And did I say it was a fair? If you're honest with me, would you however compare a port on one platform to its native creation and use that to determine which overall platform is better?
TEXAN*s SEGA enthusiast thread - past and future hardware choices
- Thread starter TEXAN*
- Start date
- Status
Maybe the Shenmue 2 contract with MS prohibited a PS2 version. It wouldn't have cost $70M to port it either.
BTW, regarding the DC's memory, it also had 8MB VRAM that could hold a lot of compressed textures, so the difference between the PS2 (32 MB + 4MB VRAM) was not THAT big...
Indeed for 1998 the changes would have been too expensive.
32MB of Main System Ram plus the one year delay I talked about initially is what I was trying to say.
As I stated in the original post -
"The Dreamcast unfortunately was released too soon"
Despite the low price, I think the the DC was cutting edge in 1998. Nothing could beat it for graphics, not even SLI Voodoo 2s tied to a P2 450 (outrageously expensive). It had even replaced the impressive (and outrageously expensive) Model 3 in its Naomi form. It was also ahead of the console curve in terms of RAM (the N64 two years earlier had 4MB to the DCs 26MB) and it was losing an extra $30ish dollars a system on a modem that Sega never properly capitalised on in the systems lifetime.
It was definitely cutting edge, it just wasn't cutting edge enough to go toe to toe with the much more expensive, far more power hungry PS2 18 months later.
I agree with you entirely on the price issue. A supercharged DC with dual 250 mHz SH4's, 32 MB of main ram, 16 MB of video ram would have no doubt have been do-able and capable of some outstanding visuals, just not on Sega's budget for their $200 system. But even here, the one piece of the system that could have stayed untouched would be the GPU. Which gets us back to the OP, and how wrong it is.
I'm disappointed that the system didn't survive to the point that developers were using bump mapping. The Halo 2 Master Chief bump map demo showed just how good a 3k poly character can look.
SEGA & Yu Suzuki actually spent 1999 evaluating the PS2 as a potential Naomi follow up. But in the end their investigation concluded that upgrading a NAOMI by adding a second PVR2 plus a T&L unit for a grand total of 1 SH-4 + 1 ELAN + 2 PVR2s each with their own 32MB of dirt cheap SDRAM100 would give far superior performance whilst at the same time being far more cost effective.
That is the reason for the NAOMI 2's existence.
No doubt about that. PS2 was far superior to a DC.
No doubt it was cutting edge for 1998. However by the time the competition arrived it was horribly outdated.
That wasn't Hitachi or VideoLogic's fault, it was SEGA's fault for launching as early as they did.
Dude, you're clueless. SEGA wouldn't be able to launch the DC a year later and compete with the hype of PS2. It would have ended up in failure at launch instead of a 18 months later.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
And isnt that what it boils down to at the end? DC failed because Sega couldnt do anything against the PS2 hype and sony's moneybags.
Its a shame I think. I never liked sega but I always had a thing for the DC. I never had one but I'm still looking to buy one if I can find one with a bunch of games I want because around here especially finding the games seems to be a problem.
I think sega deserived more than they got with DC. It was small, cheap and had a pretty good libary I think given how short it's life was. The ps2 ended up having tons of great games but for some reason I never liked the console.
The only reason people passed up on DC and waited for PS2 is because they knew it had N64.5 graphics and a CD.5 disc, thus they saw it as an interim system. Why have that when they could wait and have true next gen graphics and true next gen disc technology.
I truly believe that a 1 year delay and SH-5+PVR3+DVD combination would have ensured a long healthy life for the platform.
I'm 110% certain.
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet all these tech whores didn't pass up on the PS2 because the GC and Xbox were coming. The jump from DC to PS2 was no bigger than PS2 to Xbox, so what happened?
They haven't passed up on the Wii and 360 to get their hand on the PS3, with it's Cell flops and BluRay discs either (or at least not in such numbers that competitors can't thrive).
It didn't work for MS and Nintendo, despite them having far, far more money to throw at marketing and attracting high profile third party support. Why would it have worked for Sega?
Sega failed horribly at marketing the DC in Europe. They focused almost exclusively (and expensively) on brand image for the mass market, and utterly, utterly failed to make a dent against Playstation, while neglecting the "core gamer" market that the DC was ideally positioned to sell to. They sold about a million units in a year, while up against no "next gen" competition, for a marketing spend similar to the one in America. Disaster.
Thanks to the higher prices in Europe the DC was just about profitable. If it had sold well, Sega would have been in a much stronger position.
Watching Sega go directly up against the PS2 marketing blitz would just have been sad.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Well you are 110% wrong. DC doesnt have n64.5 gfx to begin with and DC games certainly looked alot better than the first year of ps2 games if I remember correctly. But that doesnt matter, people dont give a ass about gfx or specs. If they did nobody would buy a wii and everybody would be playing games on a pc. Only people on tech forums and fanboys care but really, nobody cares the wii is a gc1.5, the ps3 has BR and a ''super advanced mega cpu''. Nobody gives a ass what is inside the box as long as the game they see on their screen is fun to play and for the same reason nobody would have cared about DC or ps2 specs.
Do you think that Sega was in the a financial position to
a) build a technologically competitive platform
b) compete against the popularity of the Playstation
c) compete against Sony's marketing
all at the same time when they almost went bankrupt and destroyed their reputation with their previous efforts?
That would have been even riskier.
Sure their technology was not competitive at all and contributed to the lack of interest later ib but at least they managed to live a bit because they launched earlier.
DC would have been able to live a healthy life with a year delay and SH-5+PVR3+DVD combination only if Sega didnt almost commit suicide with their bad decisions before. If they managed to become a powerful player in the industry with the Saturn and Genesis they would have kept going. But they failed. Sega was not the powerful corporation to sustain the DC no matter the choices you suggest or tried. They simply did not carry over a success that would help them participate in the console industry as a hardware company. They had large failures to erase
I wouldn't go that far. The hardware was fine, and good enough to support a competitive software library if there had been the user base necessary to garner the development support (or the money for Sega to buy it from the off, or the confidence in Sega for publishers to support it from day one).
Same goes for the PS2 - clearly it's not as capable as the Xbox, but it's good enough to sustain a competitive software library, which is all that actually matters once you're established.
I almost forgot about this as I followed Texan's posts!
This sounds interesting, and I'd like to hear how high you can actually get and if you're left with any spare CPU time.
Also, if you ever have the time, could you see how this performance is affected by adding a bump map?
I truly believe that the DC was competitive only with the early PS2 software. It started growing outdated fast after that.
I recently went through the DC's large collection of games including it's most impressive ones and they all seemed outdated compared to what the PS2 was offering 1+ years later.
I really dont see how the DC could compete even if it lived through.
The PS2 could still produce visuals that could turn heads years after its release. The DC started to reach its peak too soon.
The DC couldnt produce the majority of effects that were considered standard for the PS2.
I really cant see where it would have led too especially when the PS2 and XBOX were getting multiplatform games that looked great but could not be done on the DC.
The performance limitations on the DC showed.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Does that really matter? Nintendo sold 17 million copy's of mariokart wii, a game that doesnt only look like a last gen game but also isnt exactly worthy of being called a mariokart game but non the less they sold a insane amount of copies.
You say the ps2 could still produce good effects later in its life, but as far as im concerned even before 2004 the ps2 didnt had a game that would make me say wow compared to what I could see on my pc. Sure, for the hardware itself I had a few wow moments but really it just proves that people dont care too much about the gfx so I think specs is fairly irrelevant to succes of a console (something that has been proven over and over btw if you look at console history). Actually, I dont think the NES, SNES, PSX, PS2 and Wii where the most powerfull consoles of their time but still they were the most succesfull ones.
And who says that the DC wouldnt be capable of producing some head turning gfx if it had the amount of effort put into development like the ps2 received? It took people more than 6 years to get the best out of the ps2, how can you claim that the DC was already maxed out when devs spended like 2 years at best on it?
You say the ps2 could still produce good effects later in its life, but as far as im concerned even before 2004 the ps2 didnt had a game that would make me say wow compared to what I could see on my pc. Sure, for the hardware itself I had a few wow moments but really it just proves that people dont care too much about the gfx so I think specs is fairly irrelevant to succes of a console (something that has been proven over and over btw if you look at console history). Actually, I dont think the NES, SNES, PSX, PS2 and Wii where the most powerfull consoles of their time but still they were the most succesfull ones.
And who says that the DC wouldnt be capable of producing some head turning gfx if it had the amount of effort put into development like the ps2 received? It took people more than 6 years to get the best out of the ps2, how can you claim that the DC was already maxed out when devs spended like 2 years at best on it?
I am talking solely about performance so I will ignore everything you said about Wii or the success of the PS2 or whatever. As I said in a previous post success of a console depend on various circumstances. Depending on the situation of the time some things matter more than others.
Now regarding what I said:
PCs would always produce better visuals than consoles so I dont even count them.
PS2 as a console was showing significant improvements throughout its whole life cycle. 6 years didnt just pass and then suddenly it came up with impressive titles. It was a continuous evolution and showed much more drastic improvements each year.
The DC was weaker, easier to produce on and development begun much earlier than the PS2. It would have reached its peak much sooner than the PS2 and the limitations were apparent already.
Even the most impressive DC titles did not show much breakthroughs. MSR which was one of the DC latest and probably most impressive racer didnt do anything remarkably different that wasnt done before on the DC. RRV did much more things than MSR did and the first was a launch game on a console that was hell to develop for. The DC was reaching its stagnancy faster
Now regarding what I said:
PCs would always produce better visuals than consoles so I dont even count them.
PS2 as a console was showing significant improvements throughout its whole life cycle. 6 years didnt just pass and then suddenly it came up with impressive titles. It was a continuous evolution and showed much more drastic improvements each year.
The DC was weaker, easier to produce on and development begun much earlier than the PS2. It would have reached its peak much sooner than the PS2 and the limitations were apparent already.
Even the most impressive DC titles did not show much breakthroughs. MSR which was one of the DC latest and probably most impressive racer didnt do anything remarkably different that wasnt done before on the DC. RRV did much more things than MSR did and the first was a launch game on a console that was hell to develop for. The DC was reaching its stagnancy faster
Last edited by a moderator:
The DC was dead by the time the PS2 got past its early software.
1 year later the DC was officially terminated, its final games were creeping along on slashed budgets.
I spent most of this weekend going though my old DC stuff because of this thread, and thought its best stuff held up rather well to anything contemporary. Even in 2001, months after its death sentence had been passed, the PS2 had nothing directly comparable to Phantasy Star Online and especially Shenmue 2 (despite its 1997/8 assets).
And Jet Set Radio still looks good.
The same way the PS2 competed against the Xbox - by offering a library of appealing games. Which is the same way the Wii competes against the 360 and PS3.
Who's heads were PS2 games turning years after release? Not anyone with a PC, or an Xbox. Or probably even a Gamecube.
The PS2 was turning PS2 owners heads, which is the same thing that any system can do. Continue to impress its fan base, while attracting customers away from technically more impressive systems through a strong software library (or being the system their friends own).
If you're talking about game artistry, then I'm sure the PS2 did continue to turn heads, but so could the DC. Rez still looks great on both systems.
As for peaking too early, the DC reached its peak in 2000. In was killed off in January 2001. There's a reason it reached its peak when it did. Even if no developer ever found out how to extract more performance, ever worked out how to stream data, or ever decided to use shadow volumes or bump mapping, the improvements in assets and resource use that go with experience over the course of a generation would have led to massive improvements on their own.
The system where everyone walks into their first game engine, art asset, or content pipeline maxing out potential on the system doesn't exist, no matter how often people on forums repeat "easy to program".
The PS2 can't produce the majority of effects that are considered standard for the Xbox. The Wii isn't even on the same planet as the PS360.
They would have relied in large part on first party exclusives, like they'd always done, and like Nintendo has always done to great effect. Sega were selling decent amounts of software on the DC, even with a userbase of under 10 million.
And if the userbase got big enough, the multiplatform games would have turned up. "Technical impossibilities" be damned - the PS2's userbase was so big you didn't see many 3rd party Xbox and/or GC exclusives that were "technically impossible" on the PS2. Just look how many PS360 "next gen HD" games are suddenly getting Wii ports and conversions.
"Technically impossible" is code for "there isn't the userbase to warrant a version".
And the performance limitations of the PS2 really showed the day Halo came out. Didn't stop the PS2 supporting appealing games and continuing to impress its users over the lifetime of the system.
I ll be as brief as possible because I hate replying to chopped posts.
I checked almost all top games available on the DC a couple of months ago to remember what it was like. The performance improvement was less significant than that found on the PS2 withing the same period (2 years into their lifespans).
Visually Dark Cloud (dec 2000) > Phantasy Star (Nov 2000).
The PS2 didnt have games to compete with Shenmue because there wasnt any high profile RPG game developed for it..except one...the release of FF10 in July 2001 which showed tremendous difference in quality (thats just one tiny example). .
Talking about artistry Rez was just ok. Jet Set Radio looked outdated compared to 2000-2001 PS2 games even with my "retro perspective". Unlike examples like Zone of the Enders 2, GT and Rachet and Clank that were both technical and artistic showcases that could somewhat compete in some respects with GC and XBOX games of the same genre.
The most notable effect the PS2 could not produce compared to XBOX were the bumb maps and texture quality. Almost everything else was done or faked in one way or another.
Yeah even PS2 is getting releases of PS3 and 360 games but is judged as such. An old generation console that has passed its time. As for the Wii it primary attracts consumers for its unique experience. It is the main selling point. The DC was not PS1, nor Wii. The Wii can replicate physics adequately to maintain at least the gameplay elements of its ports. Which is where I saw the PS2 and XBOX providing a lot but DC wasnt. Even as such how many titles does Wii not get because of its performance? How many ports lack? A lot. But people wont care. They do care if their PS3 or 360 version though lack.
This arguement "if DC this and if DC that" doesnt say anything. Thats a huge conditional assumption. If DC was a super multimilion seller developers might have even ignored better technology altogether and made DC ports to everyone else that didnt take advantage their better technology. But since it wasnt this extreme case, it doesnt count for the DC. Other things mattered more than if things were different.
Last edited by a moderator:
Certainly there were many reasons DC failed,
but certainly the hardware was one of them...
The problem was not that DC had inferior graphics only, the problem was that Sony was at the time very susseful with PS1 and Sega was not... (i explain below...)
This means that Developers had to make a strategic desision if it was viable to support DC.
Their (developers) decision at the time DC launched was that they will support 100% the new Sony platform (PS2) and they were evaluating if it made business sense to support also the DC...
To make a game for your main platform (PS2) and then to port it to DC it was a very difficult job (i am not talking the first year, but scale it for the whole lifetime of PS2...)
So they evaluated the extra cost/risk and they made a business decision...
If the DC had a level of hardware that it was easier for the developers to make a port then at least the DC will had a better chance...
For example today it doesn't make financial sense to make a port from a PS3/XBOX360 to Wii (i mean keeping a lot of assets the same etc...)
The only reason developers support Wii is because it is so freakin susseful (sure they want to experiment with motion sensing controllers, but financial viability is No1 reason by far...)
Sadly the DC did not enjoy such success... (in order to force developers to support it better...)
Now i disagree about the use of ELAN because that would mean after PS2 launch (i am not sure that IT was capable to deliver something like ELAN in 1999..., but i may be wrong, is anyone here IT related?)
Like others said the CPU was a problem also.
200MHz SH4 was capable to transform 10MP/s (think synthetic benchmarks..) but not in game... (also the CPU had to devote part of the proccessing power to support other factions except graphics in a game...)
PVR2 was at 100MHz, capable for around 6 MP/s (100/16) FLAT shaded polygons...
If you add textures and effects that number is going down...
Sega said that the system could do something like 3 million polygons with textures and effects etc...
This figure sadly was for second gen titles, developers the first year were straggling to get 1,5MP/s...
I remember that the Le Mans programmer said that he achieved 4,5MP/s (he said 5MP/s in another interview at the time, good old round number (marketing...))
I don't know if this is true (4,5MP/s) but it was in 2001 and only one game...
Maybe if they launched in Q3 1999 with mature 25nm designs (the original designs was 35nm but they launched at 25nm because the cost was essentially the same (less die size, more cost per mm2..., also less heat etc...)
If they used in Q3 1999 a higher clocked CPU with higher GFLOPs performance per MHz (is someone remember if IBM could do a 400MHz Power PC in Q3 1999? i don't...)
and they were using a 2 pipe 133MHz PVR2,5gen then they could achieve something like 3X in polygons right? (and maybe the 2,5 gen PVR could implement some additional effects...)
But i guess the cost would be high for that...
Also I think piracy played a role in 2000-2001 (Microsoft DC OS -> XBOX1 intention=security...)
And the fact that people was going crazy at that time (1999-2001) for DVD helped a lot the PS2...
DC launched at 200$ with no loss per hardware unit (if i remember correctly),
If SEGA could implement the above (higher CPU/PVR2,5/DVD2X/add some memory) and launch at 300$ it would be a fantastic hardware... (but i think the cost would be too high, to do that...)
So essentially the timing was very bad from a hardware standpoint...
DC had some superb games in such short lifetime:
For example:
Crazy Taxi (my favorite DC game... A LOT OF FUN)
Skies of Arcadia (the best DC RPG imo)
Grandia II (Baboom)
Record of Lodoss War (i liked it a lot, diablo like type...)
Daytona USA (mainly because i like a lot arcade Daytona)
Code Veronica (a little slow moving but very good)
MDK2 (super janitor)
(I even liked Blue Stinger despite the many flaws..., in some instances (just a few) the Graphics was looking like low polygon pre-render staff, i am not talking cut scenes)
Oh, just remembered,
did anyone remember the funny japanese commercials that one SEGA's executive did at the time?
but certainly the hardware was one of them...
The problem was not that DC had inferior graphics only, the problem was that Sony was at the time very susseful with PS1 and Sega was not... (i explain below...)
This means that Developers had to make a strategic desision if it was viable to support DC.
Their (developers) decision at the time DC launched was that they will support 100% the new Sony platform (PS2) and they were evaluating if it made business sense to support also the DC...
To make a game for your main platform (PS2) and then to port it to DC it was a very difficult job (i am not talking the first year, but scale it for the whole lifetime of PS2...)
So they evaluated the extra cost/risk and they made a business decision...
If the DC had a level of hardware that it was easier for the developers to make a port then at least the DC will had a better chance...
For example today it doesn't make financial sense to make a port from a PS3/XBOX360 to Wii (i mean keeping a lot of assets the same etc...)
The only reason developers support Wii is because it is so freakin susseful (sure they want to experiment with motion sensing controllers, but financial viability is No1 reason by far...)
Sadly the DC did not enjoy such success... (in order to force developers to support it better...)
Now i disagree about the use of ELAN because that would mean after PS2 launch (i am not sure that IT was capable to deliver something like ELAN in 1999..., but i may be wrong, is anyone here IT related?)
Like others said the CPU was a problem also.
200MHz SH4 was capable to transform 10MP/s (think synthetic benchmarks..) but not in game... (also the CPU had to devote part of the proccessing power to support other factions except graphics in a game...)
PVR2 was at 100MHz, capable for around 6 MP/s (100/16) FLAT shaded polygons...
If you add textures and effects that number is going down...
Sega said that the system could do something like 3 million polygons with textures and effects etc...
This figure sadly was for second gen titles, developers the first year were straggling to get 1,5MP/s...
I remember that the Le Mans programmer said that he achieved 4,5MP/s (he said 5MP/s in another interview at the time, good old round number (marketing...))
I don't know if this is true (4,5MP/s) but it was in 2001 and only one game...
Maybe if they launched in Q3 1999 with mature 25nm designs (the original designs was 35nm but they launched at 25nm because the cost was essentially the same (less die size, more cost per mm2..., also less heat etc...)
If they used in Q3 1999 a higher clocked CPU with higher GFLOPs performance per MHz (is someone remember if IBM could do a 400MHz Power PC in Q3 1999? i don't...)
and they were using a 2 pipe 133MHz PVR2,5gen then they could achieve something like 3X in polygons right? (and maybe the 2,5 gen PVR could implement some additional effects...)
But i guess the cost would be high for that...
Also I think piracy played a role in 2000-2001 (Microsoft DC OS -> XBOX1 intention=security...)
And the fact that people was going crazy at that time (1999-2001) for DVD helped a lot the PS2...
DC launched at 200$ with no loss per hardware unit (if i remember correctly),
If SEGA could implement the above (higher CPU/PVR2,5/DVD2X/add some memory) and launch at 300$ it would be a fantastic hardware... (but i think the cost would be too high, to do that...)
So essentially the timing was very bad from a hardware standpoint...
DC had some superb games in such short lifetime:
For example:
Crazy Taxi (my favorite DC game... A LOT OF FUN)
Skies of Arcadia (the best DC RPG imo)
Grandia II (Baboom)
Record of Lodoss War (i liked it a lot, diablo like type...)
Daytona USA (mainly because i like a lot arcade Daytona)
Code Veronica (a little slow moving but very good)
MDK2 (super janitor)
(I even liked Blue Stinger despite the many flaws..., in some instances (just a few) the Graphics was looking like low polygon pre-render staff, i am not talking cut scenes)
Oh, just remembered,
did anyone remember the funny japanese commercials that one SEGA's executive did at the time?
- Status
