|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Aug 9, 2010 13:07:44 GMT -5
I was a bit too young to really experience the Dreamcast, but I think it was a really cool machine for its time. But I also think it should've deserved a better life than it did. And yet that was not possible.
1. If Sega Dreamcast had stuck through most of the sixth generation, it would be up against the Xbox and Bungie, PS2 and its loyal third parties, and Nintendo GameCube and the games Nintendo is known for. Not great when all you've got is a worn-out franchise character.
2. The Sega Dreamcast was light-weight, looked cool, and had expandability. It was by far the best-looking video game console of the sixth generation.
3. If Bungie had remained an independent company, and the launch platforms were Mac and PC, Dreamcast could've secured console rights, leaving Microsoft with not much.
4. The brand of Sega had been tarnished, which was a huge factor in the failure of the Dreamcast. First was the problems with the Sega Genesis: there were too many Sonic games, and the Genesis had two mediocre add-ons. The Sega CD was too early and consisted mostly of bad FMV titles and enhanced ports of Genesis games, and the 32X just saturated the market with mildly-improved graphics. What Nintendo did instead of a whole cartridge was market a special chip, the Super FX. And it worked. If the Sega 32X and the Sega CD were released as one 32-bit CD-ROM peripheral….that might have worked.
5. Meanwhile, the Saturn's launch was a disaster, by moving the release date up by four months, Sega both PO'd developers and retailers. Arguably, they could've continued with the Genesis, as Nintendo's strategy with the SNES was going fairly well, even in America. The Genesis had been quickly discontinued by 1995.
6. Still, had Dreamcast been more successful and competed with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, the market could've crashed (a crash was feared in 2004) and Sega likely to be the one to fall out.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Aug 9, 2010 13:50:39 GMT -5
Actually, the reason the Dreamcast failed was because its release was so close to the PS2's, which was an overall better system.
That doesn't mean the Dreamcast sucked, I still have mine hooked up...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Aug 9, 2010 15:04:40 GMT -5
I read that the Nintendo GameCube had better graphics power than the PS2 (officially), and that the Wii's graphics aren't that much a step above the Dreamcast (unofficially). Besides, if the PS2 was weaker than the GameCube, than how did it sell so much?
The Dreamcast certainly had potential. DVD? USB? Just sell an add-on system with both of them, through the DC expansion slot! Unfortunately, people had enough of Sega add-ons...
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Aug 9, 2010 15:24:12 GMT -5
PS2 may have been weaker, but it brought over a few loyalists from the PSOne days. Fans of developers like Square-Enix, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and more. Not to mention that the Dreamcast had, really only Sega games to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Aug 9, 2010 16:26:13 GMT -5
PS2 may have been weaker, but it brought over a few loyalists from the PSOne days. Fans of developers like Square-Enix, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and more. Not to mention that the Dreamcast had, really only Sega games to offer. But couldn't you make that same argument over the GameCube? Imagine the GameCube with no Nintendo-published games! |
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Aug 9, 2010 17:11:34 GMT -5
Yeah, but you're missing the point. With the PS2, you had series like Final Fantasy, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto etc. All of these series were brought in by different companies, whereas Sega fans had to rely on series solely developed by Sega (and the same goes for Nintendo with the Gamecube). PS2 could also play DVD's, and back in 2000-2001, that was a big deal.
The Dreamcast was released to the public in 1999. In its three year lifecycle, there were arguably only a handful of games worth buying, and these were all developed by Sega. The PS2 came out a year later and already had the support of major companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildcat on Aug 9, 2010 17:59:44 GMT -5
Yeah, but you're missing the point. With the PS2, you had series like Final Fantasy, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto etc. All of these series were brought in by different companies, whereas Sega fans had to rely on series solely developed by Sega (and the same goes for Nintendo with the Gamecube). PS2 could also play DVD's, and back in 2000-2001, that was a big deal. The Dreamcast was released to the public in 1999. In its three year lifecycle, there were arguably only a handful of games worth buying, and these were all developed by Sega. The PS2 came out a year later and already had the support of major companies. Whoa, whoa, now. The Dreamcast was richly supported by third parties. Capcom released several of their best arcade hits of their catalog, alongside Resident Evil: Code Veronica. Namco coughed up the finest 3D fighter that (in my view) they ever made - Soul Calibur. While I don't like it, Tecmo's Dead or Alive 2 was also a smash. SNK jumped on board and released a lot of their good stuff before they went bankrupt. UBI Soft released the finest port of Rayman 2 to the DC, from what I've heard, and also localized Grandia II, a fine RPG from Game Arts. The name Acclaim usually emits snickers, but they did put out Shadow Man, Re-Volt and Fur Fighters (made by Bizarre Creations, who went on to work for Microsoft doing Project Gotham Racing, created Geometry Wars, and is now doing Activision's 007: Blood Stone). Crave released the (arguably) definitive versions of Tony Hawk's first two outings. Eidos released the best version of Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver on the Dreamcast. Jaleco brought two quirky horror titles to the DC - Carrier and Illbleed, the definition of the cult hit. Midway fully supported the system with its arcade library, with Hydro Thunder, the NFL Blitz titles and NBA Showtime being the most popular. Lastly, Bioware's MDK2 was brought out by Interplay. Sega may have produced a lot of the system's titles, and many of the greats were by them, but the third party support was there, and it was fairly strong. It wasn't enough to keep the system alive, alas, but it did exist, and for me, Capcom's lineup is why I bought the system, and I personally own more third-party Dreamcast games than I do Sega ones. |
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Aug 9, 2010 18:16:39 GMT -5
Yeah, but most of those games are ports of PSOne games. You could say they were better, but only because they had better graphics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildcat on Aug 9, 2010 18:23:35 GMT -5
Not necessarily true (graphics alone being their trump card, at least), but you do have a good enough point that it stands.  While the port aspect does neuter my list some, there's still plenty of DC exclusive third party content on it. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Aug 9, 2010 18:33:52 GMT -5
Yeah, but you're missing the point. With the PS2, you had series like Final Fantasy, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto etc. All of these series were brought in by different companies, whereas Sega fans had to rely on series solely developed by Sega (and the same goes for Nintendo with the Gamecube). PS2 could also play DVD's, and back in 2000-2001, that was a big deal. The Dreamcast was released to the public in 1999. In its three year lifecycle, there were arguably only a handful of games worth buying, and these were all developed by Sega. The PS2 came out a year later and already had the support of major companies. But the reason why the PS2 had the advantage of DC was partially going back to the previous teacher. Sega Saturn's awful launch vs. the PlayStation. Sony built a brand of PlayStation, Sega ruined theirs. |
|
While the port aspect does neuter my list some, there's still plenty of DC exclusive third party content on it.