Support NeoGAF

[I Love Rock 'n' Roll]

True.

The guy killed the Saturn first in the USA and then EU, that lead to the Dreamcast situation in the USA and EU, and finally, he has done nothing to help SEGA running Dreamcast games on XBOX. I mean, it did not happen at all!

But shure, he was not the only problem at SEGA at this time.

 

[Physiognomonics]

I think the price was ridiculously low. Because apparently they mainly killed it because of the fact that it costed them 250$ and were selling it way lower. They should have sold it 250$ / € as they didn't have to convince the people already sold for it (thanks to the great games).

It's an error the 2 biggest console manufacturers don't do it anymore...

I'd say the person who decided for the $200 price could be one of the main guilty of DC demise.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

This is it exactly. Sega, whether it was SOJ or SOA, burned gamers more than enough times by the time the DC released. It never stood a chance. Then Sony did to Sega what Sega did to Nintendo (i.e., made them look kiddie and uncool) and later included DVD playback in the PS2. That was enough to kill the DC.

DC was on death row because Sega couldn't get people to buy software, they needed the software to appeal to enough people to move hardware at the price they were selling at. Instead what happened is after a good launch window people weren't interested outside a couple games which ended up holding up the entire console until its discontinuation, and Sega was not selling the hardware in the amounts required to make any money. Eventually they couldn't continue getting bailed out and had to stop or go bankrupt.

Remember, the Dreamcast was a gamble some investors took on along with company heads, there would be no Dreamcast (or Naomi arcade board) if Sega was relying on it's self and it's core revenue/profits to launch the system.

Remember, Xbox just with a couple disagreements with a couple companies involved with the internals of the Xbox, helped them lose millions of dollars for cheap, being able to make and launch a console at an sustainable price that wasn't too outlandishly expensive ended late 90s.

Even if you write off Europe and Japan, and Sega put focus more on US late game (something they SHOULD have did earlier) they still probably would have had to sell another 6 or so million units than they ended up doing, in order to sustain the Dreamcast with the software sales they had, which wasn't high enough.

Sony didn't really do anything, that claim is just an easy way to ease the realization that Sega was mostly a self-inflicted problem, along with fans of certain games refusing to understand many of peoples favorite games from the system just didn't make people want to buy one.

Look at the top Dreamcast games on any list made by fans or fans who also work for outlets, and almost none of them did anything. Even when Sega made ports for PS2/Xbox/GC or sequels to those favorites, most of them still failed to do anything even after Sega went third-party, with a few exceptions (and almost all of them early still close to all 3's launches not far into the gen) so what can you say.

I think the price was ridiculously low. Because apparently they mainly killed it because of the fact that it costed them 250$ and were selling it way lower. They should have sold it 250$ / € as they didn't have to convince the people already sold for it (thanks to the great games).

It's an error the 2 biggest console manufacturers don't do it anymore...

I'd say the person who decided for the $200 price could be one of the main guilty of DC demise.

That $199 was actually perfectly reasonable if you look at what the likely plan was.

$199 would give them an advantage to gain consumers early, their console hardware was better than the other consoles by a long-shot, they also bet (again) on online, they had some big games and third-parties ready, also coming in from the Naomi board (or both at the same time), and they had a decent marketing campaign.

Assuming they did twice as good as they ended up doing, that $199 would be closer to break even, and it's likely they were expecting software to cover the gap and make the console profitable, along with investment in their accessories and other parts of the console, including Seganet.

What ended up happening is that this plan ended up backfiring really fast, the downturn wouldn't really be obvious until the mid-2000's or so, and their response was software price cuts, Seganet cuts, and retailer console cuts, and then doing these again later in the year, in order to try and provide growth.

Problem is, that may have worked if they were moving enough consoles but they weren't, and people weren't buying the software at the levels they needed too, and while NFL and such were big, we were still seeing the software shrink outside of that.

If Sega doing all of those cuts was met with a rise in hardware AND software adoption, it may have worked, but instead what happened is those cuts now made them LESS money and made them lose MORE, which accelerated the death of the console.

I think Sega just misread the market, and pushed the wrong software (other than sports) to get people to buy the console. $199 would have been fine if they succeeded in doing that.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Yeah the problem was Sega to get people buying games. There are numerous factors. First of all Sega's games were very arcade oriented. Secondly there was a lack of awareness. IP weren't really hyped like Sony hyped its PSX portfolio. Sonic was famous, and it showed as its the best selling game on the DC. But for the rest.. nothing catched on like FF, MGS, Gran Turismo etc. I don't know why. Maybe the games looked too distinct? Shenmue was a very slow game, very Japan oriented, its name already. You could easily see why this game would not reach and convince the masses. Even Yakuza games don't. They sell okay in the west, but nothing multi millions. And they are more accessible than Shenmue ever was.

Don't forget Final Fantasy was a very small name in Europe, VII was the first game to be distributed here. We barely ever received console RPGs as far as I know. I never played them before. And I'd wager even in the US it wasn't widely known as V didn't come out, and I think copies of IV and VI (lets not use the US numbering) were always kind of scarce afaik. But Sony pushed this franchise, and genre. They distributed world wide, ads, made it look cool. Everyone bought VII, many who never played this series before. Sega lacked this kind of vision, but ofcourse also the money that goes along with it. Sony launched Crash Bandicoot, Sega essentially did nothing of the sort with Bug, Clockwork Knight, Nights etc. They just came out.

I think the price was ridiculously low. Because apparently they mainly killed it because of the fact that it costed them 250$ and were selling it way lower. They should have sold it 250$ / € as they didn't have to convince the people already sold for it (thanks to the great games).

It's an error the 2 biggest console manufacturers don't do it anymore...

I'd say the person who decided for the $200 price could be one of the main guilty of DC demise.

Bernie Stolar, who recently passed away, was behind the 200 dollar launch price. And he was fired over it I think, Japan never agreed with this move. And I can see why. I think at 250, the DC would also sell. Its western lineup was simply good and the initial marketing campaign in the US was good. The PS1 was 4 years old and its graphics started to become pathetic compared to what was possible at the time. So yeah, at 250, DC would move the same numbers. I am fairly sure. Its not only about price. Gamecube was the cheapest by far (even at launch it was the cheapest system, I think?) but still had to settle for third place. It was eventually sold for 99 bucks and it didn't skyrocket.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

For all the circle jerking around Dreamcast you'd think it would have sold better lol.

Has anyone ever considered Sega was wise to cut their losses when they did? There's no way they had the money to keep on competing with MS, Sony and Nintendo anyway.

 

[SkylineRKR]

For all the circle jerking around Dreamcast you'd think it would have sold better lol.

Has anyone ever considered Sega was wise to cut their losses when they did? There's no way they had the money to keep on competing with MS, Sony and Nintendo anyway.

In hindsight all Sega consoles bombed except for the Genesis. And Genesis banked on 3 things essentially; EA Sports, blood and Sonic. It was a perfect storm for them. EA released their sports game first on Genesis, Sonic catched on as a mascot and people went crazy over Mortal Kombat with blood. They would lose 2 of these boons soon after as Nintendo allowed blood for the sequel, EA released their sports games everywhere but also Sonic started to lose momentum after Sonic 2. This may be short sighted but it lines up with Segas only succesful console years which were around 1991-1993.

Their subsequent systems bombed again, just as they did before Genesis. So perhaps it never really was their business. They also ran it poorly ofcourse, with 2 branches fighting eachother.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Bernie Stolar, who recently passed away, was behind the 200 dollar launch price. And he was fired over it I think, Japan never agreed with this move. And I can see why. I think at 250, the DC would also sell. Its western lineup was simply good and the initial marketing campaign in the US was good. The PS1 was 4 years old and its graphics started to become pathetic compared to what was possible at the time. So yeah, at 250, DC would move the same numbers. I am fairly sure. Its not only about price. Gamecube was the cheapest by far (even at launch it was the cheapest system, I think?) but still had to settle for third place. It was eventually sold for 99 bucks and it didn't skyrocket.

I don't know about that, $199 was behind the initial Sega sales records, and helped early with accessory, software, and Seganet just off the hype of it's power and the marketing. $250 still would have sold well but I don't see 1999 and start of 2000's being as big because that also ran into the sports titles that would eventually become the biggest and only reason holding the Dreamcast up in software.

Sure, Sega wouldn't have lost as much money when they were forced to do those first price cuts on games and hardware to try and save momentum, but they would have still be losing money. Even if they were able to get until the end of 2001 the game problem was still the biggest issue. They needed multiple games to get people to move consoles and they didn't have it. In the US the strongest market, even Sonic couldn't get over 2 million copies sold, and NFL2K which held the fort until the end, couldn't either.

They needed bigger games, heck really they only needed ONE Melee selling game to at least have a profitable niche like the Gamecube did, but Dreamcast despite it's sales in the US didn't have a single game cross 2 million.

But this goes back to the Saturn, where not any game sold more than 1 million.

The Genesis had Sonic, and Sonic 2, 3, Knuckles, then Aladdin and a few third parties which all rose as Sonic fell, and then the Genesis fell off suffering the same game problem when Sega was trying to prolong the console, which led to $61 million in unsold inventory in the US being written off.

As for the Dreamcast, Space channel 5, Seaman, KOF Dream match, Evolution, Shenmue, Jet Set, Phantasy Star online, Code Veronica, Rival schools, SF3 (all 3 of them), Virtua tennis, Virtua Fighter 3tb, House of Dead 2, Marvel Vs, Capcom, Blue Stinger, Crazy Taxi 2, Grandia II, Skies of Arcadia, Gigawing, Sonic Shuffle, Mortal Kombat Gold, Hydro Thunder, Ready 2 Rumble, Sega GT, Capcom Vs. SNk, Bomberman Online,

These all look great on paper (some before you play them) and seems like there's a strong lineup there, however these were not selling consoles the way Sega needed them to, even NFL 2K and Sonic Adventure didn't sell enough considering you'd think both of those would have had triple or at least double the sales they did in the US.

Curiously, ports and sequels to those games after Sega went third-party didn't do that hot either.

 

[SportsFan581]

People need to stop with this PS2 thing, PS2 had nothing to do with it as in the US DC was doing well after it came out, people need to realize it was already in a bad position in Europe and dead in Japan BEFORE the PS2 was even the factor, it only did really well in one region, and was far behind where they needed to be everywhere else leading to them losing money on sales cuts.

I think it is you that needs to readjust your view and not everyone else. Sony's FUD game was very strong in regards to DC, this resulted in the PS2 having a major effect on the market before it was released. Sony used the media bias they often still utilize and enjoy today to spread the message of DC being DOA before the PS2 launched, which worked a charm because of Sega's history of failed products.

Also, while Sega's best launch, the DC never really sold well at any point, not in reference to the post PS1 expanded video game market. The numbers were solid for the pre-PS1 era, but not great for afterwards. I don't really think it was PS2 that tanked software sales for existing users though. That was just the CD-R age and a lot of their teenage and early 20 something buyers pirating away. Which makes it all the more hilarious that they worked so hard on the Saturn to ensure CD-Rs couldn't be a problem, but then didn't do the same for the console released when CD recorders were actually prevalent.

 

[DeepEnigma]

According to him, people took an old interview he made out of context, and Sega of Japan had killed it and already made the decision. Although, I'm curious why he waited until 2023 to clarify this.

Probably NDA expiration.

It was always Sega of Japan that killed it. Wild theories otherwise are just copium laden bullshit.

 

[SportsFan581]

For perspective, here is the top selling Dreamcast games in the US market, it's strongest market moving by far the most software,

DC​

Fmt   Publisher     Title                               Units Sold (in Millions)
DC    Sega          Sonic Adventure                                     1.05
DC    Sega          NFL 2K1                                             1.01
DC    Sega          NFL 2K                                                 1
DC    Sega          Crazy Taxi                                             1

Nothing else sold over 1 million, nothing sold over 1.5 million.

NFL2K1 came out in Sept 2000 btw. Arguably saved the console for several months until the rapid decline at a point in 2001.

They were really having issues getting people to buy games.

Different sources have different numbers:

Dreamcast Turns 19, Top 10 Best-Selling Games on the Console

The Dreamcast launched 19 years ago in Japan on November 27, 1998.The console sold 8.20 million units lifetime. [...]

www.vgchartz.com

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Peter Moore didn’t kill the Dreamcast

It was always burning, since the world's been turning

 

[SkylineRKR]

Those games were all distinct. For some reason a Sega GT didn't move anything while everyone went crazy over Gran Turismo. Its probably partially because Sega GT was a pretender, it was clearly lower budget. I liked Sega GT, but yes, it lacked something compared to Gran Turismo. No one would bat an eye, everyone probably had GT1 and 2 already.

All those 2d fighters you can immediately write off. Those didn't sell to the masses at the time and SF3 bombed in the arcade. Virtua Fighter, its a rather dry franchise. Just doesn't reel in the crowd as much as Tekken did. Space Channel, Seaman, Rez etc are all niche. House of the dead is a lightgun game. MK Gold was a late port of the much maligned MK4. MK as a franchise was also on life support at the time, after the MK4, Sub Zero and Special Forces triple punch. Skies and Grandia is just no FF, Grandia 1 wasn't a huge seller too. I beat both games on DC, esp. Skies is brilliant, but it was never destined to become even half as popular as random FF. Shenmue I discussed, way too alien to be a commercial hit. Jet Set, way too abstract too. Future also bombed on Xbox, yes, those games also bombed on other systems. No one bought Shenmue, Gunvalkyrie, Sega GT, Orta for Xbox as well. I think only Crazy Taxi did decent, and Sonic Adventure 2 Battle. Curiously, the only DC bestsellers (I mean SA1, 2 came out too late on DC) besides the sports games. VF4 would later sell kind of good, I think. But nothing near Tekken.

Almost none of those games had selling potential. It just wasn't there.

 

[SSfox]

Sega killed it. They've been great on making games but they've been bad at managements decisions many times (and they still today)

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

In hindsight all Sega consoles bombed except for the Genesis. And Genesis banked on 3 things essentially; EA Sports, blood and Sonic. It was a perfect storm for them. EA released their sports game first on Genesis, Sonic catched on as a mascot and people went crazy over Mortal Kombat with blood. They would lose 2 of these boons soon after as Nintendo allowed blood for the sequel, EA released their sports games everywhere but also Sonic started to lose momentum after Sonic 2. This may be short sighted but it lines up with Segas only succesful console years which were around 1991-1993.

Their subsequent systems bombed again, just as they did before Genesis. So perhaps it never really was their business. They also ran it poorly ofcourse, with 2 branches fighting eachother.

I think the theory of gamers tired of Sonic going to other games temporarily makes sense with this. Mk1 did a lot but MK2 was a big drop even though it still did well, and Midways popularity on the consoles from MK1 went to NBA Jam too, but seemed to not help their other games. Sonic 1 to Sonic 2 was a big drop in in totals, but at the time, Sonic 2 wasn't that far behind until after Sonic 3 came out and then we started seeing the franchise dive.

Most of the best selling third-party games were released in 1993, the same year as Sonic 3 & Knuc combined marked a big decline from 2.

No other Sega FP would be as successful as Sonic, in fact if you remove Sonic entirely, MK1 is the best selling Sega associated game ever, not even Virtua FIghter 2 got to 3 million on Saturn, and that was only other Sega FP contender for high sales not related to Sonic for their consoles. I'm also curious about consumer retention because VF2 had great early sales and then apparently slowed down and stopped selling.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I think it is you that needs to readjust your view and not everyone else. Sony's FUD game was very strong in regards to DC,

DC was already dead in two to 3 majors regions. It was not losing steam to the PS2 announcement in the US, it's strongest region when it was announced or right after it released, Sega was already having problems selling games and units, they started strong and then games stopped moving, outside sports.

The Sony thing is nothing more than an excuse to handwave the problems with the DC and Sega's strategy and blame it on Sony so people can say that it would have sold well because it had the best everything and it only failed because of timing and trust issues which is nonsense.

Also, while Sega's best launch, the DC never really sold well at any point, not in reference to the post PS1 expanded video game market.

This doesn't mean anything, the DC sold well, it was a hit (In the US) people were talking about it's strong sales for some time. There's no reference to make tot he PS1 (which started out slow) to make without being misleading. The problem is any momentum was not being sustained because they were not selling the consoles they needed and people weren't buying the software they needed to buy those said consoles. Seganet was also a gamble that didn't prove to be successful just like Netlink despite being better executed in most areas, and the console being prepared for it at launch. The sales in the US were already being held up by sports games and software/hardware declining before the PS2 even launched in the US.

Sure Sony helped but people are giving them wayyyyyyy to much credit as if DC was doing fine, and then Sony came and it all collapsed, which funny enoughm is a theory that contradicts your position. Were they doing well before Sony, or where they never doing well so Sony had nothing to do with it? You can't have both cakes.

Different sources have different numbers:

http://[URL]https://www.vgchartz.co...-19-top-10-best-selling-games-on-the-console/

[/URL]

Lol, Vgchartz is not a source. (Also they are talking WW not the US.)

That was just the CD-R age and a lot of their teenage and early 20 something buyers pirating away. Which makes it all the more hilarious that they worked so hard on the Saturn to ensure CD-Rs couldn't be a problem, but then didn't do the same for the console released when CD recorders were actually prevalent.

The likely hood of a DC gamer having a burner then was low, and the sales of the sports games throw this theory right out the window. If there was mass piracy then why were they selling so well, and why do the average non-gaming forum DC players still talk about NFL2K today in the general mindshare and not SF3, Project Justice, or Blue Stinger?

The Saturn had a similar issue though representation was different, and I doubt there was mass piracy in the US for late (post 94) Genesis carts, which also in that time frame, had the same problem of poor software sales.

 

[SkylineRKR]

I think the theory of gamers tired of Sonic going to other games temporarily makes sense with this. Mk1 did a lot but MK2 was a big drop even though it still did well, and Midways popularity on the consoles from MK1 went to NBA Jam too, but seemed to not help their other games. Sonic 1 to Sonic 2 was a big drop in in totals, but at the time, Sonic 2 wasn't that far behind until after Sonic 3 came out and then we started seeing the franchise dive.

Most of the best selling third-party games were released in 1993, the same year as Sonic 3 & Knuc combined marked a big decline from 2.

No other Sega FP would be as successful as Sonic, in fact if you remove Sonic entirely, MK1 is the best selling Sega associated game ever, not even Virtua FIghter 2 got to 3 million on Saturn, and that was only other Sega FP contender for high sales not related to Sonic for their consoles. I'm also curious about consumer retention because VF2 had great early sales and then apparently slowed down and stopped selling.

Aladdin is listed as the best selling Sega game bar Sonic. But its a movie license game, and Sega kind of lucked out. Back then, those licenses were in the hands of the console manufacturers, and they selected developers for it. I think the likes of Disney were more hands off at the time. We also saw lots licensed trash back then. Sega initially picked Blue Sky, but they worked on Jurassic Park. According to wiki this is why Disney kinda went more hands on and selected a developer themselves. Sega just kind of lucked out it was for their system.

 

[JackMcGunns]

The ps2 hype tsunami killed the Dreamcast.

Absolutely! and even if it can be argued that the Dreamcast was doomed from the start because of terrible hardware release decisions, Sega CD add-on followed by 32X add-on followed by a poorly released and not truly 3D ready Saturn, had most gamers fatigued and losing faith in Sega, so it's really a combination, but without the hype train that was the PS2, it would've resulted in lost market share rather than a complete obliteration.

The Emotion Engine revealed: Can a computer make you cry?

Lol, I still remember the articles accompanied with the Tech demo images. And if you think that Sony overdid it with the PS3 touting twice the power of the 360 (2T vs 1T) imagine touting 10x the power of the Dreamcast! My friends were going bananas and calling me crazy for not waiting another year for what would be the second coming of Jesus.

It was such a fierce marketing campaign that the term FUD originated in those days.

 

[SportsFan581]

The likely hood of a DC gamer having a burner then was low, and the sales of the sports games throw this theory right out the window. If there was mass piracy then why were they selling so well, and why do the average non-gaming forum DC players still talk about NFL2K today in the general mindshare and not SF3, Project Justice, or Blue Stinger?

The Saturn had a similar issue though representation was different, and I doubt there was mass piracy in the US for late (post 94) Genesis carts, which also in that time frame, had the same problem of poor software sales.

I really feel bad for you if you actually believe that. Clearly you were not part of the DC scene and what was happening at that time. The emachines had CD burners around this time and were almost free with the internet contracts of the day, almost everyone had access to them.

But it is true that the more mainstream your project the less piracy problems you have (because you start to hit the less tech savy users). But the hardcore DC users were avid burners, to be sure. And those are specifically the buyers you need to lift sales on your less mainstream games. Of course DC had fewer 2m selling games than GC, it also had less than half the userbase. You'll only ever get the attach rate of any one game so high. SA was almost 25% which is almost insane outside of Nintendo (and maybe Halo on OG Xbox), 10% or less is more typical for all but the most hyped titles. The DC failed for a lot of reasons that came together to end Sega's hardware run.

People like to throw the PS1 and PS2 game sales out there, but with 100m users it was a lot easier for them to hit those numbers.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Piracy on PSX was more rampant than it was on DC, despite needing a mod chip for it, but the PSX and its software was in more demand. It never stopped Sony from being succesful. It also didn't stop 360 for having better third party sales than PS3 which was cracked much later. I think a huge chunk of pirates were never interested in the system or buying software otherwise. I think its an entirely separate market, tbh. Most pirates i knew weren't even real gamers, they just wanted to collect all and stow it away. They never really played or were interested in a particular IP.

Piracy on DC started in 2000. The console already lost traction by then. In fact, I think the DC lost traction almost immediately after its launch. It was probably just a product that was kind of hot to have the day it launched, but then everyone flocked back to its PS1? I don't know. But I remember me and a fair few of friends bought one, but we never parted with our PS1 too as we were just as eagerly anticipating the next FF.

To be honest, the DC launch is my fave launch ever, but I think I ended up playing more FFVIII, RE3 and Dino Crisis in 1999. And Driver and Ape Escape before that. The PS1 had a great year, I was really relieved I decided not to sell it.

 

[Drew1440]

Eh, Sega killed Dreamcast more than anyone else TBH

• $199 announcement price that SOJ were forced to honor in America (that was on Bernie Stolar)
• Rushed Japanese launch when Saturn was still doing okay in Japan
• Low supply for Japanese launch (NEC to blame, but still)
• No DVD built-in when the format was the next big thing
• Little AAA Japanese dev support because of Saturn era, rushed Dreamcast launch & low Dreamcast sales in Japan
• Turning away EA's sports exclusivity offer
• Too much sunk costs into Shenmue technology development
• Stupidly leaving MIL-CD exploit in every retail Dreamcast, just buried deep in the BIOS

In comparison to all of that the PS2 hype train was just an incidental event bound to happen anyway because of PS1's success. But Sega could've handled it much better if not for the aforementioned mistakes & shortcomings.

Putting a DVD drive would have hiked up the price, then factor in the royalty fees and the cost of adding an MPEG2 decoder which was in high demand due to digital cable and satellite receivers becoming more common, The Dreamcast SH4 could not decode MPEG2 in software unlike the PS2 which had the IPU core in the EmotionEngine

 

[SegaManAU]

Yeah the problem was Sega to get people buying games. There are numerous factors. First of all Sega's games were very arcade oriented. Secondly there was a lack of awareness. IP weren't really hyped like Sony hyped its PSX portfolio. Sonic was famous, and it showed as its the best selling game on the DC. But for the rest.. nothing catched on like FF, MGS, Gran Turismo etc. I don't know why. Maybe the games looked too distinct? Shenmue was a very slow game, very Japan oriented, its name already. You could easily see why this game would not reach and convince the masses. Even Yakuza games don't. They sell okay in the west, but nothing multi millions. And they are more accessible than Shenmue ever was.

Don't forget Final Fantasy was a very small name in Europe, VII was the first game to be distributed here. We barely ever received console RPGs as far as I know. I never played them before. And I'd wager even in the US it wasn't widely known as V didn't come out, and I think copies of IV and VI (lets not use the US numbering) were always kind of scarce afaik. But Sony pushed this franchise, and genre. They distributed world wide, ads, made it look cool. Everyone bought VII, many who never played this series before. Sega lacked this kind of vision, but ofcourse also the money that goes along with it. Sony launched Crash Bandicoot, Sega essentially did nothing of the sort with Bug, Clockwork Knight, Nights etc. They just came out.



Bernie Stolar, who recently passed away, was behind the 200 dollar launch price. And he was fired over it I think, Japan never agreed with this move. And I can see why. I think at 250, the DC would also sell. Its western lineup was simply good and the initial marketing campaign in the US was good. The PS1 was 4 years old and its graphics started to become pathetic compared to what was possible at the time. So yeah, at 250, DC would move the same numbers. I am fairly sure. Its not only about price. Gamecube was the cheapest by far (even at launch it was the cheapest system, I think?) but still had to settle for third place. It was eventually sold for 99 bucks and it didn't skyrocket.

All of this on top of the system being very easy to pirate for.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Those games were all distinct. For some reason a Sega GT didn't move anything while everyone went crazy over Gran Turismo. Its probably partially because Sega GT was a pretender, it was clearly lower budget. I liked Sega GT, but yes, it lacked something compared to Gran Turismo. No one would bat an eye, everyone probably had GT1 and 2 already.

All those 2d fighters you can immediately write off. Those didn't sell to the masses at the time and SF3 bombed in the arcade. Virtua Fighter, its a rather dry franchise. Just doesn't reel in the crowd as much as Tekken did. Space Channel, Seaman, Rez etc are all niche. House of the dead is a lightgun game. MK Gold was a late port of the much maligned MK4. MK as a franchise was also on life support at the time, after the MK4, Sub Zero and Special Forces triple punch. Skies and Grandia is just no FF, Grandia 1 wasn't a huge seller too. I beat both games on DC, esp. Skies is brilliant, but it was never destined to become even half as popular as random FF. Shenmue I discussed, way too alien to be a commercial hit. Jet Set, way too abstract too. Future also bombed on Xbox, yes, those games also bombed on other systems. No one bought Shenmue, Gunvalkyrie, Sega GT, Orta for Xbox as well. I think only Crazy Taxi did decent, and Sonic Adventure 2 Battle. Curiously, the only DC bestsellers (I mean SA1, 2 came out too late on DC) besides the sports games. VF4 would later sell kind of good, I think. But nothing near Tekken.

Almost none of those games had selling potential. It just wasn't there.

Sega was also inconsistent with Sega GT marketing, they were in the middle of trying to find something that would stick and didn't seem to want to go all in. But how they first approached it made it seem like they were going to go head on with GT and throw shade at PC sims and then they just kind of didn't.

But yeah, as you said the rest of the games weren't really console sellers They can help momentum of consoles sellers for sure, and appeal to smaller groups, but without the console sellers in the middle those games just weren't going to move.

Many of the previews of Shenmue at the time were trying to cover up the problem of explaining it by simplifying it as an action game and promoting it as a graphical showcase for the Dreamcast, which worked for a little bit but wasn't enough to get people to run out and buy it at the levels for Sega to even break even on the game, forget about profit.

Just going over MC you see a similar problem,

https://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/dreamcast/filtered

• Code Veronica came out at the wrong time for the RE franchise, the remakes and the retooling with 4 was done to revive the franchise.
• Virtua Tennis is just not involving a sport as popular as NFL or NBA
• PC ports were ill-advertised and usually were much worse, the ones that were decent were barely known or marketed.
• Seganet didn't work as intended so the online games for that outside sports weren't console incentives, Phantasy Star was pushed hard but wasn't able to attract what they needed.
• Shenmue II was not in a better position than Shenmue one, in fact, it may have been worse.
• Metropolis Street Racer was good, but came out too late to be a reason to buy a console, where as the company going to MS for Project Gotham on Xbox, was not only retooling the formula for a more appealing and attractive series, but they were also released a graphical showpieces, and ended up doing better.
• While the Power Stone games were not the usual nicher fighting game format (outside Tekken and MK) and were focused on multiplayer and gatherings, which contradicted Sega's network push, the games themselves were not drawing the numbers.
• Daytona was released several times at that point and was released too late.
• San Francisco Rush 2049 was good, but with most marketing of for the game elsewhere, and the lack of Rush games before it on the DC meaning most fans where elsewhere too, that limited it's reach and appeal.
• Ecco the Dolphin was already a limited appeal on the Genesis after multiple games, two gen later Ecco's concept isn't selling many systems.
• Typing of the dead may be in a worse position than House of dead.
• Seaman.
• Vanishing point was almost on point, but the game itself pushed for modes and visuals over actual racing and decent collisions and physics. Sega GT too Sega's attention away from helping push it, and it came out at the end of 2000 so way too late.
• Sega fishing has niche appeal.

And you brought up other games already.

Sega needed to change strategy and the types of games they pushed regardless of perceived quality, because other consoles had that, and sales, and Sega only had one.

Aladdin is listed as the best selling Sega game bar Sonic. But its a movie license game, and Sega kind of lucked out. Back then, those licenses were in the hands of the console manufacturers, and they selected developers for it. I think the likes of Disney were more hands off at the time. We also saw lots licensed trash back then. Sega initially picked Blue Sky, but they worked on Jurassic Park. According to wiki this is why Disney kinda went more hands on and selected a developer themselves. Sega just kind of lucked out it was for their system.

I know, but MK1 did more and Sega was associated with the game and worked with Midway for that one, which is still the best selling non-Sonic game on a Sega console. But FP yeah Aladdin would be number 2, then VF2.

 

[SportsFan581]

Piracy on PSX was more rampant than it was on DC, despite needing a mod chip for it, but the PSX and its software was in more demand. It never stopped Sony from being succesful. It also didn't stop 360 for having better third party sales than PS3 which was cracked much later. I think a huge chunk of pirates were never interested in the system or buying software otherwise. I think its an entirely separate market, tbh. Most pirates i knew weren't even real gamers, they just wanted to collect all and stow it away. They never really played or were interested in a particular IP.

Piracy on DC started in 2000. The console already lost traction by then. In fact, I think the DC lost traction almost immediately after its launch. It was probably just a product that was kind of hot to have the day it launched, but then everyone flocked back to its PS1? I don't know. But I remember me and a fair few of friends bought one, but we never parted with our PS1 too as we were just as eagerly anticipating the next FF.

To be honest, the DC launch is my fave launch ever, but I think I ended up playing more FFVIII, RE3 and Dino Crisis in 1999. And Driver and Ape Escape before that. The PS1 had a great year, I was really relieved I decided not to sell it.

The PSX was basically done by the time burners were widely available, plus it was hard to find CD-Rs slow enough (If I remember correctly the system could only read 1x and 2x speed disks, when the market very quickly moved to 4x at minimum). The problem never effected them as much. However, you did not need a mod chip to run copied disks on PSX, you just did a disk swap. I was naughty during this time and well versed in the piracy operations of the PSX and DC, I had three of those CD sleeve booklet cases to show for my efforts.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

It's interesting that all the games we now consider classics didn't necessarily at the time set the charts on fire.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I really feel bad for you if you actually believe that. Clearly you were not part of the DC scene and what was happening at that time.

The average consumer wasn't into CD burning, nor did they have one.

You're talking about a small group of people there were not millions of average consumers int he US burning Dreamcast CD with declining consoles sales. You're theory doesn't make any sense.

Sure there were pirates but that's way overblown, people are pretending little tim and jake all had CD burners when their mom brought them a Dreamcast for Sonic which isn't the case.

Again, NFL sales throw that theory out the window too. It was a minor detriment at best. You are giving casuals and non-techncial gamers too much credit here, many pc's had no burners, the ones that did were rarely used, people were not going on their dial-up connections or costly early broadband to search for sites that had Is's and then finding instructions on how to burn CD's right to play on the DC.

People weren't doing that in any significant number as you imply, especially with declining consoles sales.

Of course DC had fewer 2m selling games than GC, it also had less than half the userbase.

You're looking at totals instead of at the time, where the GameCube was already outdoing Sega software sales pretty much out the gate. melee sold over 2 million in a few months or so, who knows how many games after a year.

Sega's strong selling first half before the declining of the DC was capped and not able to produce many million sellers, in it's strongest market.

People like to throw the PS1 and PS2 game sales out there, but with 100m users it was a lot easier for them to hit those numbers.

Again, your argument hinges on ignoring performance of the time and looking at totals when it was all over and trying to apply things backwards.

Sega just didn't have the software people wanted to buy Dreamcasts long-term.

 

[Nickolaidas]

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The PSX was basically done by the time burners were widely available,

This isn't even remotely true, in Aug 1999 just in the US alone, Sony was at 20 million units so would be double that in the region by the time it was done, worldwide probably had similar effect.

 

[SportsFan581]

Again, your argument hinges on ignoring performance of the time and looking at totals when it was all over and trying to apply things backwards.

Sega just didn't have the software people wanted to buy Dreamcasts long-term.

Their IP wasn't as strong on the software side no, but a far bigger problem for them was their brand was just not as well respected.

You think the install base size only matters at the end of the generation, but that isn't the case. The GC sold more than double the total units in its first 6 months on sale vs. the same period for DC (including more than 2x at launch - meaning they had twice the users on day one), that effects your software sales. The two dove-tale together, you need good software to sell systems but in equal measure you need good hardware sales to generate good software sales numbers.

The DC never did that well, it couldn't even outsell the N64 in its launch quarter, there was no good period sales wise for the system. It had good sales for Sega, but that's only because the Genesis happened before the gaming market widened out with PS1.

 

[SportsFan581]

This isn't even remotely true, in Aug 1999 just in the US alone, Sony was at 20 million units so would be double that in the region by the time it was done, worldwide probably had similar effect.

I was referring to marque software launches. They moved those to PS2 when it was released in 2000. Plus, like I said, it was virtually impossible to source CD-Rs to copy the games with in the states by 1999 (since it used a low-spec drive from 94/95 and specs were quickly moving forward). We didn't have Amazon back then to find these things on. CompUSA did sometimes get some Low-speed branded disks that you could use, but they didn't stock those often as they were not compatible with the mainstream drives of the day (4x-8x was the compatibility range for most of the cheap drives of the time, and obviously the mainstream market wanted the fastest disks available). It was easier to make the images for PSX (because anyone could make them where you needed access to a GD-ROM drive for the DC game rips) but it was much easier to source the disks and burners for the DC. There were a few times I can remember having to wait a month or two to burn a PSX ISO I had downloaded.

 

[Georges Chiellins]

Crazy shit man

How EA Delivered An Early Blow To Sega's Dreamcast - SVG

The Sega Dreamcast console had a short but bright life, with hits like Soulcalibur driving success. Here's how EA delivered an early blow to Sega's Dreamcast.

www.svg.com

"According to an article from SEGAbits, EA wanted sports exclusivity on the console. The late Bernie Stolar, former president and CEO of Sega, was good friends with former EA CEO Larry Probst. Stolar told Probst that he had just acquired Visual Concepts with plans on developing a first-party sports game. For Probst and EA, this was a dealbreaker as the publisher wanted no competition whatsoever on the console.

Read More: https://www.svg.com/1092890/how-ea-delivered-an-early-blow-to-segas-dreamcast/"

Thanks a lot, gonna read now!

 

[Sorcerer]

I'm a little surprised that the software attach rate was bad. It was only diehards willing to buy it after Sega's string of fuckups. You'd think they buy more games.

The piracy problem the Dreamcast had obviously played into this. Buy the system but never any games.

 

[treemk]

The piracy problem the Dreamcast had obviously played into this. Buy the system but never any games.

Anecdotal, but everyone I knew with a Dreamcast back then had a library of burned games to go along with it.

The average consumer wasn't into CD burning, nor did they have one.

You're talking about a small group of people there were not millions of average consumers int he US burning Dreamcast CD with declining consoles sales. You're theory doesn't make any sense.

Sure there were pirates but that's way overblown, people are pretending little tim and jake all had CD burners when their mom brought them a Dreamcast for Sonic which isn't the case.

The mythical "average consumer" who buys tech and doesn't know how to do anything. Well by 99-00 pretty much every PC had a burner, and if you didn't have one you wanted one and knew someone who had one. If you wanna use kids who's parents bought them a Dreamcast as an example, they only need one friend at school and are damn resourceful when lacking funds. For $200 you can buy this system and I'll burn you all the games for it is a hell of a selling point and takes all word of mouth sales and shoots Sega in the ass. Were you actually in school in the late 90's? Because kids were absolutely burning an sharing everything back then.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The mythical "average consumer" who buys tech and doesn't know how to do anything. Well by 99-00 pretty much every PC had a burner, and if you didn't have one you wanted one and knew someone who had one. If you wanna use kids who's parents bought them a Dreamcast as an example, they only need one friend at school and are damn resourceful when lacking funds. For $200 you can buy this system and I'll burn you all the games for it is a hell of a selling point and takes all word of mouth sales and shoots Sega in the ass. Were you actually in school in the late 90's? Because kids were absolutely burning an sharing everything back then.

By the time burning was taking off and becoming a political issues for kids, the DC was already in heavy decline for hardware sales, so this notion that piracy burned the Dreamcast doesn't really work here.

People had no problems buying sports games for whoever was still buying the consoles. But to act like Piracy was hurting hardware sales that late in the game was nonsense. You need hardware to played burned disc.

As someone who wasn't a kid and was well aware of what people were doing as the tech guy people often went to, people were not going out there way to go through the trouble of burning discs to play games on many consoles. That came later after the decline when it started becoming incredibly popular with PS1 and older systems, and people were also online with fake websites charging fake services to "help" people burn games for the PS2 as well while it was in high-demand with shortages.

The problem isn't that there weren't pirates, the problem is you are expecting me to believe there were millions of people who were doing it on the DC and it impacted HARDWARE sales that were already in decline, and you need HARDWARE to play a burned game.

You think the install base size only matters at the end of the generation, but that isn't the case.

This is you projecting since this has literally been your entire argument comparing the DC installabse to the GC in totals, and not at the time

I compared at the time, DC even with similar installbase, or better than other consoles (they held a record initially) never had strong sales for SP outside the Genesis before the last few years.

If we are talking FP only and broadly never. It was Sonic and then a regional favorite, and then Sega is out of the console market with NFl 2K, and Crazy Taxi did a thing earlier.

The DC never did that well, it couldn't even outsell the N64 in its launch quarter, there was no good period sales wise for the system. It had good sales for Sega, but that's only because the Genesis happened before the gaming market widened out with PS1.

You know I've been talking about the US, but consistently reply moving from that post to WW numbers.

In the US DC was strong, it was were most the sales were the biggest market, and was the record holder. Even the consoles it BEAT with the record had better sales distribution among exclusive TP and FP games.

It just didn't have what Sega needed to move consoles, software and Seganet, it's really just that simple, and was a problem for 3 generations. The DC is nowhere near as complex as people make it seem.

 

[SportsFan581]

In the US DC was strong, it was were most the sales were the biggest market, and was the record holder. Even the consoles it BEAT with the record had better sales distribution among exclusive TP and FP games.

Exactly what systems did it beat the PSX/Saturn/N64 and the 16bit gen? What software sales numbers are you using, the numbers for the period when those systems were beat in sales, or the numbers sold at $10 and $20 after the more successful systems had a lot more units out there? Also, I'm looking specifically at US launch numbers, the GC had twice the sales out of the gate on day one and more than maintained that 6 months in. And the DC didn't outsell the N64 in its own launch quarter in the US territory (though it did sell more than the N64 launch aligned).

I doubt the US software sales for Sony were that much better than Sega one year in. But sure, two or three years in the numbers for the launch era titles would have ballooned thanks to discounts and more potential buyers. Plus, the PSX did not have the piracy issues to deal with in 95/96 that the DC did in 99/00 that was a period of rapid tech advancement so a huge difference in capabilities available to home PC users there (you are talking 100mhz Pentiums that could not do much with media at all vs. 300-400mhz PII and K6 systems that were a lot more capable).

 

[lachesis]

I think Peter Moore did as well as anyone could. Interesting why he'd think that way.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Exactly what systems did it beat the PSX/Saturn/N64 and the 16bit gen?

Again, you are once again ignoring and moving the posts about a US sales conversation, by responding with WW sales.

Plus, the PSX did not have the piracy issues to deal with in 95/96 that the DC did in 99/00 that was a period of rapid tech advancement

This is nothing more than make believe There was no rabid piracy, Not you're saying there was piracy during the period they had the bggest sales?

Sega did not have the right features and software to sustain more consoles sales, period, that was the problem, it ends there. Sony had nothing to do with it, and your pivot to piracy has nothing to do with it either.

The games that held up the DC were selling around the same level as the DC was selling across more games early on. Millions of people were not pirating Dreamcast games during a sales decline because you need a damn Dreamcast to play a burned game you pirated.

Or was ALL the sports players the only people in the whole industry with no pirates? So they were the ONLY ones that were not pirating and were the ONLY ones legit buying NBA and NFL?

 

[onnextflix5]

Love to see a dreamcast 2. 6tf £199. To challenge the xbox ss . I think it would sell.

 

[SportsFan581]

Again, you are once again ignoring and moving the posts about a US sales conversation, by responding with WW sales.



This is nothing more than make believe There was no rabid piracy, Not you're saying there was piracy during the period they had the bggest sales?

Sega did not have the right features and software to sustain more consoles sales, period, that was the problem, it ends there. Sony had nothing to do with it, and your pivot to piracy has nothing to do with it either.

The games that held up the DC were selling around the same level as the DC was selling across more games early on. Millions of people were not pirating Dreamcast games during a sales decline because you need a damn Dreamcast to play a burned game you pirated.

Or was ALL the sports players the only people in the whole industry with no pirates? So they were the ONLY ones that were not pirating and were the ONLY ones legit buying NBA and NFL?

Again, I'm looking at the US specific sales numbers. LOL

GC had 700k units ready for their NA launch. GC sold more than twice the units in NA and that started right from the jump, it is not something that happened later.

 

[SportsFan581]

This is nothing more than make believe There was no rabid piracy, Not you're saying there was piracy during the period they had the bggest sales?

Of course, everyone knows that. DC had piracy problems since day 1 in the US. They would have sold more software during their best selling period without that problem. How is that so confusing.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Again, I'm looking at the US specific sales numbers. LOL

And yet you are confused about the Dreamcasts record.

Of course, everyone knows that. DC had piracy problems since day 1 in the US. They would have sold more software during their best selling period without that problem. How is that so confusing.

Which has nothing to do with hardware. Also, no they wouldn't.

If people wanted to buy ore games and DC in droves they would have like any other consoles, they didn't have after a certain point. Stop being disingenuous.

 

[SportsFan581]

And yet you are confused about the Dreamcasts record.



Which has nothing to do with hardware. Also, no they wouldn't.

If people wanted to buy ore games and DC in droves they would have like any other consoles, they didn't have after a certain point. Stop being disingenuous.

Being disingenuous about what. I said the system never sold well, and it never did. It only held the launch record because it was the first system to launch after PS1/N64 rapidly expanded the size of the home console market. Thus why the record was completely obliterated with the very next system launch (it was never an impressive record for the time). So while it sold faster than the systems before it did at launch, it did not even sell as much as those systems were during the same quarter in the US. You are confusing their launch record with the total sales for the period where they only had (31% of the hardware sales vs. the 69% split by the older systems).

Also, we were talking about software attach rates and the piracy definitely hurt those numbers.

All I've been pointing out is that low software sales weren't necessarily due to the games being "bad" or players being "uninterested". Some of it was just due to the system selling fewer units and being on the market for a shorter period of time (lowering the final sales totals for its games) along with piracy. Everyone is in agreement that the brand was already weakening before the system ever released.

Everything came together to kill them. The PS2 hype machine made the DC seem outdated and uncool even before anyone had seen a game for PS2, Sega's poor brand image made people feel like it wasn't that great of an investment, and along with that Sega's arcade style was a little dated. It's all three of those things coming together that limited the demand for DC systems, which in turn lowered software sales for the individual titles.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I said the system never sold well, and it never did.

Which wasn't argued.

The actual pint being made is that despite strong sales int he US, Sega could not have the games, or the features (Seganet etc) to entice consuemrs to buy more consoles.

It only held the launch record because it was the first system to launch after PS1/N64 rapidly expanded the size of the home console market.

Or because they had new money for a massive marketing campaign, a bunch of game announcements everyone was overhyped for which also got favorable coverage, while also boasting graphics at model 3 level, with a 3D Sonic, at a $199 price, and a bunch of promises.

But this is barely relevant to the point regardless.

(it was never an impressive record for the time)

Your bias is showing.

Also, we were talking about software attach rates and the piracy definitely killed those numbers.

False, and no that's not what we were talking about.

We were talking about how Sega didn't have the software to sell enough hardware. But it seems you need to keep switching the argument for some reason.

Nothing has changed, Sega did not have the software to entice consumers to buy more DC outside of sports, another poster already went through some games and their lack of selling power.

Same games, similar, or sequels all had similar results on the other 3 consoles too. That was the whole entire point and issue being discussed.

 

[SportsFan581]

Same games, similar, or sequels all had similar results on the other 3 consoles too. That was the whole entire point and issue being discussed.

When did they have the results though, that matters.

And you are completely discounting the other reasons why the hardware wasn't desirable (primarily that Sega had a history of launching products they did not stand behind at this point). Software and Hardware sales feed off each other which seems to be beyond your comprehension.

 

[SportsFan581]

Your bias is showing.

I'm not biased against the DC, I loved the little console.

I am a realist however, and the home console market had more than doubled (almost tripled in size) between the 5th and 6th console generation. That allowed the weakest gen 6 launch to look good on paper in comparison to the best 5th gen launch. The DC launch was still the weakest of the gen 6 launches (closest was Xbox since they had limited brand awareness). The worst launch of the gen wasn't necessarily impressive, no.

And no Sega didn't score themselves a game with a crazy 50% attach rate like Halo had at launch, that's true. But, at the same time, many of the games you are saying no one was interested in had similar attach percentages as competitors.

Plus, even with all their troubles, their launch attach rate wasn't that bad by percentage. The sales numbers don't look that good, but again the other systems launched with more than twice the units so that immediately bumps the software numbers. The DC did not fail only because of weak software, it also failed because of the greater popularity of PS and Nintendo and the fact that most buyers were content to wait on the next systems from those brands. And the business side figures in as well, if they could have manufactured more units early, they could have sold more software which in turn would have allowed the software to have bigger impact on culture in general and sell more units (and the circle continues).

 

[MikeMyers]

In hindsight all Sega consoles bombed except for the Genesis. And Genesis banked on 3 things essentially; EA Sports, blood and Sonic. It was a perfect storm for them. EA released their sports game first on Genesis, Sonic catched on as a mascot and people went crazy over Mortal Kombat with blood. They would lose 2 of these boons soon after as Nintendo allowed blood for the sequel, EA released their sports games everywhere but also Sonic started to lose momentum after Sonic 2. This may be short sighted but it lines up with Segas only succesful console years which were around 1991-1993.

Their subsequent systems bombed again, just as they did before Genesis. So perhaps it never really was their business. They also ran it poorly ofcourse, with 2 branches fighting eachother.

Yup the Mega Drive was the only Sega console that really broke into the public consciousness in the US/UK, thanks to Sonic and EA Sports. Meanwhile the Sega Saturn was the only one to do it in Japan, due to Sakura Taisen and Virtua Fighter.

Tragic, but I bought my Dreamcast at launch and have no regrets.

 

[JLB]

DC was a fantastic console, nothing to blame Peter Moore. He made an excellent job there. Playstation was a de facto monopoly at the time and was hard to compete with that, specially after some exclisivities (football) that basically killed the console.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

One of the coolest people from the entertainment industry I ever met . Humble fella. He seemed to appreciate my love for Dreamcast & Xbox 360.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

When did they have the results though, that matters.

Stay on topic.

And you are completely discounting the other reasons why the hardware wasn't desirable (primarily that Sega had a history of launching products they did not stand behind at this point).

No I didn't, that's why i said and you skipped with your goal moving, that the software to hardware issue went back three gens to the Genesis, and was discussed about game viability with another user above. Which you missed because you keep trying to change the argument.

Yup the Mega Drive was the only Sega console that really broke into the public consciousness in the US/UK, thanks to Sonic and EA Sports. Meanwhile the Sega Saturn was the only one to do it in Japan, due to Sakura Taisen and Virtua Fighter.

Tragic, but I bought my Dreamcast at launch and have no regrets.

The EA sports thing is an iffy one here.

While EA sports did decent sales, Sega's sports did better. Not one madden sold over 1 million, while Sega had two NFL that did.

It was really Sonic and Midway that was selling significant numbers of consoles between Sonic, MK, and NBA jam, along with the Aladdin success which was Sega made.

EA was a company people brought some consoles for but not as much pull, same with Road Rash.

Without Midway Sega would have been much worse off.

 

[Crayon]

Anecdotal, but everyone I knew with a Dreamcast back then had a library of burned games to go along with it.



The mythical "average consumer" who buys tech and doesn't know how to do anything. Well by 99-00 pretty much every PC had a burner, and if you didn't have one you wanted one and knew someone who had one. If you wanna use kids who's parents bought them a Dreamcast as an example, they only need one friend at school and are damn resourceful when lacking funds. For $200 you can buy this system and I'll burn you all the games for it is a hell of a selling point and takes all word of mouth sales and shoots Sega in the ass. Were you actually in school in the late 90's? Because kids were absolutely burning an sharing everything back then.

We allocated school who is kind of a wiz at 14 years old and he was modding PS1's for cheap and then selling burn games for 10 bucks a piece.

 

[MikeMyers]

Stay on topic.



No I didn't, that's why i said and you skipped with your goal moving, that the software to hardware issue went back three gens to the Genesis, and was discussed about game viability with another user above. Which you missed because you keep trying to change the argument.



The EA sports thing is an iffy one here.

While EA sports did decent sales, Sega's sports did better. Not one madden sold over 1 million, while Sega had two NFL that did.

It was really Sonic and Midway that was selling significant numbers of consoles between Sonic, MK, and NBA jam, along with the Aladdin success which was Sega made.

EA was a company people brought some consoles for but not as much pull, same with Road Rash.

Without Midway Sega would have been much worse off.

Speaking for UK here, FIFA debuted on Mega Drive and it was a massive deal.

The only footie games by Sega I liked were the ones on Sega Saturn, lack of a good footie game + no FIFA/ISS killed Dreamcast in UK.