TEXAN*s SEGA enthusiast thread - past and future hardware choices

[TEXAN*]

The Dreamcast unfortunately was released too soon. GPU's released in 2000 were much, much more powerful than the previous generation, Geforce 256, Geforce 2, Radeon etc. Because the Dreamcast released in Japan in late 1998, its GPU was severely underpowered. If SEGA would have released the Dreamcast in Japan in late 1999 instead, or if it released it simultaneously worldwide in late 1999 at $250-$300 its GPU would have been much more powerful, and the system could have competed against Sony's, MS's, and Nintendo's better hardware.

In my opinion if SEGA would have done this, then they would have without a shadow of a doubt picked either an nVidia GeForce 256 or a PowerVR Series 3 and they'd still be here layething the smackethdown on all their candy asseths.

 

[grandmaster]

No they wouldn't. Bottom line is that money and marketing talks in the games business and SEGA had neither. Your argument is a nonsense not only because you ignore those factors, but also because the Dreamcast had more technologically exciting, better-looking and better-playing games than the PS2 had at launch and beyond.

The machine was cheaper, the hardware was fine, the games were more than competitive... but SEGA just wasn't at the races in any other part of its organisation.

 

[TEXAN*]

The hardware was not fine.

Second generation PS2 titles and onwards, first generation XBox1 and Gamecube titles and onwards made even the best DC titles seem like a console generation behind.

Don't make me start posting screenshots.

 

[TEXAN*]

What the Dreamcast needed was an SH-5+SERIES 3 Combo instead of the SH-4+SERIES 2 that it got.

That's what killed it.

 

[Rolf N]

The Wii pretty much single-handedly debunks your theory of old GPU tech preventing success in the console space.

 

[TEXAN*]

The Wii pretty much single-handedly debunks your theory of old GPU tech preventing success in the console space.

Except the Wii is not competing with Sony and Microsoft.

 

[digitalwanderer]

No, it's blowing them away.

 

[I.S.T.]

No, it's blowing them away.

I think he means it's not the same market, which is mostly true.

Hardware, while it may have helped a little, didn't kill the DC. Sega did. Their incompetence in the late Genesis era and the entire Saturn era did that for them.

IMO, they should have launched later... not because of hardware reasons(Even if it would have gotten them a DVD player), but rather to help distance themselves from the old mistakes. Which obviously would not have happened as Sega was still run by the same bunch of fucking idiots at the time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The Wii pretty much single-handedly debunks your theory of old GPU tech preventing success in the console space.

If Wii had the same control scheme as the others, I think we'd see the graphical disadvantages costing Nintendo greatly. And if DC launched with a Wiimote and Wii Sports, I'm sure it'd have done very well for itself.

 

[Iron Tiger]

Except the Wii is not competing with Sony and Microsoft.

The DC was competing with Sony's last gen in the first year of its life, and was dead before Microsoft even announced the Xbox. If Sega had the money or the managerial fortitude, they could have kept the product going at least another year. Software was solid, development was easy, the hardware was inexpensive to manufacture and could sell for cheap.

They had everything going for them, in a time when Sony only had hype. Look at how things have played out this generation when Microsoft launched a year before Sony, had a "last gen" optical drive, and hardware that's generally believed to be inferior in power. Yet, Sony's software was slow in showing that difference, because the architecture was convoluted and the tools relatively poor. Dreamcast had Microsoft-quality tools and hardware and Nintendo-level development talent behind it and STILL failed. It's easy for everyone else to see where the blame should be placed.

 

[Richard]

If Wii had the same control scheme as the others, I think we'd see the graphical disadvantages costing Nintendo greatly. And if DC launched with a Wiimote and Wii Sports, I'm sure it'd have done very well for itself.

But... but... the DC had a LCDs on the controllers! :|

 

[tuna]

Sega's management was so incompetent it is hard to belive. SoE invested all its marketing budget sponsoring football clubs, but did they have a football game to back it up? Of course not, who needs actual game?

Idiots....

 

[Gradthrawn]

Just picked up a DC from ThinkGeek not too long ago. Now all I need is some memory cards (VUs?), PowerStone, Shenmu, and I'm all set. VGA adapter would be nice, but IIRC, they're extremely rare.

My gaming collection just didn't seem complete without one.

 

[grandmaster]

The hardware was not fine.

Second generation PS2 titles and onwards, first generation XBox1 and Gamecube titles and onwards made even the best DC titles seem like a console generation behind.

Don't make me start posting screenshots.

You don't quite seem to get it - when the Dreamcast was released, it had a headstart on PS2 in terms of availability, it was out months ahead and PS1 was its main competitor.

Dreamcast's graphics IQ caned first gen PS2 games even when they did appear, Dreamcast had more games, more better games. It was effectively state of the art for a good, long while. And of course it was cheaper than the PS2.

Even with all these advantages, it failed horribly. The hardware wasn't the problem. Your notion that better graphics would've saved the day just doesn't compute. If it launched later with a better GPU it would've failed even more drastically, assuming it was indeed up against PS2, Xbox, GameCube etc as you seem to be stating.

 

[Sonic]

Texan, you are wrong yet again. I can see how it must be difficult for you to come to terms with SEGA failing as a company on the business side when you believe they made the greatest games of the time) but that doesn't mean waiting another year for a better CPU and graphics chip would help. Waiting another year would mean launching at a similar time as PS2 and being way overshadowed by the juggernaut that was PS2. It would have been Master System versus NES all over again.

SEGA failed because they not only lacked the funds, but also the balls to remain in the console race. It has nothing to do with graphics and everything to do with incompetent management in all market places...SoA, SoE, and especially SoJ in regards to puling the plug early when they knew if they went another year they would have made quite a hefty profit.

EA's decision not to be a 3rd party might have hurt the Dreamcast too, but not to a really significant degree.

And Texan, you weren't there so you don't know the story. I've never seen employees in a company have such high morale going into it only to be shattered later on.

 

[DrJay24]

TEXAN* you make the best threads.

 

[Zassk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the problem with the Dreamcast was piracy, period. Hardware was selling (at a loss) but game revenue was abysmal due to rampant piracy. Sega had little cash, was losing money on brisk hardware sales, and wasn't earning money due to pitiful game sales. The system failed due to the utter failure of its copy protection.

 

[Sonic]

That is incorrect. It might have played a role in the downfall of the Dreamcast but that was still at a time when most people had dial up modem and limited access to CD burners. I recall something like 4% of the DC userbase actually used pirated games, at least in the US.

 

[Sander]

And if Sega waited TEN more yers, they could compete with PS3 !!! Hehehe...

Wii is not competing with PS3 and 360.

Wii are purchased by people that doesn´t even play the console. They just own it... or buy it to their kids...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Can we please get Texan his own thread so he doesn't spam the entire front page of the console forum?