The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In part I outlined the reasons for the demise of the Saturn, as well as Sega trying to stretch the Mega Drive brand... if you'd like to see that topic, go to prime and scroll down!
So now for part 2... now, where was I?
Right, the Saturn has flopped at release due to high pricing, a poor selection of games and mainly competition from the PSX (Sony offered retailers discounts if they sold lots of PSXs etc.)
It was then that Sega entered the dark ages. Emerging briefly to attend arcade conferences, such as JAMMA, little was known about the company for over a year. Until, that is, that rumours about a new console began to emerge. Names such as the "Dural" and "Black Belt" popped up, as dd many confusing stories.
The strangest of these was that the next Sega console would be made by two different companies- one for the East, and one for the West (3Dfx). Indeed, both divisions later admitted they had been in negotiations. Until a few months later, and the project went cold when Sega America rang 3Dfx to cancel all negotiations!
But all was not lost... rumours about a new console- the Katana- emerged. It was to use Hitachi chips, and have a modem as standard. Something was certainly going on, with Sega slowing arcade game production, and a protective wall going up around the company.
And so it became true that Sega nnounced its great White Hope- the Dreamcast. It had the built in modem, online gaming, four player ports, and a whole range of firstparty games to suite.
Now, skipping all the technical specs, let's get to the reason Sega failed.
A few days after the DC's unveiling, Sony suddenly held a press conference showing the successor to the Playstation off to the world. Amazingly, the demo of Tekken showed SEVENTY characters watching a full on back street brawl, and many other similar quality demos. Add to that the demos only took 4 weeks to make (according to the creators), and Sony were litterally saying that the console would have photorealistic graphics. So, developers jumped on board, mags were filled with the PS2 pics, and the DC got a raw deal.
What Sony failed to say was that the demos they showed were running off a series of PCs, and were not coded on a PS2 dev kit... just some very powerful computers. In fact, Sony hadn't even made the final console specs, and was just trying to create hype for its console to drown the DC.
And the hype worked. Developers jumped on the PS2 wagon... despite no console specs or dev kits!
But all was not lost for Sega! They had some stunning games, and a huge Western launch planned (Sega never were big in Japan).
In the West, adverts were aimed at selling the DC brand... and NOT the games. This worked extremely well in the US where huge launch events and parties made the console sell out. The only problem was that many gamers knew the DC was coming on 9.9.99... but didn't know what the DC was!?!?!
In Europe, the campaign went far worse. Wasting the budget on sponsoring Arsenal, SOE had a poor TV campaign, that didn't get any attention!
Saying that, the DC had some great games- Sonic, Soul Calibur and Sega Sports games were hailed as AAA titles immediately.
Now, the problem with DC sales is 2 fold:
1) Poor advertising
2) Sony happened to release PS2 info just as Sega made a big announcement.
The DC was not competing against the PS2- it wa competing against a photorealistic console that didn't exist!
The DC's online functions came too soon for the mass market, and gamers were far more interested when they heard that the PS2 would have DVD playability.
And so developers moved away from the DC to the PS2 as gamers did... but that's not the end of the story!
When PS2 dev kits actually came out there was a huge outcry from the industry. In all honesty, the dev kit was aweful! Well, it wasn't aweful, but it felt that way- the architecture of the PS2 was unlike anything before it, meaning huge development costs and long development times!
The whole reaosn for developers chosing the PSX was that it was so easy to code for, and so well supported. The PS2 was much more expensive, and had very poor libraries. And t showed too...
The first batch of PS2 games was WAY off par with the 70 man Tekken brawler seen a few months earlier. Games were jaggy, unoriginal, and second rate. Ok, there were a few stars, but nothing pushed the console beyond what had come before.
And so, gamers and publishers alike began to realise that, had they stuck to the DC, they could have made games just as good for a far cheaper price.
Ironically, Sega is getting the last laugh... as a third party developer, it is now directly competing with the developers who shunned its Dreamcast. And Sega certainly fail in that market... games have always been their forte.
Sonic
So now for part 2... now, where was I?
Right, the Saturn has flopped at release due to high pricing, a poor selection of games and mainly competition from the PSX (Sony offered retailers discounts if they sold lots of PSXs etc.)
It was then that Sega entered the dark ages. Emerging briefly to attend arcade conferences, such as JAMMA, little was known about the company for over a year. Until, that is, that rumours about a new console began to emerge. Names such as the "Dural" and "Black Belt" popped up, as dd many confusing stories.
The strangest of these was that the next Sega console would be made by two different companies- one for the East, and one for the West (3Dfx). Indeed, both divisions later admitted they had been in negotiations. Until a few months later, and the project went cold when Sega America rang 3Dfx to cancel all negotiations!
But all was not lost... rumours about a new console- the Katana- emerged. It was to use Hitachi chips, and have a modem as standard. Something was certainly going on, with Sega slowing arcade game production, and a protective wall going up around the company.
And so it became true that Sega nnounced its great White Hope- the Dreamcast. It had the built in modem, online gaming, four player ports, and a whole range of firstparty games to suite.
Now, skipping all the technical specs, let's get to the reason Sega failed.
A few days after the DC's unveiling, Sony suddenly held a press conference showing the successor to the Playstation off to the world. Amazingly, the demo of Tekken showed SEVENTY characters watching a full on back street brawl, and many other similar quality demos. Add to that the demos only took 4 weeks to make (according to the creators), and Sony were litterally saying that the console would have photorealistic graphics. So, developers jumped on board, mags were filled with the PS2 pics, and the DC got a raw deal.
What Sony failed to say was that the demos they showed were running off a series of PCs, and were not coded on a PS2 dev kit... just some very powerful computers. In fact, Sony hadn't even made the final console specs, and was just trying to create hype for its console to drown the DC.
And the hype worked. Developers jumped on the PS2 wagon... despite no console specs or dev kits!
But all was not lost for Sega! They had some stunning games, and a huge Western launch planned (Sega never were big in Japan).
In the West, adverts were aimed at selling the DC brand... and NOT the games. This worked extremely well in the US where huge launch events and parties made the console sell out. The only problem was that many gamers knew the DC was coming on 9.9.99... but didn't know what the DC was!?!?!
In Europe, the campaign went far worse. Wasting the budget on sponsoring Arsenal, SOE had a poor TV campaign, that didn't get any attention!
Saying that, the DC had some great games- Sonic, Soul Calibur and Sega Sports games were hailed as AAA titles immediately.
Now, the problem with DC sales is 2 fold:
1) Poor advertising
2) Sony happened to release PS2 info just as Sega made a big announcement.
The DC was not competing against the PS2- it wa competing against a photorealistic console that didn't exist!
The DC's online functions came too soon for the mass market, and gamers were far more interested when they heard that the PS2 would have DVD playability.
And so developers moved away from the DC to the PS2 as gamers did... but that's not the end of the story!
When PS2 dev kits actually came out there was a huge outcry from the industry. In all honesty, the dev kit was aweful! Well, it wasn't aweful, but it felt that way- the architecture of the PS2 was unlike anything before it, meaning huge development costs and long development times!
The whole reaosn for developers chosing the PSX was that it was so easy to code for, and so well supported. The PS2 was much more expensive, and had very poor libraries. And t showed too...
The first batch of PS2 games was WAY off par with the 70 man Tekken brawler seen a few months earlier. Games were jaggy, unoriginal, and second rate. Ok, there were a few stars, but nothing pushed the console beyond what had come before.
And so, gamers and publishers alike began to realise that, had they stuck to the DC, they could have made games just as good for a far cheaper price.
Ironically, Sega is getting the last laugh... as a third party developer, it is now directly competing with the developers who shunned its Dreamcast. And Sega certainly fail in that market... games have always been their forte.
Sonic
Page:
Sonic Team broke away from Sega a few months before Sega announced giving up hardware.
The Sonic Team knew that the Dreamcast had failed, and although they still wanted to keep develloping for it a stay friends with Sega, they wanted to expand their future too.
They said that the PS2 hardware was ugly and nasty and that they wouldn't be develloping for that, but the Gamecube looked promising.
I expect that the Xbox is possible too, only Miyamoto and Naka seemed to be bested buddies as of late...
The Sonic Team knew that the Dreamcast had failed, and although they still wanted to keep develloping for it a stay friends with Sega, they wanted to expand their future too.
They said that the PS2 hardware was ugly and nasty and that they wouldn't be develloping for that, but the Gamecube looked promising.
I expect that the Xbox is possible too, only Miyamoto and Naka seemed to be bested buddies as of late...
First off, it is SonicTeam... not team sonic
Secondly, so what if Sonic Team are working on the Gc. Sega has TEN individual divisions, and Sonic Team is just an averaged sized one!
The rest of the teams are all working independantly. Some are GC only, some are xbox only, some are PS2 only, and others are combinations. (Oh, and some arcade).
So this thing about Sonic Team "spying" is just nonsense!
Sonic
Secondly, so what if Sonic Team are working on the Gc. Sega has TEN individual divisions, and Sonic Team is just an averaged sized one!
The rest of the teams are all working independantly. Some are GC only, some are xbox only, some are PS2 only, and others are combinations. (Oh, and some arcade).
So this thing about Sonic Team "spying" is just nonsense!
Sonic
I don't think Sega have 'called it a day' on their future plans for a next-geberation console. The 'Team Sonic' area of Sega are working with Nintendo for some top Dreamcast games to be produced on the GameCube and GameBoy Advance.
I also think that this is a way of Sega gaining experience of how their rivals create and develop new games, and all techniques used in their consoles. It could only be a matter of time before 'Team Sonic' begin more work with Sony (on the PS2) and Microsoft (on the X-box) to test out the other 2 competitors.
I'm not trying to say that team Sonic are being used by Sega as 'spys', but they're just testing out their competition and making some extra money, after the dissapointment of the Dreamcast.
But why are they making more money?? Other than to stay in finncial comfort and keep Sega alive, they could be using the money to create their own 'TOP-SECRET' next-generation console, to suddenly emerge, and destroy it's 3 competitors!!
The Dreamcast was a big success at first, but has since died down due to competiton. And a follow up to the Dreamcast, with a greater longevity could put Sega right back at the top of the charts, like they were with the MegaDrive, and MegaDrive CD. But did releasing the extra CD drive arise too early?? Limitting Sega's big plans for the future??
It would be a shame to see a console war, without a Sega console, as it just wouldn't be the same! We've been used to seeing Sega as a big part of the gaming world for quite some time now, ever since the Master System. To me it just seems very odd, not to have a Sega machine competing with Nintendo. And even stranger to see a Microsoft CONSOLE as a SHOCK contender!! Will it ever be the same again???
I also think that this is a way of Sega gaining experience of how their rivals create and develop new games, and all techniques used in their consoles. It could only be a matter of time before 'Team Sonic' begin more work with Sony (on the PS2) and Microsoft (on the X-box) to test out the other 2 competitors.
I'm not trying to say that team Sonic are being used by Sega as 'spys', but they're just testing out their competition and making some extra money, after the dissapointment of the Dreamcast.
But why are they making more money?? Other than to stay in finncial comfort and keep Sega alive, they could be using the money to create their own 'TOP-SECRET' next-generation console, to suddenly emerge, and destroy it's 3 competitors!!
The Dreamcast was a big success at first, but has since died down due to competiton. And a follow up to the Dreamcast, with a greater longevity could put Sega right back at the top of the charts, like they were with the MegaDrive, and MegaDrive CD. But did releasing the extra CD drive arise too early?? Limitting Sega's big plans for the future??
It would be a shame to see a console war, without a Sega console, as it just wouldn't be the same! We've been used to seeing Sega as a big part of the gaming world for quite some time now, ever since the Master System. To me it just seems very odd, not to have a Sega machine competing with Nintendo. And even stranger to see a Microsoft CONSOLE as a SHOCK contender!! Will it ever be the same again???
Strafex wrote:
> Dreamcast failed because Sega didn't make a profit out of it.
If only I could have just said that instead of making these huge posts!
Sonic
> Dreamcast failed because Sega didn't make a profit out of it.
If only I could have just said that instead of making these huge posts!
Sonic
Dreamcast failed because Sega didn't make a profit out of it.
The fact that it put them in huge debt means you could say that it failed rather miserably.
Poor Sega.
They made a great console with great games, they tried their best to market it, but ended up being beaten up by Sony's mind washing.
The fact that it put them in huge debt means you could say that it failed rather miserably.
Poor Sega.
They made a great console with great games, they tried their best to market it, but ended up being beaten up by Sony's mind washing.
Good point pb, but you must compare DC sales to the console out at the same time- the PSX and N64, and later the PS2- and NOT past Sega consoles. After all, the DC came out in a time of mass market gaming, so needed tens of millions of sales.
Oh, and as for the thing on Saturn sales... yes, the Saturn did flop later than release. My mistake.
Sonic
Oh, and as for the thing on Saturn sales... yes, the Saturn did flop later than release. My mistake.
Sonic
Like I said, Sony beat the Dreamcast PURELY on marketing.
The Dreamcast's line up was way better than the PS2's launch line up and yet the PS2 completely trashed its competitor.
The PS2 is a nice machine now and has finally got its act together with some decent games, but it did not deserve that giant sucess it had over the Dreamcast.
That is why so many gaming Purists (often Nintendo or Sega Zealots) hate Sony so much.
The Dreamcast's line up was way better than the PS2's launch line up and yet the PS2 completely trashed its competitor.
The PS2 is a nice machine now and has finally got its act together with some decent games, but it did not deserve that giant sucess it had over the Dreamcast.
That is why so many gaming Purists (often Nintendo or Sega Zealots) hate Sony so much.
This bit I do agree with Sonic, well at least partly...
The Saturn didn't 'flop' at release, but it did sell badly in comparison to the Playstation. By market standards, it flopped later on when owners flocked to the PSX instead. Its high pricing certainly didn't do it any favours, but it didn't deter the early buyers either.
Did the Dreamcast fail though? It had a shorter life than Sega expected, certainly, but it also sold far more than any Sega console before it. In comparison to the PSX sales it did pretty well in the long run, but against the PS2 it looks poor. From Sega's point of view, they were probably pleased with the amount they sold, but were, I imagine, still envious of Sony's sales from their new console.
So, yes, mostly Sega messed up with their sales (big time) but looking back at the relative disasters in other console sales, it did pretty well. At least now we get the best of both worlds, as long as you buy all three of the new machines that is...
The Saturn didn't 'flop' at release, but it did sell badly in comparison to the Playstation. By market standards, it flopped later on when owners flocked to the PSX instead. Its high pricing certainly didn't do it any favours, but it didn't deter the early buyers either.
Did the Dreamcast fail though? It had a shorter life than Sega expected, certainly, but it also sold far more than any Sega console before it. In comparison to the PSX sales it did pretty well in the long run, but against the PS2 it looks poor. From Sega's point of view, they were probably pleased with the amount they sold, but were, I imagine, still envious of Sony's sales from their new console.
So, yes, mostly Sega messed up with their sales (big time) but looking back at the relative disasters in other console sales, it did pretty well. At least now we get the best of both worlds, as long as you buy all three of the new machines that is...
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
As a recent post from someone else stated, quoting
> from an interview with IBM on cube.ign.com, the PS2 stands up immensley well
> against both of the other next-gen systems, especially when you consider that
> its hardware is around 18 months older - a chasm in terms of graphics
> technology.
Moore's Law states that trasistor density on integrated chips (and therefore computing power) doubles every 18 months. So, you're right, that's one heck of a chasm.
As a recent post from someone else stated, quoting
> from an interview with IBM on cube.ign.com, the PS2 stands up immensley well
> against both of the other next-gen systems, especially when you consider that
> its hardware is around 18 months older - a chasm in terms of graphics
> technology.
Moore's Law states that trasistor density on integrated chips (and therefore computing power) doubles every 18 months. So, you're right, that's one heck of a chasm.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> What Sony failed to say was that the demos they showed were running
> off a series of PCs, and were not coded on a PS2 dev kit... just some very
> powerful computers. In fact, Sony hadn't even made the final console specs, and
> was just trying to create hype for its console to drown the DC.
It's true, but it's not true...
Sony didn't 'fail to say' it - everyone knew it. Before Sony had dedicated hardware dev kits, the development software ran on PC's, which were emulating the the custom PS2 hardware. The final PS2 design was not finalised at this point, and the dev kits themselves were still being optimised.
Part of the reason that early PS2 games were not entirely outstanding was that they were developed on these PC dev kits, and as a result the performance suffered on the actual PS2 machine.
Now hardware dev kits are widely available, the quality of the games is improving greatly, with GT3 and AC4 showing that the machine really can produce photo-realistic graphics.
As a recent post from someone else stated, quoting from an interview with IBM on cube.ign.com, the PS2 stands up immensley well against both of the other next-gen systems, especially when you consider that its hardware is around 18 months older - a chasm in terms of graphics technology.
> What Sony failed to say was that the demos they showed were running
> off a series of PCs, and were not coded on a PS2 dev kit... just some very
> powerful computers. In fact, Sony hadn't even made the final console specs, and
> was just trying to create hype for its console to drown the DC.
It's true, but it's not true...
Sony didn't 'fail to say' it - everyone knew it. Before Sony had dedicated hardware dev kits, the development software ran on PC's, which were emulating the the custom PS2 hardware. The final PS2 design was not finalised at this point, and the dev kits themselves were still being optimised.
Part of the reason that early PS2 games were not entirely outstanding was that they were developed on these PC dev kits, and as a result the performance suffered on the actual PS2 machine.
Now hardware dev kits are widely available, the quality of the games is improving greatly, with GT3 and AC4 showing that the machine really can produce photo-realistic graphics.
As a recent post from someone else stated, quoting from an interview with IBM on cube.ign.com, the PS2 stands up immensley well against both of the other next-gen systems, especially when you consider that its hardware is around 18 months older - a chasm in terms of graphics technology.
Page: