Do you think SEGA will return in 2010?

[TEXAN]

I personally think that Sega Sammy will release their own console in the generation after the upcoming one (whenever that begins, 2010?)

Sega never exited the hardware race to be a software company for permanent, they only did this to stop the losses and sort their bank balance sheets out, and now that a new superpower has been born- Sega Sammy, I believe it is imminent.

There are just too many signs for this to not happen.

What are your opinions on this?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why?! What can Sega offer that the others can't? Like the handheld market, why do so many companies think they can compete? Unlike DVD players, VCR's and TVs with open standards, a new console with it's own software to run on it's own hardware complicates things for developers and puts a burden on consumer to have several boxes under the TV to play those few exclusives.

As a non-hardcore gamer, I'll never possess more than one console and would be much happier with LESS hardware choice and software companies focussing on a single system.

 

[hey69]

yeah why not , why yes i dunno, everything is possible, nothing is impossible

 

[Simon F]

nothing is impossible

OT but Mr Turing has proved that's not true

 

[blakjedi]

never happen...

new arcade hardware maybe.
new console hardware never.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

yeah why not , why yes i dunno, everything is possible, nothing is impossible

I fully agree. Sammy wants to expand into music, movies, games,... They'll certainly become more known in the West in a few years.

 

[TEXAN]

Why?! What can Sega offer that the others can't? Like the handheld market, why do so many companies think they can compete? Unlike DVD players, VCR's and TVs with open standards, a new console with it's own software to run on it's own hardware complicates things for developers and puts a burden on consumer to have several boxes under the TV to play those few exclusives.

As a non-hardcore gamer, I'll never possess more than one console and would be much happier with LESS hardware choice and software companies focussing on a single system.

If Sega Sammy can make some serioously big franchises next gen, I'm talking multi-million sellers, then they can make their own console and say "look all these franchises will only be exclusive on this new system"

 

[Qroach]

Yeah and so can EA. Infact EA has a better chance then sega of making a game console.

First of all anyone making a game console HAS to cater to specific genres of gamers. if you don't you also won't get third parties interested in making competiing products. sega just sold off the sports divison, that should tell you what they are thinking (and that's staying software only).

I really don't understand people trying to come up with reasons why Sega will return to where they once were. They won't... they aren't the same company they wonce were... you jut gotta move on and find some other games you like.

 

[blakjedi]

Yeah and so can EA. Infact EA has a better chance then sega of making a game console.

First of all anyone making a game console HAS to cater to specific genres of gamers. if you don't you also won't get third parties interested in making competiing products. sega just sold off the sports divison, that should tell you what they are thinking (and that's staying software only).

I really don't understand people trying to come up with reasons why Sega will return to where they once were. They won't... they aren't the same company they wonce were... you jut gotta move on and find some other games you like.

Qroach you are so very right... EA is probably the only publisher left with the reserve cash and even more importantly IP to compete with Sony, Nintendo and maybe MS in the console sphere... hell with just the aquisition of the NFL license alone they could have all of North America sewn up for two hardware generations! great post.

 

[TEXAN]

Yeah and so can EA. Infact EA has a better chance then sega of making a game console.

First of all anyone making a game console HAS to cater to specific genres of gamers. if you don't you also won't get third parties interested in making competiing products. sega just sold off the sports divison, that should tell you what they are thinking (and that's staying software only).

I really don't understand people trying to come up with reasons why Sega will return to where they once were. They won't... they aren't the same company they wonce were... you jut gotta move on and find some other games you like.

That is completely wrong, reason being that EA has alot of licenses, majority of their sales come from these licenses, such as nfl lotr etc, non of these companies would renew their relatonships with the company if they found out that they'd only be released on one console.

On the other hand Sega is different as in all their franchises are first party I.P.

 

[Junekwan]

I remember SEGA ever pronounced they would give up console market permanently since the failure of DC and decided to concentrate all energy on software.

 

[darkblu]

Why?! What can Sega offer that the others can't? Like the handheld market, why do so many companies think they can compete? Unlike DVD players, VCR's and TVs with open standards, a new console with it's own software to run on it's own hardware complicates things for developers and puts a burden on consumer to have several boxes under the TV to play those few exclusives.

erm, is that enforced on you by some by-law of the territory you reside in? that 'burden' on consumer you just described is commonly referred as 'choice', and it actually allows the consumer to get decent products, given he bothers to choose intelligently.

As a non-hardcore gamer, I'll never possess more than one console and would be much happier with LESS hardware choice and software companies focussing on a single system.

owning just one console is one thing, not having a choice which console that is is an entirely different thing. i don't think you have a clue how much unhappier you'd be if there was just one console platform where the rules were dictated by a monopolistic console producer, and nobody tried to challenge that. let me try give you a hint: you'd be still playin famicom games today.

bottomline being, if sega ever climbed back to the level of a prospective console vendor, then them actually getting back into the console market would only be a good thing for the market and its consumers. whether that will ever happen is beyond our psychic abilities to predict, though.

 

[Magnum PI]

Why?! What can Sega offer that the others can't? Like the handheld market, why do so many companies think they can compete?[...]

yes, that's exactly why there should not have been xbox released !

the market still hasn't proven there is room for three *viable* console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why?! What can Sega offer that the others can't? Like the handheld market, why do so many companies think they can compete? Unlike DVD players, VCR's and TVs with open standards, a new console with it's own software to run on it's own hardware complicates things for developers and puts a burden on consumer to have several boxes under the TV to play those few exclusives.

erm, is that enforced on you by some by-law of the territory you reside in? that 'burden' on consumer you just described is commonly referred as 'choice', and it actually allows the consumer to get decent products, given he bothers to choose intelligently.

Let's say I want to play Zelda, GTA, Halo, Zak, etc., I need three consoles. If the software developers all wrote for one console, I'd only need the one box.

where the rules were dictated by a monopolistic console producer, and nobody tried to challenge that. let me try give you a hint: you'd be still playin famicom games today.

Not true. After a while I'd get bored with Famicon games. Without game progression, games limited by the hardware, software sales would die. There's only so many 2D platformers you can do! In this case Nintendo (assuming they have the monopoly) would need to introduce new tech to introduce new game style (3D fps for example) or they'll become extinct.

Technology progress wouldn't be so quick, but it would happen, and the hardware would get well used as companies competing on the same platform need to differentiate their software from their competitors.

 

[darkblu]

Let's say I want to play Zelda, GTA, Halo, Zak, etc., I need three consoles. If the software developers all wrote for one console, I'd only need the one box.

1) how do you know there would have been zelda, gta, halo and zak, in the first place, if it wasn't for the diverse console manufacturer's cultures and efforts to make their platform stand out?

ms: "zelda?! our customer base don't care bout no freeking pointy-eared boys in green tights! bring in halo 359 ultra gold pro vs. DOA 723 - rematch!"

ninti: "Halo is a repetitive pc-style fps which has no place on our platform."

sony: "let's produce another cd drive for that monopolistic console vendor - we feel so in business!"

2) numerous exclusive titles actually make use of the unique hw features their target platform has to offer. there's no chance you'll see a ZOE on the xbox - that would die choking. as there's little chance you'll see a ps2 title of very high-res texture work.

where the rules were dictated by a monopolistic console producer, and nobody tried to challenge that. let me try give you a hint: you'd be still playin famicom games today.

Not true. After a while I'd get bored with Famicon games. Without game progression, games limited by the hardware, software sales would die. There's only so many 2D platformers you can do!

i would buy a good 2d platformer or two a year easily, garnished by a 2d rpg or two. and i know many others that are not bored of 2d platformers to the least. damn, look at the GBA - it shouldn't exist today according to your view -- it's >10 year old tech.

look around you. you'll see tons of high-tech industries whose product release cycles are far longer that 4-5 years. ninti could easily keep their product release cycle 2-3 times longer if there wasn't competition. because console companies are in the business of making money, not expanding consumers horizons on gamplay or visuals.

Technology progress wouldn't be so quick, but it would happen, and the hardware would get well used as companies competing on the same platform need to differentiate their software from their competitors.

it won't be just 'not so quick' - its pace and direction would be entrenched. and its price for the consumer would be steep, so you may not be able to afford all those zelda, gta, halo and zak that you want to play now.

 

[Deepak]

nothing is impossible

OT but Mr Turing has proved that's not true

Who is Mr.Turing?

Let Sega be a successful game (software) maker first and then they may even think about re-entering hardware market.

 

[London Geezer]

Is this a trick question?

 

[hey69]

nothing is possible !

 

[Simon F]

nothing is impossible

OT but Mr Turing has proved that's not true

Who is Mr.Turing?

Blasphemy!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Let's say I want to play Zelda, GTA, Halo, Zak, etc., I need three consoles. If the software developers all wrote for one console, I'd only need the one box.

1) how do you know there would have been zelda, gta, halo and zak, in the first place, if it wasn't for the diverse console manufacturer's cultures and efforts to make their platform stand out?

ms: "zelda?! our customer base don't care bout no freeking pointy-eared boys in green tights! bring in halo 359 ultra gold pro vs. DOA 723 - rematch!"

ninti: "Halo is a repetitive pc-style fps which has no place on our platform."

sony: "let's produce another cd drive for that monopolistic console vendor - we feel so in business!"

Why should some genres not be supported if there was only one platform? Imagine that there is only one, the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" from "The Console Company Inc." At launch it only has RPGs. A new developer wants to write a new game, a racer, to offer a racing game for all those that don't want like RPGs. Why wouldn't that happen? Look at say the Amiga and the huge diversity of game types. They didn't originate because of competing hardware, but games developers wanting to be original/differentiate their game from similar games.

2) numerous exclusive titles actually make use of the unique hw features their target platform has to offer. there's no chance you'll see a ZOE on the xbox - that would die choking. as there's little chance you'll see a ps2 title of very high-res texture work.

With only one console every dweveloper would make the most of it. Lets say the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" is good at poly shifting, poor at highres textures. Doesn't stop the games being made, only what they look like. Plus you won't get half-arsed ports that don't make the most of the hardware. With only the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation", every developer can get to learn the one system instead of having to learn several.

where the rules were dictated by a monopolistic console producer, and nobody tried to challenge that. let me try give you a hint: you'd be still playin famicom games today.

Not true. After a while I'd get bored with Famicon games. Without game progression, games limited by the hardware, software sales would die. There's only so many 2D platformers you can do!

i would buy a good 2d platformer or two a year easily, garnished by a 2d rpg or two. and i know many others that are not bored of 2d platformers to the least. damn, look at the GBA - it shouldn't exist today according to your view -- it's >10 year old tech.

GB doesn't exist. It's evolved through colour and advanced iterations, despite there being no real hardware competition to drive that change that I know of.

it won't be just 'not so quick' - its pace and direction would be entrenched. and its price for the consumer would be steep, so you may not be able to afford all those zelda, gta, halo and zak that you want to play now.

How on EARTH can that be true?! The Console Company Inc. forces the price of all it's "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" games to be $100. How many people will buy the games? No-one! Hence they'll lower the price to something people are willing to pay. There's no alternative to DVDs, so why don't the film companies sell them for $60 a piece? Because the consumers won't pay that much. You don't NEED competing companies to keep prices down, because the consumers won't spend more than they think something is worth. If the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" cost $1000, it won't sell. The Console Company Inc. will need to lower the price to something that buyers will actually want. That might well be $400 compared with the current $150, which'll keep out plenty of gamers and reduce software sales, or The Console Company Inc. might wnt better returns from more software sales so drop the price to something lower anyway, not in response to competitors, but to maximise profits through their own software licenses but extending the user base.

Either way it doesn't matter anyway, because gamers will still be happy! Look at it from the other point of view. Imagine you're right, the Famicon is the only console around and gamers like you are happy to still play 2D games. You're still happy playing games! So what if we don't have Halo and 3D Final Fantasy if the gamers are happy with the games they've got. Whereas if I'm right and people do get tired of the same old thing year after year, people'll stop buying games and Nintendo would need to shake up the industry with some new advancements.