Support NeoGAF

[SportsFan581]

Stay on topic.

That is the topic. You are saying that Sega software was no good an no one was buying it and comparing sales to PS titles. In that context it is important to compare the software sales launch aligned (how many units did game X sell in year one vs. game Z and so on). The PS1 had such a long life, as you've already alluded to yourself, that lifetime sales of launch era titles are significantly impacted by that success (which you don't want to talk about because it doesn't fit your narrative).

Sega had many problems. Trying to boil it down to the software was crap so the console didn't sell is far too simplistic.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

That is the topic. You are saying that Sega software was no good an no one was buying it and comparing sales to PS titles.

No YOU compared sales to PS titles.

never really sold well at any point, not in reference to the post PS1 expanded video game market.

There's no reference to make to the PS1 (which started out slow) to make without being misleading.

^As shown early in this chain of convo.

I said that Sega didn't have the right software to get consumers to buy CONSOLES, and those same software didn't do hot mostly on the THREE consoles either after they went third-party There was a discussion about games lsited and their selling potential that you intentionally skipped.

It's got nothing to do with "bad" games, it's about appealing to consumers.

The PS1 had such a long life, as you've already alluded to yourself, that lifetime sales of launch era titles are significantly impacted by that success (which you don't want to talk about because it doesn't fit your narrative).

Except this was your argument, using totals after the gen ended instead of for the time, this is the 2nd time you've lied and said I made this argument instead of you who actually made it.

So why even bother continuing when you avoided the point and don't have one yourself?

 

[SportsFan581]

Except this was your argument, using totals after the gen ended instead of for the time, this is the 2nd time you've lied and said I made this argument instead of you who actually made it.

So why even bother continuing when you avoided the point and don't have one yourself?

That's what I was asking you to start with, whether or not you were using cumulative data for for the early PS1 games, I never said you were I asked you if you were (using the final sales totals of the Nintendo and PS games would be a bad faith example to be sure). And again, it's a hard argument to say that the software was not good enough to sell the system when buyers that were overlooking the system in favor of the next PS & Nintendo systems which technically had no games at all yet. Brand power is a thing and Sega was just about completely out of it.

It looked like you were using Mat Piscatella tweets about the best selling games on the platforms which were cumulative and would be bad faith comparisons. I didn't know you were running totals of the time appropriate NPD data.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

That's what I was asking you to start with, whether or not you were using cumulative data for for the early PS1 games, I never said you were I asked you if you were (using the final sales totals of the Nintendo and PS games would be a bad faith example to be sure). And again, it's a hard argument to say that the software was not good enough to sell the system when buyers that were overlooking the system in favor of the next PS & Nintendo systems which technically had no games at all yet. Brand power is a thing and Sega was just about completely out of it.

I didn't compare any games on the DC to other consoles games, all I said was that they did NOT have the games to move consoles, and I posted a sales chart of the US best million sellers (only 4 none above 1.05 million) and said that many follow-ups or ports on the other 3 consoles didn't do well either.

You need to have a reason to buy a console, consumers didn't see a reason except NFL, Sega pushed the wrong games, they had quality they just needed to spotlight the titles that would actually move units, they didn't.

You're claim about unreleased PS2 games has nothing to do with the point, and actually only supports by point games were the problem because people already knew what to expect with the launch titles in the west. What was Sega's counter to the consumer appealing early games from Xbox, PS2, and GC that would attract a large number of people to the console?

Sega did not have the right games spotlighted that would appeal to a large base.

Shenmue and Capcom Vs SNk is not going to sell the same amount of systems as Tekken tag.

 

[SportsFan581]

I didn't compare any games on the DC to other consoles games, all I said was that they did NOT have the games to move consoles, and I posted a sales chart of the US best million sellers (only 4 none above 1.05 million) and said that many follow-ups or ports on the other 3 consoles didn't do well either.

You need to have a reason to buy a console, consumers didn't see a reason except NFL, Sega pushed the wrong games, they had quality they just needed to spotlight the titles that would actually move units, they didn't.

You're claim about unreleased PS2 games has nothing to do with the point, and actually only supports by point games were the problem because people already knew what to expect with the launch titles in the west. What was Sega's counter to the consumer appealing early games from Xbox, PS2, and GC that would attract a large number of people to the console?

Sega did not have the right games spotlighted that would appeal to a large base.

Shenmue and Capcom Vs SNk is not going to sell the same amount of systems as Tekken tag.

You say they didn't have the right games, I say they simply were unable to bring forward the right hardware. I think PS and Nintendo (and even Xbox a bit later) did a good job of selling the capabilities of their systems to the masses, which Sega really couldn't do much about. Once everyone assumed that the PS system coming in a year was going to be 10x more powerful than DC (obviously it wasn't, but that was the marketing pitch), I think that had more to do with the system being overlooked than any of the software available for it. Most didn't want to spend the $200 for it only to have the outdated system that likely wouldn't be well supported (since that was Sega's reputation), not when they figure they could wait a year and get the greatest thing since sliced bread and use it for 4 or 5 years. Either that or the DC needed to release even earlier in the US, to put it further in front of the coming generation (a literal half step), with that strategy they would just hope that enough users would bite because they just couldn't hold off, maybe they could have hit 20m or so like that.

It was different times back then. 3D hadn't reached the point of largely "good enough" yet. Today is different, even the Switch's graphics are "good enough" for most, making the underlying hardware a lot less important. Today it is all about the software and the experiences.

Sega would have had a better chance of hanging in with Nintendo if they had waited and built a proper PS2 competitor (even if they waited a year like Nintendo and Xbox did). They still would have never competed for #1, but they might have put together a 20m unit seller and kept themselves alive. People could see Saturn happening all over again with the Dreamcast specs (at least I could and a few other posters as well).

 

[OuterLimits]

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.

Genesis did indeed have a good software library that covered many genres. Heck, Phantasy Star IV still holds up amazingly well today. I was bummed when it was killed as a single player franchise. Shining in the Darkness and Shining Force games still hold up well also. Plus, Genesis was getting some decent versions of PC games that Nintendo didn't. Such as SM Pirates Gold, Centurion: Defender of Rome, and Master of Monsters.

They made so many blunders after the 3 to 4 year window where they were on fire.(1991-1994)

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

You say they didn't have the right games, I say they simply were unable to bring forward the right hardware.

You need games to sell hardware, along with other features, as I also mentioned Seganet didn't work out either, which was an evolution of Netlink which also didn't work out on the Saturn.

Once everyone assumed that the PS system coming in a year was going to be 10x more powerful than DC (obviously it wasn't, but that was the marketing pitch), I think that had more to do with the system being overlooked

This didn't happen, people were buying the Dreamcast for graphics and experiences, which dived within the first year along with their hardware sales and their online push which didn't change things as expected, resulting in them cutting to $150 real fast, along with deals on Seganet which if anything like Netlink, was probably among the most costly things about the console to keep momentum from getting worse, along with game sales. That didn't work so they ended up doing insane deals with SegaNet like basically a free Dreamcast after rebate, another console cut, more game prices lowering.

There was know notable drop in Dreamcast US sales because of the PS2. Everywhere else the Dreamcast was already in the grave so the PS2 fnishing off the near no platform it had is nothing surprising.

But in the US, it was a gradual decline. Even NFL couldn't save it in the end with the last entry, or at least keep it stagnant. It has very little to do with the PS2.

In fact many articles talk about WW sales from the time that were making the connection, people go with it but it doesn't make sense in the US, where the PS2 hype" didn't kill the Dreamcast.

We have the games, we've seen the games, and three times now you avoided the discussion had with the other user about game viability.

Look at the list of games mentioned in this thread earlier, look at the MC link, go look up game sites best Dreamcast gams. They didn't have mass console selling potential.

No appealing games, no consoles sales.

Blaming Sony "hype" before released for the DC declining in the US instead of the turth that Seaman wasn't going to move 1 million consoles is sily.

Did the PS2 contribute to the problem? Sure, but not to the extent people keep saying.

Again, what did Sega have to compete with the appeal of Tekken Tag on the PS2?

Why did PGR do better than MSR?

Why did Sonic Shuffle fail to be an alternative to Mario party?

These are the real questions.

 

[SportsFan581]

This didn't happen

In your imagination it didn't happen. PS announced PS2 on March 2, 1999 (well before the US and UK launch dates of DC). Their marketing positions put a cloud over the entire life cycle of the DC in the US and UK. There was no time that people in the US/UK purchased the system and didn't know that the PS2 hardware was coming. Yes, some people bought it, mainly the Sega die-hards they had left as has been mentioned. But, obviously, there were greater numbers of users that opted to wait for the better hardware even without a direct comparison of launch software yet available. The DC launch was only good in a vacuum, it wasn't great in comparison to the rest of the 6th gen launches. Could that have been the software, maybe. But I feel it was much more to do with the capabilities of the hardware offered. It was a comparatively weak console at a time when the differences really mattered, especially with people thinking the PS2 was going to be 10x better LOL.

I'm not saying that from a position of Sony doing something wrong per se, but they were FUD masters at the time and they worked that angle beautifully. Plus their brand was just on fire after PS1.

And on top of that, the attach rates started to get low as time went on. I'm sure in good part thanks to rampant piracy which was certainly a thing at the time (I was part of it myself).

People did not want to bet on the losing horse, which was understandable given that Sega fans had already experienced the 32x and Saturn failures. That was my mindset, and I knew others that were the same. I bought mine for $50 new at Circuit City with two bundled games, I would not have paid $200 for it when I bought it (after news of the cancellation had already broken). But in hindsight, I would have because with all the "free" games I played on it it was still worth it.

 

[jigglet]

@EviLore I love to fuck chickens

This is probably why.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

In your imagination it didn't happen. PS announced PS2 on March 2, 1999 (well before the US and UK launch dates of DC).

And the DC wasn't DOA and didn't immediately kick the bucket when it went on sale, so again, it didn't happen.

There was no time that people in the US/UK purchased the system and didn't know that the PS2 hardware was coming.

Which has no relevance to the poor software sales of Sega in the US, and the fact they didn't have the games or features (Seganet) work out to getting more people to buy consoles.

The DC launch was only good in a vacuum, it wasn't great in comparison to the rest of the 6th gen launches.

Which isn't relevant, and is a point you keep making, but also tried pretending you didn't and accused me of making multiple times before. There was no comparisons made. The ONLY issue was Sega wasn't pushing the right games of better appeal for better consoles sales.

I'm sure in good part thanks to rampant piracy which was certainly a thing at the time (I was part of it myself).

And this is made up.

US hardware sales were dropping, software was lowering in response and consolidating to sports games. Who apparently are the only gamers that don't pirate using your logic.

Anyway you don't seem to have any issues with the point, you seem to be trying to add more arguments not relevant to it on top of it. But don't seem to disagree with the point itself that there was a an issue getting consumers to by consoles in the US, because there was.

 

[SportsFan581]

So, let me get this straight, you honestly believe the following:

That the looming PS2 did not limit enthusiasm for the DC (in spite of the fact that all industry figures of the time fully believe that it did - even the Sony guys).

You think that comparing the 6th gen launch data is irreverent, even though not looking at that is the very definition of looking at sales in a vacuum. Because I guess below average launch sales for the generation are okay if you do it first.

And you think that previous results of recent Sega systems had nothing to do with DC console sales.

And that piracy had nothing to do with lowered sales of software.

All to make the point that it was 100% Sega not having the software to sell the system.

LOL I never said that no one was interested in the DC at launch, obviously they were. Just like the X1 sold well at launch. The deciding factor is the continued momentum and the coming PS2 limited DCs chances more than their software library IMO. Plus, they launched with half the units of their rivals.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

And you think that previous results of recent Sega systems had nothing to do with DC console sales.

Which is what I said they did, showing you aren't even bothering anymore.

And that piracy had nothing to do with lowered sales of software.

Which the conversation as hardware, but you're changing the argument to confuse people, and making up something I never said. While also making up there was "rampant piracy' which there wasn't in the US, which was the focus of the conversation.

You think that comparing the 6th gen launch data is irreverent,

Noooo, YOU brought it up and it wasn't relevant to the discussion, and then you backtracked on this and blamed ME saying I was wrong for making the comparison that YOU made. As shown in post #102

That the looming PS2 did not limit enthusiasm for the DC

I didn't say this so already that ends the convo.

 

[SportsFan581]

Which the conversation as hardware, but you're changing the argument to confuse people, and making up something I never said. While also making up there was "rampant piracy' which there wasn't in the US, which was the focus of the conversation.

Again, in your imagination there wasn't in reality for users of the system back then there absolutely was.

When you say the launch was a great success, that automatically calls into question the context. In comparison to what the 5th gen systems from years earlier or the 6th gen in the current market.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Again, in your imagination there wasn't in reality for users of the system back then there absolutely was.

I think you're malfunctioning.

When you say the launch was a great success, that automatically calls into question the context.

That came later after your many topic changes. That wasn't in the original point. It was something you keep pushing as fact based on your personal speculation that had nothing to do with the topic of Sega having issues selling more consoles because they didn't have software/Seganet to move more consoles

I have no idea why it's this difficult for you to stay on one topic without bringing in something new and pretending that was the base of the conversation.

Again, you haven't really addressed the actual topic once, but arguing around it. Other than a false claim of rampant piracy in the US, which has nothing to do with hardware sales dropping in the US, which you need consoles in order to buy and play prorated games, so piracy clearly is the issue for hardware, as I said long ago.

 

[SkylineRKR]

EA was a big deal for a while. Those games debuted on Genesis. Not only sports, but also Desert Strike which was hugely popular. EA were an important asset to Sega for a few years. As for Dreamcast, it seriously lacked football/soccer games. Virtua Striker 2 sure, but that was pure arcade and from an objective standpoint it was trash (I love it because I love Arcade games). SWWS was trash compared to Saturn and the few others were shit too. PSX had Pro Evo and before ISS and ofcourse FIFA which actually wasn't that bad between 98-2000. Saturn actually had FIFA 98, which was a beloved version of FIFA. I actually prefered this version, it loaded more than twice as fast.

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.

I think the PSX had no problem reading any 650mb or 700mb CDR. I had a modchip in 1998, and a 4x burner at home. We made money off it, sold games for the equivalent of 5 USD a piece. We did it for a time, but I continued to buy games anyway. The best thing about that modchip was that it made the system region free, so I imported games. I had more fun with originals. I wanted those original FF jewel cases and all. I had all those until a few years ago, I sold it off since you can play all those games digitally anyway without the hassle of hooking an ancient console to a modern TV.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

EA was a big deal for a while.

They were but the Genesis games didn't sell as much as people think they did which is why Sega's football(NFL) games sold over 1 million copies, but EA's despite the bigger name, did not. Road Rash is another well known series but none of those games sold over 1 million.

EA was probably more important to the Genesis earlier, and then that switched to Midway 1993-1994 before sales started declining.

One EA game Dreamcast missed out on that was arguably a bigger deal than sports was Need for Speed. it was starting to set things on fire during 98-2002.

Many of the racing games featured and pused for the DC ports or otherwise had the visuals but not the gameplay. Vanishing Point for example.

Other than MSR, but that came out too late. MS using them to launch PGR for Xbox was the right move to make.

 

[SportsFan581]

I think you're malfunctioning.



That came later after your many topic changes. That wasn't in the original point. It was something you keep pushing as fact based on your personal speculation that had nothing to do with the topic of Sega having issues selling more consoles because they didn't have software/Seganet to move more consoles

I have no idea why it's this difficult for you to stay on one topic without bringing in something new and pretending that was the base of the conversation.

Again, you haven't really addressed the actual topic once, but arguing around it. Other than a false claim of rampant piracy in the US, which has nothing to do with hardware sales dropping in the US, which you need consoles in order to buy and play prorated games, so piracy clearly is the issue for hardware, as I said long ago.

LOL the silliest reply so far. I'm board so I'll keep going with this.

This was my reply to you. I thought you were using the NPD tweet with the lifetime games sales of the systems which would be irrelevant for comparison here, which is what I was point out. A million games sold on a system with 10m units is harder to come by than 1m sellers on systems with 100m users obviously. When you say the system only had 4 games over 1m sales, well how many 1m sellers had the other systems produced at that point in time (not the final sales tallies but 16 months or so into the life cycle).

^ Seems like Crazy Taxi moved some units as well. They had a small userbase so it was naturally hard for them to match sales numbers with the competition that gen (who would have 3 or 4 and in PS2's case more than 10x the users).

You followed up with this:

In NA the DC started strong and was still strong and rising when the PS2 came out and then quickly fell apart once people started buying lesss software outside sports games.

Like the Saturn, they couldn't get people to actually buy games.

Which is where the context comes in. The DC was never strong or rising in NA, it looked strong only in comparison to the 5th gen systems (that launched when the home console market was MUCH smaller). Every other system that launched afterwards would put the DC launch into proper perspective.

Regarding software, maybe they didn't have the best lineup or didn't market their software properly, I don't know. But, I'm not going to ignore the implications of piracy when everyone I ever interacted with regarding a DC had several burned games for it. The act of piracy on DC games was embarrassingly easy with the technology available at the time. Creating the images was outside the capabilities of the average gamer, but a .cdi of every new release was available shortly after the games launched - other people were doing that work and sharing it.

It's unimaginable to me that piracy was not lowering the software sales at the time of the decision to cancel the console.

Looks like they were taking it very seriously for something that wasn't a problem also: https://www.wired.com/2000/07/sega-crushes-dreamcast-pirates/

 

[Sorcerer]

i remember

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.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I thought you were using the NPD tweet with the lifetime games sales of the systems

I never posted an NPD tweet. This is what happens when you constantly change the topic and lose the conversation. I did eventually post US sales figures fo the million sellers, but YOUR post you're referring to here,

^ Seems like Crazy Taxi moved some units as well. They had a small userbase so it was naturally hard for them to match sales numbers with the competition that gen (who would have 3 or 4 and in PS2's case more than 10x the users).

was two posts EARLIER/ABOVE mine, https://www.neogaf.com/threads/peter-moore-i-didnt-kill-the-dreamcast.1651817/post-267514887

So your post wasn't even too me, and what's more is no one above you even mentioned Crazy Taxi you were the only one, and the post is as is, because you didn't edit it as of now. You are talking about mentioning sales to the competition to someone else who looking through, I can't find any mention of who you could have possibly been responding too.

But it wasn't me.

(Also, Bernie, Takezuki, Peter, etc all blamed the DC falling on not being able to sell enough software to sell enough units to cut bleeding. Because that was the issue, and was in all their interviews.)

 

[Puscifer]

This is probably why.

Lmfao

 

[SportsFan581]

I never posted an NPD tweet. This is what happens when you constantly change the topic and lose the conversation. I did eventually post US sales figures fo the million sellers, but YOUR post you're referring to here,



was two posts EARLIER/ABOVE mine, https://www.neogaf.com/threads/peter-moore-i-didnt-kill-the-dreamcast.1651817/post-267514887

So your post wasn't even too me, and what's more is no one above you even mentioned Crazy Taxi you were the only one, and the post is as is, because you didn't edit it as of now. You are talking about mentioning sales to the competition to someone else who looking through, I can't find any mention of who you could have possibly been responding too.

But it wasn't me.

(Also, Bernie, Takezuki, Peter, etc all blamed the DC falling on not being able to sell enough software to sell enough units to cut bleeding. Because that was the issue, and was in all their interviews.)

Right my post was not replying to you it was referencing a post above mine, but it did start our little debate. I mentioned CT because it was a decent selling game on DC that the poster had not mentioned.

And that last line about Bernie, Takezuki, Peter, etc. actually supports my position more than yours. The DC didn't die because they couldn't sell consoles (at least from the information out there, in fact they really couldn't afford to sell more volume than they were already), it died because they couldn't sell enough games per console sold (the attach rate was too low). Now tell me again how the piracy doesn't play directly into that problem. The games that console owners copied they didn't buy, and if they had bought them guess what number gets higher. I think they would have run into serious problems down the line, even if they sold a few more games per unit just because the weakness of the system would have capped the sales of the DC at a low number making it hard for them to get software budgets where they needed to be at the time, obviously just an opinion.

The easier the piracy is to facilitate the more it will hurt software sales. On systems where you need mod chips or could easily get banned from online services etc. there is enough friction to drive most users away from it (though some will get that second "offline" console - the majority won't). But DC piracy was super easy and the more that info spread, the more it killed them in the software sales department. It cost them some third-party support also because some developers feared a DC port would be to easily stolen and could lower sales on more secure platforms. And since DC systems weren't as connected as consoles today, Sega really couldn't close this door on systems that had already been sold, to get passed it they would basically need to start building their base from the ground up with patched systems (which they obviously viewed as unrealistic). This is why before steam a lot of developers quit selling games on PC all together, because the ease of piracy at the time killed the return while the consoles were a lot more secure in that regard for the most part. Piracy is still huge on PC but people want the online features now and that can pump the breaks on a lot of it, plus the DRM schemes are more complex.

The fact that some that bought it immediately moved on to PS2, relegating DC to a secondary system that they didn't buy much software for could not have helped either. It was a lot of things coming together at once, the FUD, the piracy, the weakness of the hardware, the limits of Sega's budgets for software, the horrible reputation of the brand, business choices like the pricing, etc. I think there was too much there to just simplify it and say that the games just weren't good enough for players to buy, that's my opinion on it anyway.

 

[Sellyprime]

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.

Just want to add to this from a UK perspective, the prerelease marketing for the Dreamcast didn't have the sega logo, it was just Dreamcast. I remember seeing the marketing and having to buy gaming magazines to find out that it was sega made. Seeing sonic was the only give away.

The megadrive was the popular console until the PlayStation took its place, I didn't know anyone who owned a Saturn during this time( and I knew someone who had a commodore 64 lol). With the Dreamcast I was the only person that owned one in my circle.

 

[MMaRsu]

The arsenal sponsorship killed the dreamcast

 

[SkylineRKR]

The attach rate was already too low before piracy. The DC simply didn't have system sellers. The only system seller was Sonic. The sports games perhaps in the USA but not world wide. Europe didn't play NFL and a huge soccer game wasn't there. Piracy didn't help matters, but without it the DC would crash all the same. They simply didn't have the software to grow and make a profit.

They lacked the funds too, you would never find something big like MGS2 on a Sega system. Sega was really small time, they could manage in the 16-bit market which was a completely different landscape. But ever since gaming became huge, with optical discs, 3d playfields, movie like experiences etc, Sega struggled to keep up with the budgets and deals thrown around by Sony. Even Nintendo did, which forced them to bail out and make their own distinct software and gameplay experiences thats almost nothing like what Sony and MS offer. The last Nintendo system that had a traditional approach and cutting edge hardware was the Gamecube from 21 years ago. That console could push out graphics that rivaled or beat PS2 and Xbox and had a traditional controller. Since then its been the Wii, Wii U and Switch. Technically the Wii U could be on par with 360 and PS3 but it came out 6 years in their wake lol.

Nintendo was bigger than Sega. As a company Nintendo was simply better managed, they had better vision and they have evergreen IP that will always sell. So Nintendo branched out and found success, and if they didn't find success (Wii U) they kept their losses at bay and they could always bank on Mario, Smash etc. Even the Wii U has a game that sold almost 10 million copies, and several 5+ million sellers.

Todays gaming market, and actually the gaming market since the PS2 is not suited for a company like Sega. Their only way would've been to go the way Nintendo went but then again Sega lacks the IP, selling potential and vision for this.

 

[BlackTron]

Exactly this for a lot of gamers. I grew up a Sega kid. Started with the Master System. No NES. Then moved onto the Genesis. No SNES. Got a Game Gear. No Gameboy. Fell for the Sega CD hype. Even got a 32X. Then, my older bro picked up the Sega Saturn. Then, when the Saturn just didn't go anywhere.... I got a Playstation. I'd been burned too many times. When news of the Dreamcast came, I just wasn't willing to take the plunge.

I eventually picked one up once they were being clearanced, and I love the little off-white console, but the Dreamcast was destined to fail.

Man it's weird. I had Genesis and Game Gear too, but skipped every other Sega right up to Dreamcast, which I was frothing for at launch. I was actually there at midnight at 9/9/99.

In hindsight I was so deep in SNES stuff that I didn't pay that much attention to 32x and Saturn, they were like blips. But I think if the software was there, I would have, that was their failing. The same way as a kid I didn't know Genesis existed until it was packed with Sonic. So by the time DC came around, my last Sega was Genesis and I was READY for that 3D Sonic. TBH I was willing to spend my dad's $199 on that one game anyway

At its height my library was SA1/2, Soul Calibur, Crazy Taxi, Grandia II, Skies of Arcadia, PSO, Sega Rally, Ready 2 Rumble, Power Stone and my worst game was Gundam 0080. This is the last gen/salvo of software that ever truly impressed me as new or exciting. In fact I'm pretty sure I never had any interest in WOW because I was already doing that on dialup on DC and it looked like an even bigger timesink without the action game aspect PSO has.

Sega was always there to pave the road ahead they just didn't walk on it.

I think Yuji Naka contributed greatly to Sega's demise by sabotaging the development of a critical Sonic game for Saturn. He told Sega if you release this game using my engine I'm going to walk. They should have let him go and gotten the game out. He was there at the front lines and did amazing physics code for early Sonic. Then he got a big head and thought his ego was more important than the survival of the company. We can only imagine the full extent of his influence eroding at their strong position. Hell today we know he is a criminal. I'm not even talking about insider trading, I mean Balan Wonderland.

 

[SportsFan581]

The attach rate was already too low before piracy. The DC simply didn't have system sellers. The only system seller was Sonic. The sports games perhaps in the USA but not world wide. Europe didn't play NFL and a huge soccer game wasn't there. Piracy didn't help matters, but without it the DC would crash all the same. They simply didn't have the software to grow and make a profit.

They did hold the all time record for attach rate at launch and were still close to all-time records 6 months in. And the piracy kicked into high gear only 6-8 months after launch, so, that's a hard argument to make. IMO.

If they could have produced and sold the 700-800k units at the US launch that their rivals later would and still managed that 3 to 1 attach rate for the launch software the numbers would look a lot better. Ultimately they just weren't manufacturing enough units for the market that existed at the time of the launch (even though it appeared to be a good number based on the launches 4 or 5 years earlier). Possibly if they had managed to break even on the units they could have manufactured units faster, but I know they had issues getting the GPU.

 

[danklord]

That's crazy I didn't know Peter Moore was responsible for CD Burners in the year 2000.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Did Dreamcast really have the games? PS2 was bringing out stuff like FF10 and GTA. The first few years of PS2 was slow but the system turned into gear and released a deluge of all time classics.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

This man made Xbox.

And if I was a terminator designed to go back and whack someone, it would be him.

 

[SportsFan581]

Did Dreamcast really have the games? PS2 was bringing out stuff like FF10 and GTA. The first few years of PS2 was slow but the system turned into gear and released a deluge of all time classics.

The DC was discontinued when it was only 1.5 years old. It's hard to compare the library to systems that had 2 or 3 times the lifespan since new games get released all the time. The short life has to figure into attach rate comparisons also.

That's why even though the software sales are lower on the system in total, the tie ratio is on par with the other 6th gen systems (that had much longer lives), though it is hard to get official numbers. https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Software_tie_ratio

The issue they had was that software sales for them were extremely front-loaded and all but disappeared with the piracy. Saturn had amazing tie rates from all the numbers I've seen, people look at the sales totals and see 100m units of software vs. PS1 900m but fail to account for the tiny install base. Average consumers passed over the Saturn in favor of PS, but on average Saturn owners were actually buying more software than PS owners.

You'd never know for sure, but I assume that the Sega die-hards bought the system early and purchased software in typical Sega owners fashion, but the pending PS2 killed all the momentum there. The users that bought the system after those initial months were probably people that were aware of the prospects of pirating software and were buying the system but next to no software. The low install base would have made it super difficult to keep the software engine pumping along even if they had hit the 10m US units they thought they needed to survive, the bigger budget titles would have needed unusually high tie rates to make money which was never going to happen with the CD-R loophole.

 

[SkylineRKR]

They did hold the all time record for attach rate at launch and were still close to all-time records 6 months in. And the piracy kicked into high gear only 6-8 months after launch, so, that's a hard argument to make. IMO.

If they could have produced and sold the 700-800k units at the US launch that their rivals later would and still managed that 3 to 1 attach rate for the launch software the numbers would look a lot better. Ultimately they just weren't manufacturing enough units for the market that existed at the time of the launch (even though it appeared to be a good number based on the launches 4 or 5 years earlier). Possibly if they had managed to break even on the units they could have manufactured units faster, but I know they had issues getting the GPU.

I think the launch was really front loaded. It was much like the Vita. The Dreamcast had a huge launch lineup. But then it was just kind of done. Dreamcast did get a a continous stream of software, but a lot of them were PC ports of PS1 games and niche games. The best was released at launch.

What I think happened is that like Vita, a decent amount of consumers jumped on the system and its initial batch of software, but then put the system aside. Piracy started in the summer of 2000, with Echelon's first game seemingly from September that year according to google. Before that the software sales were already slowing down.

Overall Dreamcast NPD Software Sales

groups.google.com

This is overall NPD. Outside of launch and sports games, many games didn't even break 100k. Before and after piracy. The problem with anything released in 2001 onward was that the system was already discontinued, marketing was killed and shelf space was being cleared.

 

[Fuz]

But he did shoot the sheriff.

 

[Jimmy_liv]

I loved my Dreamcast. When I was buying it I remembered ppl saying 'why don't you just wait for ps2' and so that and the ease of piracy was what killed Dreamcast unfortunately.

 

[PeteBull]

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

Can only tell u how it was here in poland, at the time, i fellt in my bones dreamcast gonna fall coz my buddy only got it coz knew he could get pirated games(he had over 15 of them, later i borrowed his DC for my ps2 for a month and played them all, all great ones;D)
Literally no1 bought original dreamcast games coz pirated ones were widely avaiable everywhere, at 20-30% price of originals.

Ofc not claiming tiny polish market mattered, but i bet piracy was wide spread everywhere, no game sales=ofc console gonna fail and big time, i bet xbox series would fail by now if it was made by sega w/o crazy warchest microsoft has

 

[PeteBull]

Did Dreamcast really have the games? PS2 was bringing out stuff like FF10 and GTA. The first few years of PS2 was slow but the system turned into gear and released a deluge of all time classics.

It had many great games, many exclusives, that at the time were crushing what competition could offer with ending of ps1/n64 gen, but piracy was crazy, man, u had to be there, here in poland no1 bough og games, every1 pirated it, they bought dreamcast already adjusted so it worked on pirated games lol

 

[SkylineRKR]

Did Dreamcast really have the games? PS2 was bringing out stuff like FF10 and GTA. The first few years of PS2 was slow but the system turned into gear and released a deluge of all time classics.

From commercial and sales standpoint, barely to no. But considering the DC was only on western shelves for slightly over a year, there were actually a ton of games. And a lot of them were really fun. But a big chunk of them were niche arcade ports. The only big budget third party exclusive game I can think of is RE Code Veronica, which was agreed because Sega was left in the cold with RE2 on Saturn. The rest were multiplatform or ports from PS1. No one really went all in on DC.

But I can tell you, the DC was a really good system to own in late 1999 to late 2000. There were a lot of fun games for it, also for couch co-op. The PS2 was a slow starter, it really started to make waves late 2001.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Right my post was not replying to you it was referencing a post above mine, but it did start our little debate. I mentioned CT because it was a decent selling game on DC that the poster had not mentioned.

Which you accused me of mentioning, despite posting after you and are now moving back.

And that last line about Bernie, Takezuki, Peter, etc. actually supports my position more than yours.

No it doesn't, you need software to sell hardware.

http://[URL]https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.video.sega/c/rmo-UNZdEwQ/m/5hBDCGGvoZIJ?pli=1

[/URL]

This is overall NPD. Outside of launch and sports games, many games didn't even break 100k. Before and after piracy. The problem with anything released in 2001 onward was that the system was already discontinued, marketing was killed and shelf space was being cleared.

US didn't have rampant piracy as some say, though there was some, but as you said the issue was always that the games were not selling and Sega had nothing to move consoles.

The best selling games I posted for the US specifically where almost all early releases except sports games, and this list contains sales for that time period with sales not much better than the 2nd half of life (excluding post-discontinuation of the console).

It's 100% consistent across the boar that Sega did not put focus on the right games to appeal to consumers to get them to buy consoles, AND that Sega didn't have enough even if they did.

Did Dreamcast really have the games? PS2 was bringing out stuff like FF10 and GTA.

No, and you don't even need to go that far, because Dreamcast didn't push an answer to Tekken Tag which was a mixed game at the time, but the franchises track record and the marketing for it along with it's improvements in graphics being on the PS2, was enough to get people to buy PS2's for it, and other games within that first several month window.

Then you had Xbox and GC, that both, especially the former which was bringing in games from another platform consoles gamers weren't used to at the time,, that didn't have GTA (at the time) or Jak and Daxters up front, they came with Halo, PGR, Dead or Alive, Melee, Luigis Mansion, etc. They put out games, marketed them, and spotlighted the one that would make people want to consider buying a console, and then kept doing it after launch, even working with third-parties to push games to appeal to the mainstream AND the smaller audiences.

Sega was pushing half-starts like Sega GT, games that were not mass appealers outside graphics like Shenmue, and games like SF3, and a bunch of slightly enhanced ports of games you could get elsewhere via multiple other options that were also cheaper, or a person may have already had.

Then you have the sports games, which did end up doing that. But that was it.

Earlier in the thread me and another user went over some of these games, you can look at peoples top lists of the consoles, the MC ratings, or the games I listed Sega advertised at the time, and almost none of them would move many consoles with only some exceptions.

The attach rate was already too low before piracy. The DC simply didn't have system sellers. The only system seller was Sonic. The sports games perhaps in the USA but not world wide. Europe didn't play NFL and a huge soccer game wasn't there. Piracy didn't help matters, but without it the DC would crash all the same. They simply didn't have the software to grow and make a profit.

They lacked the funds too, you would never find something big like MGS2 on a Sega system. Sega was really small time,

This is the case, the sales were just low.

However, they COULD have invested more money, but instead they split their budget on vanity projects, and not cancelling games that were wasting money they likely would not recoup, Shenmue wasn't the only one just the worst, which any other company would have done.

They also selected the strangest games to push to the front.

Hell today we know he is a criminal. I'm not even talking about insider trading, I mean Balan Wonderland.

He'll join Inafune in jail with his Mighty no9 lol.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Not sure if you were around at the time, but the PS2 hype was telling people it would bring world peace, cure cancer, and get you laid with a different supermodel every night.

This. I remember people talking about how the PS2 had super computer level performance, and the US had to stop Saddam Hussein from buying them because the chips inside could be used in rockets, etc. It also discussed that when the broadband adapter came out you could leverage power from other PS2's on the network to increase your own performance, etc.

The hype train around the PS2 was massive.

https://www.wnd.com/2000/12/7640/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/716237.stm

http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/playing-the-supercomputer-game/

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html

 

[The Pleasure]

Genesis did indeed have a good software library that covered many genres. Heck, Phantasy Star IV still holds up amazingly well today. I was bummed when it was killed as a single player franchise. Shining in the Darkness and Shining Force games still hold up well also. Plus, Genesis was getting some decent versions of PC games that Nintendo didn't. Such as SM Pirates Gold, Centurion: Defender of Rome, and Master of Monsters.

They made so many blunders after the 3 to 4 year window where they were on fire.(1991-1994)

You forgot Starflight, Might and Magic Gates to Another World, Star Control are a few that I really liked.

 

[SportsFan581]

It had many great games, many exclusives, that at the time were crushing what competition could offer with ending of ps1/n64 gen, but piracy was crazy, man, u had to be there, here in poland no1 bough og games, every1 pirated it, they bought dreamcast already adjusted so it worked on pirated games lol

That was my experience in the states, though our systems didn't need any adjustments to run the pirated games, LOL. Maybe we just ran in bad crowds. LOL

@ Eddie-Griffin you need software to sell the systems, sure. But, just because the system didn't sell well, which we can all agree was the ultimate problem, it doesn't mean that a better library would have changed Sega's fortunes. Along with software, most gamers wanted to feel like the money they were spending on a console was going to provide them with years of entertainment, if potential buyers doubt that fact it doesn't matter what software you have to sell. Especially when you had a super computer that was 10x more powerful than the competition releasing in just a few months at only $100 more .

Long-term the road would have been a long one even if you took all of Sony's best selling first-party offerings and put them over on DC. The fact that the box was really a bit too weak from a technology standpoint to run ports of most 6th gen games would have been crippling.

But Sega did have their own development style and loved the classic arcade loops.

 

[SportsFan581]

I loved my Dreamcast. When I was buying it I remembered ppl saying 'why don't you just wait for ps2' and so that and the ease of piracy was what killed Dreamcast unfortunately.

It was a great little system. Held me over until the Xbox released, LOL.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Its about system sellers. Sega never had these, outside of Sonic, which in turn is being mismanaged a lot. Hell, for Saturn they decided not to release their one system seller on it. Yes, outsourced trash like 3D and R. And the Genesis ports. But Saturn should've at least launched with a Sonic. Even the DC proved this with SA being its best selling software.

Sega just never really knew what to do exactly and I felt they threw a lot of mud at the wall and some things stuck and others didn't. Its weird that in the wake of their most succesful system to date, they come up with the Saturn and basically ignore their complete Genesis portfolio. There are some vague tributes to Genesis games, games like Shinobi X, they're really nothing more than lousy tributes. And the mentioned Sonic 3D and R. But Saturn was completely alien.

The Dreamcast again didn't do much to change this. Why release Dynamite Cop and not make it a Streets of Rage for example? Dreamcast did at least launch with a Sonic game (its quality is debatable, but when I first played Emerald Coast I was impressed), but then outsourced Virtua Fighter, did a crap job on Sega Rally 2 which were 2 of the Saturn's biggest games. No Shining Force, Golden Axe... But the truth is, no Sega IP sold good bar Sonic, and VF on Saturn. Only Altered Beast broke a million, but it was the pack in game with the console. This is what killed Sega. Again; they didn't any system sellers. No strong IP. Everyone knows Shinobi, Streets of Rage... hell, Alex Kidd, but Sega can't sell them for shit. Sega also made a lot of artistic games, like Space Channel, Rez etc. But under Sega they bombed. If a random indie makes Rez nowadays, everyone is all over it. If EAD invents Space Channel, its likely a hit. Sega was both too early (also with online for DC btw), but also too clueless how to position their software maybe.

 

[SportsFan581]

@ SkylineRKR I think they banked too much on just being able to recreate the MD/Genesis strategy of not focusing on specific huge games but doing solid numbers in total sales volume. Genesis crushed the SNES attach rate with one of the highest attach rate numbers of all time (I think it was like 15 or 16 games per console or something like that vs. the SNES with 8 or 9). So while Genesis users weren't buying massive amounts of any one particular game (outside Sonic), there were very high total sales spread across the software library. Not a lot of Genesis games crossed the 1m threshold, yet they still sold 100m or so more software units in total (from estimates online). It's possible if they hadn't wasted the R&D money and a large portion of the consumer good will they had built on the Genesis addons they might have pulled it off, we'll never know. I doubt it was a realistic goal, since the other guys have all the third-party software AND their own stuff. Genesis was probably just that one random fluke where they managed to do well in spite of the poor management along with taking advantage of some of Nintendo's missteps.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

That was my experience in the states, though our systems didn't need any adjustments to run the pirated games, LOL. Maybe we just ran in bad crowds. LOL

@ Eddie-Griffin you need software to sell the systems, sure. But, just because the system didn't sell well, which we can all agree was the ultimate problem, it doesn't mean that a better library would have changed Sega's fortunes. Along with software, most gamers wanted to feel like the money they were spending on a console was going to provide them with years of entertainment,

You're moving back on several of your previous posts but this is silly.

Sega had the exact same problem 3 (2.5 really) gens in a row. The exact same problem of pushing the wrong games, not getting mass appeal, shortchanging their games and replacing them to quick, and not having answers to the competition. They had a very hard time getting people to want the console for the game, instead of just the game but not the console.

You skipped over guys link but those software sales are abysmal and they were on both halves of the consoles life.

Its about system sellers. Sega never had these, outside of Sonic, which in turn is being mismanaged a lot. Hell, for Saturn they decided not to release their one system seller on it. Yes, outsourced trash like 3D and R. And the Genesis ports. But Saturn should've at least launched with a Sonic. Even the DC proved this with SA being its best selling software.

it wouldn't have done much though, Sege replaced old leadership and they along with SOJ, did not get why the Genesis was doing well, a new Sonic would have a cap in how many Saturns would sell it wasn't a 10, or even 5 million seller at that point

Sonic Adventure was pushed hard and soon bundled, but then they started cannibalizing themselves by trying to spotlight various other games trying to find the game that would stick and be the system seller.

Sega had very few games on the DC (or Sat) to fit that bill, but when they had them they didn't get the marketing and attention they deserved. NFK2K was just a big deal at the time and it was obvious that Sega had to focus on it for console sales eventually. But that ended up being the one major series holding the Dreamcast up after all the launch window hype died off.

But they never took that as a cue to have a soccer game for Europe for some reason. Closest was Virtua Striker which wasn't the sim people were looking for and was barely marketed.

Sega just never really knew what to do exactly and I felt they threw a lot of mud at the wall and some things stuck and others didn't. Its weird that in the wake of their most succesful system to date, they come up with the Saturn and basically ignore their complete Genesis portfolio. There are some vague tributes to Genesis games, games like Shinobi X, they're really nothing more than lousy tributes. And the mentioned Sonic 3D and R. But Saturn was completely alien.

The Dreamcast again didn't do much to change this. Why release Dynamite Cop and not make it a Streets of Rage for example? Dreamcast did at least launch with a Sonic game (its quality is debatable, but when I first played Emerald Coast I was impressed), but then outsourced Virtua Fighter, did a crap job on Sega Rally 2 which were 2 of the Saturn's biggest games. No Shining Force, Golden Axe... But the truth is, no Sega IP sold good bar Sonic, and VF on Saturn. Only Altered Beast broke a million, but it was the pack in game with the console. This is what killed Sega. Again; they didn't any system sellers. No strong IP. Everyone knows Shinobi, Streets of Rage... hell, Alex Kidd, but Sega can't sell them for shit. Sega also made a lot of artistic games, like Space Channel, Rez etc. But under Sega they bombed. If a random indie makes Rez nowadays, everyone is all over it. If EAD invents Space Channel, its likely a hit. Sega was both too early (also with online for DC btw), but also too clueless how to position their software maybe.

This was also an issue. Studio closures between Genesis and Sat/DC aside, we didn't really see many follow-ups at all. Or at least games that were similar to what people were buying on the Mega Drive. Not just Sega games either but even third-party partners.

Streets of Rage could have ended up being a bigger IP if they did something with it after the genesis.

I don't agree with the online though, Sega wasn't early, in fact with SAT and DC were pretty badly executed and mishandled. DC was made for online but they were not ready with support out the gate and they didn't have the games to push it outside NFL2k. They had the right idea but their vision for online failed the same way two times in a row. They also spend too much money on both without have the software and the messaging for it ready out the gate too. Which was worse for the DC than the Saturn because at least the Saturn has the excuse Netlink came out two years after it's original launch and they had to do a lot more R&D and testing on the hardware before they could get software ready with how stretched thin they were across multiple projects. DC didn't have that excuse.

 

[OuterLimits]

You forgot Starflight, Might and Magic Gates to Another World, Star Control are a few that I really liked.

I remember playing Starflight. Truly a game ahead of the times in some aspects.

 

[SportsFan581]

You're moving back on several of your previous posts but this is silly.

Sega had the exact same problem 3 (2.5 really) gens in a row. The exact same problem of pushing the wrong games, not getting mass appeal, shortchanging their games and replacing them to quick, and not having answers to the competition. They had a very hard time getting people to want the console for the game, instead of just the game but not the console.

You skipped over guys link but those software sales are abysmal and they were on both halves of the consoles life.

It's the same point I've made all along and that is that the cascade of failures that they had makes it impossible to blame the quality of the software for the hardware shortfall. You've fixated on a single divergence point between Sega and its rivals (that their software sales were more diverse and less reliant on a handful of super successful titles - which lead to a natural prioritization of quantity when it came to first-party output as they could only sell one copy of any particular game to any particular user) and by doing that are misjudging the bigger problems with the failed system, IMO. It's true that this may have been a key mistake, but it was unrealistic to think that Sega would move away from the principles they had found success with on Genesis (even if they should have).

For one, it wasn't like Sega's software was trash or that people that did buy Sega hardware didn't buy games. That's factually incorrect. Sega Saturn owners were the most potent buying force of consoles released that generation, as were Master System and Genesis/MD owners (and it wasn't even close, attach rates were embarrassingly good for all three of these systems - and even the DC matched the competition in this area which wasn't anywhere near good enough since the Sega model relied on selling each customer a lot of software vs. selling a lot of hardware and a little software to each user). What set the Saturn and MS apart from Genesis was that they couldn't get the hardware numbers up enough to thrive with it. One could argue that Sega had the hardware numbers to shift to the tent-pole strategy with the Genesis, but they were moving forward and doing better than they had been so I can understand not risking it (plus the final result of games this gen weren't all that different big budget or small). There were some issues with the library, namely they started losing third-party support and they did mishandle some of their franchises. But, I'd still say the hardware itself and the marketing miscues (along with the fear and doubt and piracy in the case of the DC) played bigger roles in the lack of success than the software library. Even though the Saturn had its own set of advantages over PS, seeing these systems in action across the isle from each other made it hard to choose the Saturn. It simply looked uglier in most 3D games than the PS1, at a time when 3D was so ugly anyway that you wanted every last triangle you could get AND it was often more expensive. Which only magnified the marketing miscues (running the negative ads about the PS1's "power" when most head-to-head results left buyers with the exact opposite impression). And then, they canceled the Saturn early (after already cancelling the 32x very quickly) leaving the loyal buyers they had left with the sting of having invested in a now poorly supported and quickly abandoned platform. Advance to the DC and while the system was very impressive tech the day it launched, everyone knew the PS2 was coming with Sony smartly built their early campaign in a way that highlighted the similarities between the Saturn/PS1 and DC/PS2 (Both Sega systems launched early with tech that would be eclipsed shortly after launch and there was a cloud of doubt about the prospects for survival of both long-term even before they launched). I agree that the market was moving away from the arcade style games that were Sega's life blood, but at the same time I know that it was unrealistic and almost financially impossible for them to completely switch gears on their core identity at that point.

People didn't forget Sega's own failures or the recent failure of the Jaguar. Buyers were smart enough to know that if you invested in the wrong system you basically through away your money and would need to start over elsewhere. Sega didn't do much to erase these fears, leaving buyers with plenty of reasons outside the available game library to not buy a DC. The market had grown so much that they still got a decent group of buyers on day one, but not enough to be competitive with their 6th gen rivals. Then there was the simple fact that the only success Sega ever had was when they were the "cool kid" a status they achieved without focusing on tent-pole releases, but now Sony was the "cool kid" and Sega was the one that your friends clowned you about for wasting your time and money on.

I get what you are saying and even agree with a few of the general ideas, but putting myself in the decision makers chair in this situation the corrections you propose to facilitate success wouldn't have even been a passing consideration for me. We'll have to agree to disagree on it.

 

[SkylineRKR]

For Sony it was very easy to beat Sega. The PSX undercut them and was easier to program for. The main reason was that both Sega and Nintendo had a clouded vision of the videogames market. They didn't push the industry forward at all. They were really in their bubble and judging by the N64 and initial Saturn drafts, they were planning to continue this trend. So Sony swooped in, made gaming something for all ages, advertised in mainstream outlets, showed their consoles in living rooms and not just kids rooms. Since Playstation people have a console in the living room, and gaming is not something to be embarrased about. I remember when I told I played games in the early 90's, I was maybe one of 4 kids who had a system and a lot of others would look down on it. Sony broke this trend. Suddenly those same people who used to scrutinize it had a console under their TV.

Sega meanwhile pulled the plug on Saturn a full 2 years before the western Saturn launch. This is ofcourse suicide. They gave Sony free reign, and Nintendo but they were still in their bubble with the N64 and no competition at all. This all didn't help Sega, but I don't think consumers really remember. The hardcore gamers following all news do, but many consumers would say they liked the Genesis a lot but they never heard of the Saturn. This is because the console failed to reach an audience. So for those people it doesn't matter what plug Sega pulled and when. If Dreamcast had killer software/gimmicks like Wii Sports or Smash, it would sell regardless of Saturn. Many people bought the Wii, without knowing what the Gamecube exactly was and how it bombed. Even the N64 was probably something unknown. But they know Mario, they fell for the Wii Sports and Wii Fit hype. The Wii was marketed well.

What I don't understand is Segas early Japan launch, Japan the only country that adopted Saturn, and then Sega releases a Dreamcast with pretty much no launch lineup there. Its almost as if Japan repeats the American Saturn launch.

 

[SportsFan581]

^ The 90s and early 00s were completely different where I lived. In my experience everyone that did game on console was aware of what other systems on the market existed, mainly because shopping online and digital sales weren't really things yet, which guaranteed that you would walk the gaming aisles and see the competition on display. Because of that I don't think I interacted with many people that weren't aware of the Saturn even if they didn't own one. Though I can see where younger gamers that got started with PS1 in the second half of its existence might be unaware of it since the Saturn died so fast. For less "gamery" gamers the print media definitely helped Sony out a great deal since PS news was typically covered in a positive way where most reporting on the DC was clouded by old Sega baggage. Sega did try to get attention from the MTV generation, they ran a lot of 9/9/99 commercials over there.

Nintendo certainly did find their own lane with the Wii, though I'm not sure if that was something that happened deliberately or by accident. If Sega was going to copy anyone to find success it probably would have needed to be Nintendo, I don't think Sega had the finances or structure in place to copy Sony.

 

[Ozzie666]

I enjoyed my dreamcast(s), imported a Japan version when it was released. Purchased a north American version on 9/9/99 and eventually a third unit. But it was clear to me the dreamcast was a 32X in terms of being nothing more than a stopgap until the PS2 released in 2000. It was nothing more than a brief fling, once Sony announced the PS2 the nail was in the coffin. Developers bailed pretty quickly and knew where the most profits were. N64 and PS1 still had good 99/2000 years, with compelling software.

Sega had already killed themselves and truthfully were never that good outside of arcades, genesis was a lucky outlier, poorly run company, infighting, confused the hell out of their audience for years, bad decision after bad. They should have ended earlier if not for the huge bail out from a dying founder.

I'll also state piracy was huge in the North America and even bigger around the world. It wasn't just piracy; it was the type of piracy with Sega messing up big time. No modchip required.

One can only wonder if Sega had gone with Katana and 3DFX or accepted Electronic Arts deal would anything have changed? Honestly, I don't think so. Sega management sucked, terrible, clueless and spiteful company. As much as we love Sega, if not for Sonic, timing and Electronic Arts on the Genesis - they'd be like Atari. Even after all that, I still like them.

Sega Japan couldn't let Sega USA and 3DFX save the company again. Sega's xbox launch and support was pretty impressive though.

 

[Crayon]

Here's how ps2 hype killed my dreamcast purchase: I heard about dreamcast and thought it was pretty exciting. Too bad it was made by sega, who had proven to be massive fuckups. Sure glad I bought a playstation instead of a saturn. Good thing I saw the writing on the wall even then. I will pick that dreamcast up out of a bargain bin soon. It would be smarter to spend my hundreds of dollars on a new system from one of the companies who have demonstrated competence like nintendo or sony.

Darn that ps2 hype. If only Sony could be more like 3DO. If only Nintendo could be more like Atari. That's how it should have been. It would have been fair.