raider first and games such as Daytona and Sega Rally showed that it could be a great 3D arcade machine. Unfortunately, Sony's ad campaign was so successful that people really believed that all we needed was 3D gaming. Shame. Sega did well in the sales of their console at first. Only £100 higher than the Playstation and out first. The problem was that a lot of the 3rd party developers were on their way to Sony, as they would be paid more money for their licences. Sega couldn't compete in the money market, they were making a console for the games market, not to compete in a home electronics market that Sony had entered Gaming in to.
Sega found that less 3rd party developers = less money and they started to lose their customers to the new machine and to the new Nintendo that was still being supported. The Sony machine had been hyped and sold as a new piece of technology in all the papers and on TV. This was a completely new way for games consoles to sell and a much larger market. Sega had to call it quits and design a new system for the next generation.
The Dreamcast launched well, but it also launched early. It got rave reviews and sold well, but the games were slow coming so a lot of people still held back. By the time the big games came out, Sony had already announced its new console, making everyone believe that it would blow everything else away. In reality it appeared to be the same generation spec as the Dreamcast, yet the media was made to believe otherwise, due to expensive lunches and Sony's amazing ability to play the media.
The sales of DC slowed down and people started to wait for Sony's new machine. With the old PSX machines starting to go wrong or get bashed about, many people looked for the backward compatibility of the new system to solve their problem. Many younger gamers saw their brothers or sisters PSX and got straight in to gaming through the PS2. Sony continued to play the media and Sega's powerful machine was left out of favour by those that hadn't realised its potential or quality games line up due to lack of being able to use the media to Sega's advantage. People thought that as the Dreamcast had launched first, it wasn't part of the current generation of consoles, despite it's ability to match the PS2 titles.
2) Nintendo
Nintendo decided to make their console cartridge based. It had worked in the past, but it also meant higher production costs. Nintendo also liked to keep their games as close to their own ideals as possible, so cartridges were ideal for making sure licencing was kept strict. Unfortunately, with CD gaming on the go and easy reproduction, a lot or 3rd parties were put off. Some others were swayed by Sony's checkbook and moved over to the PSX. This didn't cause too much trouble for the N64 on launch, as it still sold well and soon after titles like Mario 64 and Goldeneye had the world in awe, selling yet more consoles. But as the world turns, things change and Nintendo saw their dropping of 3rd parties affecting sales. Their policy of strict licencing had meant that less and less games were appearing each year and people were swayed by the 'grown up' image of the Playstation. N64 continued to do relatively well for Nintendo and are still selling in small numbers, but their strategy could not compete with the different market Sony had introduced.
3) The Future?
Sony are already making contigency plans in case the early release of their console means that people will try the Xbox and Gamecube instead. They have announced that the PS3 may well be released early (console life is usually around 5 years on average) and they will most probably wait to see how things progress before making firm plans. Where Sony have succeeded is that they have created a completely different market for games than previously existed. This led to millions of units being sold in a short space of time, something unusual in the console market before this time. This then made the other companies look like they were failing, despite each selling more consoles than they had previously sold in the whole of the past years put together, but Sony's strategy was to base the console market on the fearce home electronics market.
Sega's Dreamcast was a success for Sega, but the last year has been tough and they made decisions which put them in debt. Trying to go head to head with a company that made other products and was not interested 100% in the games market was difficult and the goalposts had obviously changed, so Sega looked to their strengths and started making software for the other platforms instead.
Is their room for more than one console in the new games market? Yes, as long as the competition play by the rules now set by Sony or create their own rules. Microsoft have learnt many tricks from their massive rise to fame and are already a well known brand name, they will have that power behind them. Nintendo have their Pokemon franchise to remind all the parents that their name stands for something, plus they have the gamers of old who remember the days of the 16 bit consoles and as long as they have learnt from Sony's marketing they will have the power to stay ahead.
But, as I said, it's not a one man race by any means and all three consoles could survive quite happily in the market. Either way, Sega looks to have made the right move and can't lose.
1) Sega vs Sony.
Nice and black and white, isn't it. Only one console manufacturer can exist at one time. Really? Well, perhaps the last 10 years of gaming where Sega and Nintendo made excellent consoles side by side was a dream?
Sony, of course, made consoles a more marketable commodity, therefore making competition more stiff and trying to corner the market. There was little room for Sega in the new user base that Sony had set up and Sega were building a console for the same people who bought their megadrive, Sony were after a much bigger audience. So Sony went for a mass market approach and Sega went for their usual audience, who gets the most sales? (no prizes).
The Saturn was a bit of a mess inside from a programmers point of view. The console did it's job though and sold to lots of beat-em-up fans who loved the 2D action. Plus it showcased the then excellent Tomb Raider first and games such as Daytona and Sega Rally showed that it could be a great 3D arcade machine. Unfortunately, Sony's ad campaign was so successful that people really believed that all we needed was 3D gaming. Shame. Sega did well in the sales of their console at first. Only £100 higher than the Playstation and out first. The problem was that a lot of the 3rd party developers were on their way to Sony, as they would be paid more money for their licences. Sega couldn't compete in the money market, they were making a console for the games market, not to compete in a home electronics market that Sony had entered Gaming in to.
Sega found that less 3rd party developers = less money and they started to lose their customers to the new machine and to the new Nintendo that was still being supported. The Sony machine had been hyped and sold as a new piece of technology in all the papers and on TV. This was a completely new way for games consoles to sell and a much larger market. Sega had to call it quits and design a new system for the next generation.
The Dreamcast launched well, but it also launched early. It got rave reviews and sold well, but the games were slow coming so a lot of people still held back. By the time the big games came out, Sony had already announced its new console, making everyone believe that it would blow everything else away. In reality it appeared to be the same generation spec as the Dreamcast, yet the media was made to believe otherwise, due to expensive lunches and Sony's amazing ability to play the media.
The sales of DC slowed down and people started to wait for Sony's new machine. With the old PSX machines starting to go wrong or get bashed about, many people looked for the backward compatibility of the new system to solve their problem. Many younger gamers saw their brothers or sisters PSX and got straight in to gaming through the PS2. Sony continued to play the media and Sega's powerful machine was left out of favour by those that hadn't realised its potential or quality games line up due to lack of being able to use the media to Sega's advantage. People thought that as the Dreamcast had launched first, it wasn't part of the current generation of consoles, despite it's ability to match the PS2 titles.
2) Nintendo
Nintendo decided to make their console cartridge based. It had worked in the past, but it also meant higher production costs. Nintendo also liked to keep their games as close to their own ideals as possible, so cartridges were ideal for making sure licencing was kept strict. Unfortunately, with CD gaming on the go and easy reproduction, a lot or 3rd parties were put off. Some others were swayed by Sony's checkbook and moved over to the PSX. This didn't cause too much trouble for the N64 on launch, as it still sold well and soon after titles like Mario 64 and Goldeneye had the world in awe, selling yet more consoles. But as the world turns, things change and Nintendo saw their dropping of 3rd parties affecting sales. Their policy of strict licencing had meant that less and less games were appearing each year and people were swayed by the 'grown up' image of the Playstation. N64 continued to do relatively well for Nintendo and are still selling in small numbers, but their strategy could not compete with the different market Sony had introduced.
3) The Future?
Sony are already making contigency plans in case the early release of their console means that people will try the Xbox and Gamecube instead. They have announced that the PS3 may well be released early (console life is usually around 5 years on average) and they will most probably wait to see how things progress before making firm plans. Where Sony have succeeded is that they have created a completely different market for games than previously existed. This led to millions of units being sold in a short space of time, something unusual in the console market before this time. This then made the other companies look like they were failing, despite each selling more consoles than they had previously sold in the whole of the past years put together, but Sony's strategy was to base the console market on the fearce home electronics market.
Sega's Dreamcast was a success for Sega, but the last year has been tough and they made decisions which put them in debt. Trying to go head to head with a company that made other products and was not interested 100% in the games market was difficult and the goalposts had obviously changed, so Sega looked to their strengths and started making software for the other platforms instead.
Is their room for more than one console in the new games market? Yes, as long as the competition play by the rules now set by Sony or create their own rules. Microsoft have learnt many tricks from their massive rise to fame and are already a well known brand name, they will have that power behind them. Nintendo have their Pokemon franchise to remind all the parents that their name stands for something, plus they have the gamers of old who remember the days of the 16 bit consoles and as long as they have learnt from Sony's marketing they will have the power to stay ahead.
But, as I said, it's not a one man race by any means and all three consoles could survive quite happily in the market. Either way, Sega looks to have made the right move and can't lose.
Interesting, and no doubt true.
Hmmm, I can see the launch of GC being slow, but the GC should have a whole range of killer games coming out during the duration of 2002.
Mario, Zelda and Perfect Dark are all expected at sometime in 2002. Hopefully these titles can make the Gamecube seem much more appealable during christmas 2002.
Come to think of it, woudnt it be a better idea for Ninty to release the console in Europe closer to next christmas? Instead of the expected Spring launch?
Although it could mean a lot of people asking for thier money back on their pre-ordered GC and going for the X-box/PS2.
But as you say, a large majority of People dont know what the Gamecube is. So maybe a further delayed launch, with extra time to boost the profile of the console, could be a good idea for Ninty.
Mario, Zelda and Perfect Dark are all expected at sometime in 2002. Hopefully these titles can make the Gamecube seem much more appealable during christmas 2002.
Come to think of it, woudnt it be a better idea for Ninty to release the console in Europe closer to next christmas? Instead of the expected Spring launch?
Although it could mean a lot of people asking for thier money back on their pre-ordered GC and going for the X-box/PS2.
But as you say, a large majority of People dont know what the Gamecube is. So maybe a further delayed launch, with extra time to boost the profile of the console, could be a good idea for Ninty.
Or†ega wrote:
Look at the
> N64 launch. Only Mario wasnt it?! We should have at least 10 games for the
> Europe Launch.
Also the launch price is also cheaper, and if Gamecube doesnt
> shift as much initially i'm sure Ninty will cut the price in-time for christmas.
>
And Ninty have finally started to understand that good advertising (not
> good games) sells the console.
A few problems:
1) The console is launched AFTER xmas. Seeing as 90% of console sales take place during xmas, do you really think there's gonna be a huge waiting market.
2) There is, as of yet, no advertising! So many gamers don't even know what a GC is, hence won't be waiting to get one.
3) MS release the xbox at the same time as the GC, with millions more advertising money.
4) The GC has a good line up of games, but is launching at the same price as a PS2 is... which has a far wider range of games! Which would the typical Joe Bloggs gamer rather get.
5) Finally, there are no killer apps on the GC to make gamers get it over a PS2. If it had Zelda at release with huge advertising, then the console would be safe. But no Zelda nor Mario :(
Sonic
Look at the
> N64 launch. Only Mario wasnt it?! We should have at least 10 games for the
> Europe Launch.
Also the launch price is also cheaper, and if Gamecube doesnt
> shift as much initially i'm sure Ninty will cut the price in-time for christmas.
>
And Ninty have finally started to understand that good advertising (not
> good games) sells the console.
A few problems:
1) The console is launched AFTER xmas. Seeing as 90% of console sales take place during xmas, do you really think there's gonna be a huge waiting market.
2) There is, as of yet, no advertising! So many gamers don't even know what a GC is, hence won't be waiting to get one.
3) MS release the xbox at the same time as the GC, with millions more advertising money.
4) The GC has a good line up of games, but is launching at the same price as a PS2 is... which has a far wider range of games! Which would the typical Joe Bloggs gamer rather get.
5) Finally, there are no killer apps on the GC to make gamers get it over a PS2. If it had Zelda at release with huge advertising, then the console would be safe. But no Zelda nor Mario :(
Sonic
I think it's a marketing war more than the technical aspects.
I agree, GC may not be given a chance (like the Dreamcast) and that could ultimately cause the console to fail. Of course those who buy it will love it, but the real success of a console lies on the floods of people who instictively buy a console as a gift, first-time gamers if you will.
I agree, GC may not be given a chance (like the Dreamcast) and that could ultimately cause the console to fail. Of course those who buy it will love it, but the real success of a console lies on the floods of people who instictively buy a console as a gift, first-time gamers if you will.
Page: