Don't get me wrong, i know that the DC in Japan had a good support. Even today, years after Sega dropped the towel, companies still make games for it. Can't beat that. Yes, i know money was a problem. But in my humble opinion, if they wanted to succed with a new generation console, and at least conquer some of the PlayStation crowd, they should have been more agressive.
I know SEGA had big precense in brazil. Anywas, if I had to make a list of events or actions that would have changed the course of the DC those would be: *More arcade ports *The exclusivity of GTA3 and VC (both could be ported to the dreamcast and I'm sure development time would be shorter than in PS2) *More online games, including Counter Strike. Halo would be cool but I doubt bungie had the technical skills to port it to DC. *SEGA should take a loan and buy the exclusivity of the NFL for the 2K series so everybody that want a football games has to buy a DC. *More marketing and ads. That's it.
Sony being bullshitters is inconsequential. All of the things that Shadowlayer mentioned required large amounts of money that Sega didn't have for the DC. Buying exclusivity for GTA or a sports game isn't cheap, especially when you've got a dominant competitor like Sony around. Obviously if Sega could've afforded such luxuries they would have. The fact that they didn't speaks of their dire financial situation back then.
Well, that cant be stopped. And alchy, I made myself clear with the NFL license that SEGA would need to take a loan in orden to pay that. And sony got the GTA3 license on the cheap (cuz they were quick) the expensive ones were the VC and SA ones.
well if it's like the saturn, i would say that dev will slowly leave the system if it doesn't do that well. I mean microsoft has already swayed some japanese dev to devlop for them, of course i hear its due to money and deals they are throwing at them.
I think that number sounds to be fairly accurate, if not a little high, but still close nonetheless. I don't remember hearing that from M$, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. On kind of a side-random note, my friend pointed out the other day how Sega has almost always been ahead of its time. One instance is the Sega Saturn. As many know, Sega included 3 prcoessors in the Saturn. Yet the PlayStation was heralded for its simple more easily programmable architecture. I'm fuzzy on the other later systems (64, PS2, GC, XBox), but I'm pretty sure, they were mostly simpler systems, not unlike the PS One in their architecture. While they may not have been as easy to program for as PS1, I presume their goal at that time was to design and maintain a system powerful enough to compete in the market, yet easy and cheap enough to devlop for, as to save on production expenses. Now, I understand the DC was just that. It was a powerful system and nearly as powerful as the PS2 (as stated above in other posts), yet was easy enough to develop for that it didn't take these massive companies so many millions of dollars to make the games. And now, it appears the trend has shifted back to Sega's initial thought with the Saturn. More complexity and more processors. PS3 is supposed to have quite a few processors right? Possibly 3 or more? I presume the 360 is fairly complex as well. However, I realize Nintendo is taking a different approach this time around, which might be a good idea. To me, it just seems ironic that the trend is shifting back to Sega's initial foresight with the Saturn.
The problem with the Sautn 3 then turned to 8 processors. Few games took advantage of three processors, due to the fact they couldnt run togther. You would have to time (and yes I do mean with a stop watch, I shit you not) sit there with a stop clock to know when the seoncd and third processor could be utilized. It just didnt work, when you have a dual partnership they can swap tasks, well life wasnt that plesent in Saturn land. Saturn lacked power that PSX had in it's simple but yet power enough machine. At times (and yes used rarely) the sound chip was used to push the poly count as well. The system was poorly throwin togther. The idea was good, but just like good ol Sega bearly any thought into it at all.
I think a LOT of the problems come from journalists or non-technical people taking things out of context. Of course theres a few PR monkies but Im willing to bet the marjority of these "promises" are infact just speculation from magazines (whom people think are always right) or people who act like they know what is going on. An example would be: The xbox999 will be pushing 14 million polygons! Imagine a world that is totally life-like with no jaggies at all! Bold = fact Italic = Journalist speculation Not many draw a line between the two, since its in a printed magazine it must be true..right?...right? ;-)
The real reason why Saturn failed was more of a combination of both bad marketing plans and internal conflicts inside SEGA, ratter than the flaws in the system's architecture. The PS2 survived the DC only becos it had the PS name on it, backed with tons of ads, and let's not forget the corrupt journalism at the time. Now the tide may be goin back to the DC concept, since X360 is being touted as the easiest [to program] console in history, while the PS3 is already being considered by many as a pain in the ass to develop. I say the PS2 is what it is today thanks to a mix between EA, the GTA series and a few exclusive games like Gran Turismo. And let's not forget, PSX fanboyism:110:
Re read this Shadow The problem with the Sautn 3 then turned to 8 processors. Few games took advantage of three processors, due to the fact they couldnt run togther. You would have to time (and yes I do mean with a stop watch, I shit you not) sit there with a stop clock to know when the seoncd and third processor could be utilized. It just didnt work, when you have a dual partnership they can swap tasks, well life wasnt that plesent in Saturn land. Saturn lacked power that PSX had in it's simple but yet power enough machine. At times (and yes used rarely) the sound chip was used to push the poly count as well. The system was poorly throwin togther. The idea was good, but just like good ol Sega bearly any thought into it at all. During the end no one really wanted to make anything for the saturn considering how hard it was to begin with. Near it's end or signs of it's end alot of companys pulled the plug on there end to make anything for the Saturn, ofcourse this is in North America, in Japan the saturn did well. That very intresting and I would like to know where you read this, considering PS3 is being praised as the easiest to program for, according to few programers working on KillZone and Possession have had this to say. I don't see them complaing at all.
And how many peices of software have you seen running in 8 threads on a PC? In particular Games, which on the PC have only recently started using 2 threads
The problem i see with the cell processor is that only the main core can access the video memory. The other cores are limited to 256 kb. In a traditional multithreaded design you would have one thread doing physics, one for AI, one for Graphics, etc. Each thread would be set for one purpose, then you sinc them all together using either global variables or pipes. With the cell, that design just doesn't make sense. For the cell, you have to setup one core as the master and make the others slaves. The master splits up each task into smaller jobs of 256kb and puts them in a stack. As each slave core finishes the task they're working on, they go to the stack to pick up the next job in order. They can be working on physics this cycle and AI the next, it doesn't really matter. They just take the next task in the stack. Neither design is that dificult to program for when using the higger level languages such as C or C++. But if you start getting into assembly level code, the cell proessor becomes a bitch to code for. A lot of engines rely on assembly code to process graphics and physics faster and more efficiently then can be coded in C, that's where the saturn fell appart. No one could program the saturn in assembly, even less will be able to program the cell that way. Does that doom the ps3? Not really, just expect a larger learning curve then we've seen in the past.
A handful of releases following a console's doesn't exactly mean good support. Hell, even the Neo Geo AES/MVS saw releases up until Summer of 2004. To be more aggressive means spending money, something that Sega didn't have loads of during and after the DC launch. They had other divisions aside from the DC like their coin-op teams which also required funding, hardware costs, setting up SegaNet and so on and so forth. It's easy to see that they weren't exactly loaded with cash to give them the opportunity to be more aggressive. It was fun while it lasted, but we all had a feeling that the DC was indeed Sega's last hurrah even as early as mid 2000 when all those price cuts and promises of free Dreamcasts with SegaNet signup began to surface.
You see, i totally disagree on this. The PS2, although some of you guys don't like to admit, has tons of great games. You can't say it's succesful just because GTA, EA Games and Gran Turismo. That sounds too damn cliche. The PS2 was overhyped? Yes. It's not the best system, but it managed to succeed thanks to the majority of games people wanted. I would go further and say Sony is becoming a good game developer. Fantavision, Shadow of The Collosus, God of War, Ape Escape series, Wild Arms series, and now bought Guerrilla Games (Killzone) and Zipper Interactive (Socom series). Nintendo's creativity is flushed. Releasing tons of Mario tittles won't appeal everyone. (honestly i'm tired of this mario figure banalization). Microsoft has everything to do better with the 360, but still haven't released anything "next gen" (damn some games have almost the same graphic quality of their Xbox counterparts).
Then why the PS2 is way ahead Xbox in sales? damn, the sales ratio is even higher than that between the Saturn and the PSX (obviously I'm using numbers from when both system were at full capacity, like 1996-1997) The problem is that sony did with PSX what M$ is doing now with the Xbox: trow money at it. The ad campaigns for Saturn were nothing more than crap, too small in number compared to those of the PSX. And about the PS3, I'll ratter listen to what Carmack has to say, instead from some dudes that cant program shit (see killzone in PS2) and showed a FMV sequence saying it was a game....
I dont say it all about those games, but you cant deny that without them the PS2 sales wouldnt be 2 or 3 times those of Xbox and GC. I'm sure that if GTA was free (in the sense of not having exclusivity deals) and the nintendo line-up was a little better this generation could end up being like the 16bit one.
Why bother releasing a "next gen" console then? They wanted to get back on track after the PlayStation joined the competition, but they already knew they won't have a chance. As i see now they probably spent some cash with Capcom and Namco, to get Power Stone, Resident Evil Code Veronica and Soul Calibur.
That is a real simple one Simple PS2 isnt a PC port console ala xbox. PS2 still kept there system as a gaming console, not PC port heaven.
You guys are never happy. I got one Linux kit in May 2002 for 200$ and another in early 2004 for 99$. It was awailable for 3 years, and everyone who really wanted to get it got it.
