Re: Gaming addictions
Never played Dreamcast :( I had Sega Genesis, then moved onto PC Gaming...... more affordable for my parents.
Or they were pushed out by Sony and it's big bucks. Sony had more money for everything; advertising (there was playstation sponsorship for everything that kids were into; music, skating, sports etc), more money to buy off developers for exclusivity (they literally paid people to make games for the playstation who othewise wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole), they could afford to sell consoles cheap and make losses on each sold (previously unheard of)... I could go on. Corporate business at its best.
Dreamcast had some class games. Shenmue, Rez etc. Anyone?
Well the major factor was that they were hurting financially. The Dreamcast could have held its own if they gave it a chance. Sega had made many blunders before though. Sega CD and 32X, both of which they dropped support for after a short time. That killed the confidence for the viability of their products in many people who had bought the add-ons. The Saturn was also rushed and was a pain to develop for. Dreamcast had the advantage of being easier to develop for.
If I remember correctly, selling consoles at a loss was always the case at the beginning was what every console maker at the beginning of a generation, perhaps with the exception of Nintendo, though I could be wrong there. The PS2 certainly wasn't cheap around the time of its release. Here they were selling it for $600 CAD, which is more than what I bought my XBox 360 for.
I loved the Dreamcast's games. Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue, Phantasy Star Online, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive 2 and many others.
Re: Gaming addictions
It was a new business tactic bought in by Sony. If other consoles sold at a loss, it wasn't intentional. Nintendo consoles never have.
Nintendo made blunders too and you could say Nintendo and Sega were comparable in size and clout.
At the end of the day, Nintendo was still a household name and Nintendo did well to protect it; they still had their handheld consoles to make up with the home consoles didn't do so well (Gamecube).
The Dreamcast was just overlooked in an age where it became about the casual gamer thanks to Sony. They changed the dynamic and Sega lost their way.
Had Sony not bought the playstation into the market, who knows, Sega might still have been around.
Sega had been in loss for a long time and had never really recovered from their losses with the Sega CD and 32X. They were in very bad financial shape by the time they released the Dreamcast. Nintendo on the other hand had always been in good shape financially. Though they lost a lot of market share with the N64 and the Gamecube, they were still profitable. Of course, having the monopoly in the handheld market was one of the factors there too.
Re: Gaming addictions
I think you got my point; if a third player hadn't entered the market (especially such a huge one, with expertise in personal electronics), Sega could have recovered.
Maybe if it was just Nintendo and Sega, they might have but it was more a matter of money than anything else. Even the Gamecube didn't have much third party support compared to the competition. Even worse than that was the N64. But they were well off financially and they pulled through.
If not for Sony buying exclusives, remember that MS was still there. Then again, if it wasn't for the Playstation, we don't know if there would have been XBox.
Re: Gaming addictions
A different topic but the N64 didn't have terrible third party support. In fact it had developers such as Rare (which produced many of its best selling titles) over which they had exclusivity. It's only 'problem' as far as dev studios were concerned was that it was cartridge based.
Rare was a second party to Nintendo and doesn't count as third party support. Because of being cartridge based, a lot of third parties didn't support the console much. Whatever the reason, the third party support was worse than what the Dreamcast and Gamecube had.
Re: Gaming addictions
^Fair enough (you do keep saying more or less the same thing I say though) but having had all of these consoles I would say the N64 plenty of classics, whether they were first party or second party. Gamecube was comparatively lacklustre and Dreamcast had some great games but its life was cut short.
Re: Gaming addictions
who cares ... sony was still the best ... it had better graphics and games
We both agree that the Dreamcast had some great games, as did the N64 and even the Gamecube. I just owned a Dreamcast and a Gamecube (and still do for that matter). That being said, the Dreamcast is still my all time favorite console.
Re: Gaming addictions
@libranrulz: ermm, sure. if you actually remember the time, ps1 graphics lagged behind N64 and they both paled in comparison to the Dreamcast. Cut scenes don't count :)
@fs: SNES and N64 for me.
Re: Gaming addictions
sega genesis, ps1 for me
never had dreamcast but i remember wanting one when it came out, too bad it was too expensive :D
Re: Gaming addictions
although i do play dreamcast games now sometimes on pc with an emulator
games like marvel vs capcom 2,capcom vs snk2,street fighter 3rd strike, shenmue and jet grind radio.
who cares ... sony was still the best ... it had better graphics and games
Games are subjective so I can't argue with you there. Which Sony console are you talking about? PS1 or PS2? PS1, I don't know. I didn't have any consoles of that generation. If you mean PS2, then no. It was the weakest console (in terms of graphics) of its generation.
Re: Gaming addictions
Pffft console gamers. That says it all.