Support NeoGAF

[Afro Republican]

It's hard to put it into words, but if you look at some of the games that Sega marketed on the Saturn and the Dreamcast, many of them were based on their arcade hits. This isn't too much of an issue, the PlaySation and the N64 had plenty of arcade based games.

The issue is that Segas games felt very, shallow and lacking in substance to the average consumer, even gamer centric ones, after an initial period.

For example Virtual-On:



It's a good looking arcade game, and the concept is interesting, but there's basically no substance here. Is this a game were you would pay hundreds of dollars for a Saturn and $50-$60 for this game? Especially given how mindless the gameplay is and how short the matches are? Why would I pick this over several other games on competing systems? Sure, it would look great at the local arcade and friends would gather around it but that would last a couple weeks at best.

You also have to consider that this game would get a massive downgrade on the Saturn and would look worse than some of the worse early PSX games which many people complain about today. As shown below:



You can use the same arguments for several other Saturn games to varying degrees such as many of their arcade sports games, Virtua Cop, House of the Dead, Fighting Vipers, and others, even with some of the exclusive Saturn games not form the arcade but are in the style of arcade games.

When you move to the Dreamcast you face a very similar issue.

Sonic Adventure which wasn't based on an arcade game, was popular and there was excitement but that declined after the honeymoon period for both consumers and gaming journalists which trashed it and it's sequel years later. The best selling game on the console.

You have another good looking Virtual On with Tangem which has the same issues as the first one. Actually, maybe worse.

While there's a loud niche base, Shenmue was basically a tech demo for almost every other gamer and casual, and eve some reviewers remarked on that.

Sega Bass was a very fadish game for a shot-time.

Daytona 2, sequel to popular arcade original, limited fanfare.

And this seems to be specifically a Sega issue. When you look at arcade ports on the PSX, the N64, and even the 3DO, and those exclusive games that are in the arcade-style but not ports, more consumers wanted to play those at home then any of these Sega games on average. People didn't see any reason to justify paying $50-$60 and in some cases $40 for several of these Sega hits, which many of them Sega invested a lot of money in.

So the question becomes what's wrong with Segas arcade games? Why did people buy those arcade port and arcade style-games from various companies on the PSX/N64/3DO and not buy a Saturn or Dreamcast for those games? Why in the US, arguably the Dreamcast strongest country, consumers were they buying improved PSX ports, sports games, and some other titles in various styles, but for a lot of their arcade-style games people were not really buying many of them in large numbers?

And I think the issue is that Sega didn't know how to make a game that would attract long-term attention. I think a lot of their cult catalog today in 2019, in the 90's had a SHORT shelf-life that expired and only seems relevant today by a loud minority cult and emulation.

But when we look at the gaming market in the past we have to ask our self:

1.We have a Sega Saturn on sale by retailer for $150, an extra controller for $30, and the new Virtual-On Cyber Troopers and a free game that we can choose to go with it due to a Buy one get one free promotion.

2.A PSX for $200 and having to pay $40 separately for Tekken 2 with no free game promotion. Extra controller $40

3.A newly released N64 for $200 special sale with $50 Cruis'n USA separate purchase, Extra controller for $50.

On paper the Saturn looks like the better deal, and if you looked at trailers you would think that the Saturn free pack-in game may be the best of the bunch, while also buying a dual-stick controller thinking it will get more support later one, and as sugar on top you get a free game with your Virtual-On.

Yet nearly no one chose the first option outside a small niche. I feel like there's something about Sega games that have this small window of excitement when they first come out and then they fizzle out.

It's not that they are bad games either, at least some of the games are good, although there are bad ones (hi fighting vipers) but they just never clicked with the average consumer for long-term play.

I feel like this contributed immensely to one of Segas major problems post Genesis, and that's finding more IP's that would really grab the consumers like Sonic did, which was already in decline on the Genesis by the time the Saturn came out. They had some hit titles but those were also short lived. If you can't get people to invest in your hardware long-term it will be hard for you to sell many units.

 

[mcjmetroid]

This is true.

That's the issue nobody really likes talking about with the Dreamcast. Besides Shenmue I suppose the Dreamcast software was stuck in the past and the last real arcade console.

I mean nothing wrong with that but games like GTAIII were already making games like Crazy Taxi look like a relic.

 

[-Arcadia-]

Not sure if I agree, but it is a fascinating subject.

Sega kind of has this rose-tinted glasses thing where it’s insulated from all criticism, outside of glaringly bad stuff like the add-ons. Even as a big fan, it’s nice to see it get the bare knuckle approach other manufacturers and consoles do in most gaming discussion.

 

[Punished Miku]

I honestly completely disagree. Sega was possibly the most painfully original publisher out there, and they paid the price for being ahead of their time over and over. They were putting out MMORGs on dial up a decade before people really thought about that seriously. Valkyria Chronicles never saw any success. Shenmue never saw any success. Panzer Dragoon never saw any real success. Multiple original games like Jet Set Radio popularized the Tokyo punk asthetic that Persona pushes now. All their original IP on Xbox original didn't take off. They basically had the first 3D fighting game also with Virtua Fighter. They put out all the best rhythm games too, like Space channel 5 and Rhythm Thief, and they never really took off either. Then they started pushing Vocaloid Hatsune Miku subculture over a decade before it got really popular.

 

[Gargus]

I liked the games you blamed because they were different, had their own look and feel and sound. Saturn and dreamcast were the among the last great game systems that truly set themselves apart and had a sense of individuality to them. They both had a lot of games I really liked on them. I loved Sega's games because they were Sega games tailored for their systems and used to set themselves apart.

Ps1 and ps2 were the final game systems that felt truly unique and different. Now no matter what system a game is made for they all pretty much are interchangeable with each other.

But Sega in its day you knew you were playing a Sega game on a sega system and that was fantastic to me. Even sega bass fishing which I hate sport games still had it's own charm to it not found anywhere else.

I dont know. I'm tired and I have a headache. I dont think I am conveying my intentions here very well.

 

[Sid Of Bee]

I honestly completely disagree. Sega was possibly the most painfully original publisher out there, and they paid the price for being ahead of their time over and over. They were putting out MMORGs on dial up a decade before people really thought about that seriously. Valkyria Chronicles never saw any success. Shenmue never saw any success. Panzer Dragoon never saw any real success. Multiple original games like Jet Set Radio popularized the Tokyo punk asthetic that Persona pushes now. All their original IP on Xbox original didn't take off. They basically had the first 3D fighting game also with Virtua Fighter. They put out all the best rhythm games too, like Space channel 5 and Rhythm Thief, and they never really took off either. Then they started pushing Vocaloid Hatsune Miku subculture over a decade before it got really popular.

I totally agree with you. They were ALMOST ahead of their time in some sense. Nights, Burning Rangers, Shining Force, Phantasy Star Online, SHENMUE.... There are lots of interesting, replayable and deep games. They just weren't as appealing at the time so it seems. Sega's games weren't the problem IMO. It was their management and hardware strategies that failed them.

 

[Afro Republican]

I honestly completely disagree. Sega was possibly the most painfully original publisher out there,

I think this logic seems broken to me because this dismisses flaws these "original: games had, and the flaws are what made people disinterested. There's also many Sega fans, which I assume may include you, who look at modern games with a foggy lens and look at Segas games of the past in a rose-tinted lens, but most of the Sega fans that are loud today where not using the "original" excuse back when the Saturn and Dreamcast were relevant as a way to dismiss criticism. Especially since other companies made original games as well and such an argument back then outside certain instances wouldn't make sense.

They were putting out MMORGs on dial up a decade before people really thought about that seriously.

PC, If you mean on consoles, sure, but then the questions comes back to the one in the OP, why was Phantasy Star unappealing but the other early quickly replaced MMOs on consoles got more consumer attraction? I can't say "they were ahead of their time" since all of them were early on consoles, not to mention the MMO threw the few actual Phantasy Star 1-4 fans under the bus.

They basically had the first 3D fighting game also with Virtua Fighter.

While "technically" it wasn't the first 3D fighting game, it was the a pretty big attempt by Sega to do something ambitious on paper, but the issue was the first VF was basically a 2D fighter with camera angles so you have the other early competitors adding more z-axis and a bigger variety of moves taking advantage of the 3D space not even a year after VF came out. Then VF2 came out and changed that and it was moderately popular outside of Japan. But then something happened and VF3 didn't get any real fanfare, and that's the issue, Why? Why sis VF die like that? What made consumers disinterested?

That's the question a lot of vocal Sega fans never seem to ask. Instead many will blame the consumers which doesn't help them at all.

I think it's because VF3 was basically a game made to impress with a short shelf-life. At the point of VF3's release fighting games were trying to add stories like MK, with a lot more modes and content in the games for the time period. You also need to consider Sega then released Vf3 basically the same on the Dreamcast over 2 years later. There are games that can get away with that, and have, but I can't think of a single Sega arcade game that got away with an arcade ports over 2 years after the original release.

You also mentioned several failures in your post, why were all those games you listed not able to take off? I think it's as i said in the OP, the games don't have longevity, they are made for the ooohhs and awwwws which doesn't have a long expiration date, it doesn't mean they are bad, but it means people aren't going to shell out $50 for them. Hatsune Miku is only really popular in Japan and I think that was lightning in a bottle personally, I think they won't be able to replicate that.

 

[Afro Republican]

This is true.

That's the issue nobody really likes talking about with the Dreamcast. Besides Shenmue I suppose the Dreamcast software was stuck in the past and the last real arcade console.

I mean nothing wrong with that but games like GTAIII were already making games like Crazy Taxi look like a relic.

I don't think arcade games were stuck in the past since the PS2 and Xbox launched with arcade games that sold well. I think it's the typo of games Sega was making and what they were focusing on. Crazi Taxi looks real nice and is very colorful and wacky and that may get people to say "ohhhh" and "awww" at the arcade for 3 weeks, but then what? What's the 5 month plan? Are you just going to release a game that attracts people for 3 weeks on your console expecting it to sell systems?

Sega's games weren't the problem IMO. It was their management and hardware strategies that failed them.

You need games to sell hardware, they didn't have the games. If the Saturn had games people were interested in it would have sold outside of Japan and sold more in Japan. You can't blame everything on the 32X or the "surprise" launch of the Saturn. What was the Saturns or Dreamcasts Crash bandicoot? Tony Hawk? Tekken? MK4? Ridge Racer? Spyro? Gex 2? Jet Moto? Parappa? FF7? Diablo? GTA? Syphon Filter? MGS? TR? Tony Hawk? Twisted Metal? Pacman World? Ace Combat? Rainbow Six? GT? Rayman 2? Hercules?

It's not that the Saturn didn't have these games that was the issue, but they didn't have anything that attracted consumers like these. You can argue which Sega games are better than the games I listed but that's not the problem, the problem is that the average consumer chose THESE games and Sega titles did not appeal to them for SOME reason.

The question is what is that reason? My opinion is in the OP. Also the fact that you lose the "fad status" when the Saturn version is so watered down it looks like a different game. That didn't help these games either.

 

[Punished Miku]

I don't think arcade games were stuck in the past since the PS2 and Xbox launched with arcade games that sold well. I think it's the typo of games Sega was making and what they were focusing on. Crazi Taxi looks real nice and is very colorful and wacky and that may get people to say "ohhhh" and "awww" at the arcade for 3 weeks, but then what? What's the 5 month plan? Are you just going to release a game that attracts people for 3 weeks on your console expecting it to sell systems?



You need games to sell hardware, they didn't have the games. If the Saturn had games people were interested in it would have sold outside of Japan and sold more in Japan. You can't blame everything on the 32X or the "surprise" launch of the Saturn. What was the Saturns or Dreamcasts Crash bandicoot? Tony Hawk? Tekken? MK4? Ridge Racer? Spyro? Gex 2? Jet Moto? Parappa? FF7? Diablo? GTA? Syphon Filter? MGS? TR? Tony Hawk? Twisted Metal? Pacman World? Ace Combat? Rainbow Six? GT? Rayman 2? Hercules?

It's not that the Saturn didn't have these games that was the issue, but they didn't have anything that attracted consumers like these. You can argue which Sega games are better than the games I listed but that's not the problem, the problem is that the average consumer chose THESE games and Sega titles did not appeal to them for SOME reason.

The question is what is that reason? My opinion is in the OP. Also the fact that you lose the "fad status" when the Saturn version is so watered down it looks like a different game. That didn't help these games either.

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this thread honestly. I don't have the time to debate everything you brought up. But focusing on Crazy Taxi is weird. Crazy Taxi is actually pretty similar to Tony Hawk when it came out. It was an extreme / punk style arcade game with similar OSTs. Crazy Taxi reviewed really well, and also sold well on Dreamcast. Then it was re-released on PS2 and sold even better there, selling over a million copies.

 

[ManaByte]

I would give up every "cinematic" third person game from now until the sun goes super nova to have Am2 back making arcade games and getting ports of them on consoles.

 

[Digital Gex]

I didn't even know they released Virtua on for the Saturn. I haven't even watched the videos yet, I'm still in shock just looking at the thumbnails.

How would you even play it with the standard Saturn controller? Didn't you use two joysticks in the arcade? It's been years since I've played it but I'm fairly certain it was a twin-stick game.

 

[Sid Of Bee]

I think this logic seems broken to me because this dismisses flaws these "original: games had, and the flaws are what made people disinterested. There's also many Sega fans, which I assume may include you, who look at modern games with a foggy lens and look at Segas games of the past in a rose-tinted lens, but most of the Sega fans that are loud today where not using the "original" excuse back when the Saturn and Dreamcast were relevant as a way to dismiss criticism. Especially since other companies made original games as well and such an argument back then outside certain instances wouldn't make sense.




PC, If you mean on consoles, sure, but then the questions comes back to the one in the OP, why was Phantasy Star unappealing but the other early quickly replaced MMOs on consoles got more consumer attraction? I can't say "they were ahead of their time" since all of them were early on consoles, not to mention the MMO threw the few actual Phantasy Star 1-4 fans under the bus.




While "technically" it wasn't the first 3D fighting game, it was the a pretty big attempt by Sega to do something ambitious on paper, but the issue was the first VF was basically a 2D fighter with camera angles so you have the other early competitors adding more z-axis and a bigger variety of moves taking advantage of the 3D space not even a year after VF came out. Then VF2 came out and changed that and it was moderately popular outside of Japan. But then something happened and VF3 didn't get any real fanfare, and that's the issue, Why? Why sis VF die like that? What made consumers disinterested?

That's the question a lot of vocal Sega fans never seem to ask. Instead many will blame the consumers which doesn't help them at all.

I think it's because VF3 was basically a game made to impress with a short shelf-life. At the point of VF3's release fighting games were trying to add stories like MK, with a lot more modes and content in the games for the time period. You also need to consider Sega then released Vf3 basically the same on the Dreamcast over 2 years later. There are games that can get away with that, and have, but I can't think of a single Sega arcade game that got away with an arcade ports over 2 years after the original release.

You also mentioned several failures in your post, why were all those games you listed not able to take off? I think it's as i said in the OP, the games don't have longevity, they are made for the ooohhs and awwwws which doesn't have a long expiration date, it doesn't mean they are bad, but it means people aren't going to shell out $50 for them. Hatsune Miku is only really popular in Japan and I think that was lightning in a bottle personally, I think they won't be able to replicate that.

Very well put together rebuttals, but I disagree on most points. Virtua Fighter was "technically" the first 3D fighter in all regards. It set the precedent. 3Dmodeled fighters, 3D environment (which matters cuz of ring outs), smooth 3D animation, and 3D movement. 2D gameplay? That's weirdly innacurate.

A lot of these era Sega games hold up better, particularly, to the PS1 first party offerings. Not Nintendo. Those hold up better. So "rose tinted"? I think that applies to more than just Sega in that era. Taken in context, looking at reviews of that era, etc, Sega was very much in line or better than their contemporaries when it came to game content.

The games didn't take off because the hardware didn't.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

Sonic Adventure, Shenmue, Skies of Arcadia, Grandia II, Jet Set Radio, Phantasy Star Online, Crazy Taxi, ChuChu Rocket... these games and more were my childhood, but more importantly they were genuinely good games. Soulcalibur and NFL Blitz were also great games to play on the Dreamcast and are far from being niche or "fad" experiences.

Maybe they weren't all commercially successful and SEGA would go on to make some boneheaded decisions like cancelling development of Skies of Arcadia II but whenever I see them try something new, like releasing Valkyria Chronicles for the PlayStation 3 and later porting it to the PC so that more people can experience these great games, that's all I really ask for. Just because they met their demise in the hardware market doesn't mean their games should be forgotten too. There were plenty of great games to play on the Dreamcast but it was doomed with the PlayStation 2 right around the corner.

 

[Afro Republican]

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this thread honestly. I don't have the time to debate everything you brought up. But focusing on Crazy Taxi is weird. Crazy Taxi is actually pretty similar to Tony Hawk when it came out. It was an extreme / punk style arcade game with similar OSTs. Crazy Taxi reviewed really well, and also sold well on Dreamcast. Then it was re-released on PS2 and sold even better there, selling over a million copies.

Why did you quote my responses to completely different users instead of yours? I never mentioned Crazy Taxi to you I was responding to someone who brought it up.

 

[Punished Miku]

Why did you quote my responses to completely different users instead of yours? I never mentioned Crazy Taxi to you I was responding to someone who brought it up.

Because I didn't want to respond to the giant post you typed up on my phone. People are allowed to respond to any posts on a public forum and I wanted to say something about Crazy Taxi!

 

[Birdo]

There was nothing wrong with the games.

It's the public that were the problem.

 

[Afro Republican]

Very well put together rebuttals, but I disagree on most points. Virtua Fighter was "technically" the first 3D fighter in all regards. It set the precedent. 3Dmodeled fighters, 3D environment (which matters cuz of ring outs), smooth 3D animation, and 3D movement. 2D gameplay? That's weirdly innacurate.

A lot of these era Sega games hold up better, particularly, to the PS1 first party offerings. Not Nintendo. Those hold up better. So "rose tinted"? I think that applies to more than just Sega in that era. Taken in context, looking at reviews of that era, etc, Sega was very much in line or better than their contemporaries when it came to game content.

The games didn't take off because the hardware didn't.

Actually a couple 3D modeled "fighting games" happened first but they aren't considered "fighting games" because they are under "Sports" which is why I said "technically" it wasn't.

It is mostly 2D game though, you have some flashy moves that use the camera but it's really not a game that takes advantage of the 3D field like it's very shortly released competitors did, which was my point. Consumers outside Japan flocked to those games and not VF, Even in Japan after VF2 they switched out of VF as well. VF2 improved on VF by looking at the competitors and then added more use to the arena where the first one was mostly a fancy side-to-side fighter.

You can have your opinions and I can have my opinions but you are not speaking from the eyes of the average consumer in the 90's and early 2000's, back then Segas first-party was amazing for short periods of time and wowed people at arcades, while you played Sony's at home multiple times alone or with friends for a longer period of time. Sega is more known for arcades than consoles in many places in the world due to the attention they would grab at a time.

To blame the hardware just doesn't add up because you need the software to move hardware. Sega also had good starting sales for both he Saturn and especially the Dreamcast, so that just seems like a lazy copy-paste excuse that don't really get to the meat of the issue. The price example I made in the OP was for the year 1996, the PSX was just starting to explode, the Saturn still wasn't clearly falling behind, and the N64 just came out.

I used VON in the OP because I actually like VON, well the first 3 games, yet I myself can only play the games for a set amount of time and need breaks in between to enjoy the games over again. I'd argue it might be my second favorite Sega franchise. But I'm not blind the problem as to why consumers didn't take it and I can see the same reason applying to many other games.

I think the issue is that many fans take criticism of Segas games as saying they are bad and that's not the case, they just don't have the appeal to keep people invested for a long amount of time. Either due to design, content, gameplay, or other factors, consumers just chose the games from other companies from SP to arcade-style games.

 

[Afro Republican]

Because I didn't want to respond to the giant post you typed up on my phone. People are allowed to respond to any posts on a public forum and I wanted to say something about Crazy Taxi!

You accused me of "focusing" on Crazy Taxi because you didn't realize I was responding to someone who brought it up. So you lost the context.

 

[Punished Miku]

You accused me of "focusing" on Crazy Taxi because you didn't realize I was responding to someone who brought it up. So you lost the context.

Fair enough.

 

[Sid Of Bee]

Actually a couple 3D modeled "fighting games" happened first but they aren't considered "fighting games" because they are under "Sports" which is why I said "technically" it wasn't.

It is mostly 2D game though, you have some flashy moves that use the camera but it's really not a game that takes advantage of the 3D field like it's very shortly released competitors did, which was my point. Consumers outside Japan flocked to those games and not VF, Even in Japan after VF2 they switched out of VF as well. VF2 improved on VF by looking at the competitors and then added more use to the arena where the first one was mostly a fancy side-to-side fighter.

You can have your opinions and I can have my opinions but you are not speaking from the eyes of the average consumer in the 90's and early 2000's, back then Segas first-party was amazing for short periods of time and wowed people at arcades, while you played Sony's at home multiple times alone or with friends for a longer period of time. Sega is more known for arcades than consoles in many places in the world due to the attention they would grab at a time.

To blame the hardware just doesn't add up because you need the software to move hardware. Sega also had good starting sales for both he Saturn and especially the Dreamcast, so that just seems like a lazy copy-paste excuse that don't really get to the meat of the issue. The price example I made in the OP was for the year 1996, the PSX was just starting to explode, the Saturn still wasn't clearly falling behind, and the N64 just came out.

I used VON in the OP because I actually like VON, well the first 3 games, yet I myself can only play the games for a set amount of time and need breaks in between to enjoy the games over again. I'd argue it might be my second favorite Sega franchise. But I'm not blind the problem as to why consumers didn't take it and I can see the same reason applying to many other games.

I think the issue is that many fans take criticism of Segas games as saying they are bad and that's not the case, they just don't have the appeal to keep people invested for a long amount of time. Either due to design, content, gameplay, or other factors, consumers just chose the games from other companies from SP to arcade-style games.

Well put, but I still find it an inaccurate portrayal and take in the matter. Sony didn't even have an arcade division so it's strange that you put Sega's diversity as an overall negative, leaning towards arcade ports. Sony had a close tie with Namco in that era to simply combat Sega in that time.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Wrong. Sega failed because of their CEO's infighting, 32X and the Saturn being aids to program. They never recovered. Also the Dreamcast should have NEVER been released the way it was.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think "fad" is the incorrect word.

"Misguided trend-setters" would be a better descriptor for SEGA, especially during the post-Genesis era.

Some possible answers to your questions:

Why did people buy those arcade port and arcade style-games from various companies on the PSX/N64/3DO and not buy a Saturn or Dreamcast for those games?

Because normies don't care about arcade accuracy in their ports. They tend to buy games for the system they own.

Especially given how mindless the gameplay is and how short the matches are? Why would I pick this over several other games on competing systems?

You wouldn't if you're a filthy casual. Seriously though, what you are chalking up as a SEGA problem is actually just a "death of the arcades" problem. Namco backed the better horse (Playstation) but it didn't exactly rise to fame again either. Hudsonsoft and Atari also had consoles in the 90s that also emphasized arcade ports and they also failed like SEGA. The issue was console fans buying console games and ignoring the arcade ports, which often lacked enough supplementary content to be considered worth it.

 

[The Pleasure]

This is true.

That's the issue nobody really likes talking about with the Dreamcast. Besides Shenmue I suppose the Dreamcast software was stuck in the past and the last real arcade console.

I mean nothing wrong with that but games like GTAIII were already making games like Crazy Taxi look like a relic.

Difference is crazy taxi is still fun as hell to play. Gta 3 is not and truly archaic and plays like an atari version of the sequels.

 

[Afro Republican]

Sony didn't even have an arcade division so it's strange that you put Sega's diversity as an overall negative, leaning towards arcade ports. Sony had a close tie with Namco in that era to simply combat Sega in that time.

You seem to be acting like I made only one argument and that was arcades. You realize the issue is about those arcade games moving consoles right?

Also Sony was involved in arcades, they literally helped produce the ZN-1 and ZN-2 with Capcom which many PSX games came from.

The issue is that games, not just from Sony and Nintendo, but EVERYOONE ELSE, during that time, including NAMCO and guys like Midway. They had longer retention rates and this is what I mention in the OP, you are simplifying the argument. It's not about console manufacturers it's about games appealing to the average consumer.

Basically all he major competitors had more popular games on consoles despite Sega having the arcade ports that were more amazing to look at. Just like how many of their arcades took in less coin than other arcade games that didn't look as good either. There's clearly a gap between Sega and what the average consumer wanted in the 90's and early 2000's no one else had an issue with. It;s only Sega. The question is why, and I offer my opinion in the OP and other posts in this thread.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Sega systems back then failed due to Saturn being overpriced and crippled, and DC had hardly any good third party support. Some devs like Namco, Konami, EA and SE only made a couple games in total. DC's modem gaming was ahead of it's time as nobody really cared about playing console games online with a 28.8 modem, where people had limited bandwidth. Some people didn't have internet yet in 1999-2000.

 

[Afro Republican]

Wrong. Sega failed because of their CEO's infighting, 32X and the Saturn being aids to program. They never recovered. Also the Dreamcast should have NEVER been released the way it was.

People will continue to believe this despite software being their main driver and later their main loss so no, no no no.

You can talk 32X all you want, even before the 32X there were issues with what I said in the OP with their more powerful arcade machines compared to competitors, this is a consistent issue that only SEGA dealt with.

I think "fad" is the incorrect word.

"Misguided trend-setters" would be a better descriptor for SEGA, especially during the post-Genesis era.

Some possible answers to your questions:

Why did people buy those arcade port and arcade style-games from various companies on the PSX/N64/3DO and not buy a Saturn or Dreamcast for those games?

Because normies don't care about arcade accuracy in their ports. They tend to buy games for the system they own.

Especially given how mindless the gameplay is and how short the matches are? Why would I pick this over several other games on competing systems?

You wouldn't if you're a filthy casual. Seriously though, what you are chalking up as a SEGA problem is actually just a "death of the arcades" problem. Namco backed the better horse (Playstation) but it didn't exactly rise to fame again either. Hudsonsoft and Atari also had consoles in the 90s that also emphasized arcade ports and they also failed like SEGA. The issue was console fans buying console games and ignoring the arcade ports, which often lacked enough supplementary content to be considered worth it.

The 3DO sold less than the Saturn.

It's not "normies" only Sega had this issue and ONLY Sega. Out of every major company then no one had a similar problem,

Death of arcades isn't why the average consumer didn't buy Daytona or Virtua On over Tekken 2 and Twisted Metal. Almost every other major arcade game port from any first or third party company that had a good market share did 5x better than Sega despite Sega having the best machines that made people go wow at the arcades. Same between arcades AND console software, they were always at the bottom with only a few games being the exception, yet these were all arcade ports or exclusive arcade style games.

This is a Sega exclusive problem. I think the reason in the OP is a good point of view as to why instead of blaming the consumers for something only one company suffered consistently since 1993.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

People will continue to believe this despite software being their main driver and later their main loss so no, no no no.

Did you even read my post?

Saturn being aids to program

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

the saturn had no sonic game, no streets of rage, no 3D golden axe and just in general lacked the games that made the genesis such a household name. also 2D was seen as dated back than and a huge chunk of the saturns best games are 2D. many people back than said the saturn couldnt do 3D. it was more expensive than the psx too. in the us and europe it was originally shipped with a turd of a controller. third partys didnt like the system because of the hardware. on top of that sega fucked up their relationship with EA and there were plenty of internal problems too. tons of reasons why it bombed. the games were not one of them.

same applies to the dreamcast. remember, the dreamcast didnt do nearly as bad as people made it out to be. it had the most successful launch of any console. not for long, but still it counts. sega was bleeding money though, so they almost had no choice, they had to go third party otherwise they would have probably went bankrupt. decent sales werent enough, they needed great sales in order to compete. its not like nintendo with the wii u, because nintendo had plenty success stories, so they could survive that fiasco easily. sega on the other hand only had the genesis and success in the arcades, the later declined in the late 90s and early 2000s.

... and fighting vipers is dope as fuck.

 

[diffusionx]

I think the issue with this contention is that these were really popular games back then. It was not considered a waste of money to spend $50 on a solid arcade port. Remember one of the most popular genres on the SNES and Genesis were $70 shitty ports of beat-em-ups and fighting games. The high quality of Sega's arcade ports on Saturn and Dreamcast was considered one of, if not the, strongest points of the system. People bought *a lot* of these games on PSX, even when the ports were objectively inferior. You could argue that the market moved away from that later, but I don't think that is the case.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I dunno. I think what killed the Dreamcast was that the Saturn was largely seen as a failure next to the Playstation, and the fact that Sega's bread and butter were arcade ports, and around the time the DC hit, arcades were starting to die off. Sega's willingness to release niche stuff was part of their charm, I don't think that's what hurt them. The moving on of the audience to something post-arcade did mostly.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

The 3DO sold less than the Saturn.

So did the Atari Jaguar and the Neo Geo AES. What's your point?

It's not "normies" only Sega had this issue and ONLY Sega. Out of every major company then no one had a similar problem,

Huh? Now I don't even know what your point is.

Death of arcades isn't why the average consumer didn't buy Daytona or Virtua On over Tekken 2 and Twisted Metal.

But death of arcades is why the average consumer didn't buy consoles that heavily emphasized arcade games, such as the Saturn and the AES. Twisted Metal wasn't an arcade game.

Almost every other major arcade game port from any first or third party company that had a good market share did 5x better than Sega despite Sega having the best machines that made people go wow at the arcades.

Why is this remarkable to you? The "best" hardware often doesn't win the most marketshare, to say nothing of the fact that SEGA's arcade conversions on their home consoles didn't necessarily match the arcade version. I think the Dreamcast is their only console where you could say most of their arcade conversions were close to the arcade version.

Same between arcades AND console software, they were always at the bottom with only a few games being the exception, yet these were all arcade ports or exclusive arcade style games.

This is a Sega exclusive problem. I think the reason in the OP is a good point of view as to why instead of blaming the consumers for something only one company suffered consistently since 1993.

I was being tongue-in-cheek about "normies", but in a roundabout way I'm referring to how Playstation grabbed the casual market of its day and left very little for its competitors (N64 suffered the same fate).

 

[MrCunningham]

It's hard to put it into words, but if you look at some of the games that Sega marketed on the Saturn and the Dreamcast, many of them were based on their arcade hits. This isn't too much of an issue, the PlaySation and the N64 had plenty of arcade based games.

By the time that the Sega Saturn launches, Sega was still making most of their profits in the arcades. They were always an arcade-centric developer, because that is where they made their name. Sega corporate generally treated their home consoles as an extension to their arcade business. So they always marketed themselves that way.

Nintendo never really had that stigma. As soon as the NES became big in North America, Nintendo slowly moved away from their arcade roots of Donkey Kong and focused mainly on the home console market. They generally made games that were more drawn out and larger in scope. Nintendo even encouraged third parties to do 'enhanced' ports of arcade games that feel and play more like home console games.

When the N64 launched in 1996, the only two arcade games that were advertised for the system were Crusin USA, which is a Midway game, and Killer Instinct Gold, which was based on the Killer Instinct 2 arcade game that was developed by Rare. Outside of those two games, Nintendo were mainly focused on delivering console experiences like Mario 64, Pilotwings 64 and Wave Race 64.

Speaking of Midway, they were a lot like Sega too, in that they invested a lot of money in the arcade and were mostly an arcade centric developer. Midway did transition over to being a console centric developer during the PS2 era. but they did heavily support the Sega Dreamcast, because that console meshed so well with their arcade roots.

When Sony entered the market with the PS1. I don;t think they had any real ground plan for what their game library would be like. Yes the western parts of Sony did push a "3D only" initiative to focus on the 3D capabilities of the PS1. Which was a huge selling point for them. But for genres and game types, they took whatever developers were willing to give them.

But early on, Namco was one of Sony's biggest supporters; and Namco, just like Sega was also heavily focused on developing games for the arcades as well. Sega was one of their biggest competitors in the arcade space, which caused a bit of rivalry between the two companies. Namco's arcade games were a big selling point for Sony in the early years of the PS1. It was easy for Sony to compare the PS1 favorably to the higher end arcade games that Namco produced. It was also a way to counter advertise Sega. But over time, Namco moved away from the arcade formula too, by making games that were more console-like. Though Tekken Tag Tournament was a big selling point for the PS2.

1.We have a Sega Saturn on sale by retailer for $150, an extra controller for $30, and the new Virtual-On Cyber Troopers and a free game that we can choose to go with it due to a Buy one get one free promotion.

2.A PSX for $200 and having to pay $40 separately for Tekken 2 with no free game promotion. Extra controller $40

3.A newly released N64 for $200 special sale with $50 Cruis'n USA separate purchase, Extra controller for $50.

On paper the Saturn looks like the better deal, and if you looked at trailers you would think that the Saturn free pack-in game may be the best of the bunch, while also buying a dual-stick controller thinking it will get more support later one, and as sugar on top you get a free game with your Virtual-On.

When was the Sega Saturn sold at a $150 dollar price point? That must have been a US thing, at a fire sale price point? The Sega Saturn launched at $399 with Virtua Fighter 1 as the pack-in game in the American market. The Playstation 1 launched at $299 with a demo disc. I don't think the original PS1 had a pack-in launch game to help sell hardware. But the system was still $100 dollars cheaper than the Saturn.

Sega originally planned to sell the Saturn at a $499 dollar price tag, in America. But the rumors that they got that the PS1 was going to be sold at a lower price caused Sega to drop the Saturn price to $399, with an earlier launch date than expected. The early launch date actually hurt the Sega Saturn in North America, as there was a low supply of consoles and not every retailer got a shipment on day one. This caused many retailers to boycott Sega and not sell the Saturn, which killed exposure at retail. The killing blow was when Sony announced the 4299 price tag for the PS1.

Sega lost a lot of money on the Saturn hardware. basically every Sega Saturn sold lost them money. The hardware was much more expensive for Sega to produce than it was for Sony to produce PS1 consoles. Sega always sold the Saturn at a loss. the only way they could keep up with the PS1 was to package the Sega Saturn with more games. Like the Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop and Daytona pack-in.

Nintendo was able to sell the N64 at a $199.99 price point at launch because of the lack of a CD drive and their very efficient use of hardware. The downside was that their cartridge games would cost more than the disc based games of the PS1 and Sega Saturn.

But by the time the N64 launched, Sony was able to drop the price of the Playstation 1 down to a $199 price point to compete with the N64.

the Playstation 1 was just so appealing to third party developers and publishers, because it was easy to develop for, had a great retail presence and discs were dirt cheap to mass produce.

This is true.

That's the issue nobody really likes talking about with the Dreamcast. Besides Shenmue I suppose the Dreamcast software was stuck in the past and the last real arcade console.

How was that a bad thing? Granted I do understand that from a consumer perspective, I do understand that they were looking for more bang-for-you-buck type games than just arcade ports. But, the Dreamcast was Sega's attempt at merging their arcade market and home console market together by releasing the NAOMI arcade board at the same time as the Dreamcast hardware. NAOMI was basically the arcade version of the Dreamcast, which allowed for straight ports with little difference between the two.

I mean nothing wrong with that but games like GTAIII were already making games like Crazy Taxi look like a relic.

GTA III was released two years after Crazy Taxi. Also, the Dremacast was basically killed by Sega by the time GTA III was released. GTA III really was a game that didn't have a lot of hype around it before it launched, but became popular very fast because of "word-of-mouth" . It had mostly to do with "did you now you could pay for a prostiture to give you a blow job, then run her over later on and get your cash back?", type of controversy. Which helped sell that game as being one of the essential PS2 releases for the console.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

By the time that the Sega Saturn launches, Sega was still making most of their profits in the arcades. They were always an arcade-centric developer, because that is where they made their name. Sega corporate generally treated their home consoles as an extension to their arcade business. So they always marketed themselves that way.

Nintendo never really had that stigma. As soon as the NES became big in North America, Nintendo slowly moved away from their arcade roots of Donkey Kong and focused mainly on the home console market. They generally made games that were more drawn out and larger in scope. Nintendo even encouraged third parties to do 'enhanced' ports of arcade games that feel and play more like home console games.

When the N64 launched in 1996, the only two arcade games that were advertised for the system were Crusin USA, which is a Midway game, and Killer Instinct Gold, which was based on the Killer Instinct 2 arcade game that was developed by Rare. Outside of those two games, Nintendo were mainly focused on delivering console experiences like Mario 64, Pilotwings 64 and Wave Race 64.

Speaking of Midway, they were a lot like Sega too, in that they invested a lot of money in the arcade and were mostly an arcade centric developer. Midway did transition over to being a console centric developer during the PS2 era. but they did heavily support the Sega Dreamcast, because that console meshed so well with their arcade roots.

When Sony entered the market with the PS1. I don;t think they had any real ground plan for what their game library would be like. Yes the western parts of Sony did push a "3D only" initiative to focus on the 3D capabilities of the PS1. Which was a huge selling point for them. But for genres and game types, they took whatever developers were willing to give them.

But early on, Namco was one of Sony's biggest supporters; and Namco, just like Sega was also heavily focused on developing games for the arcades as well. Sega was one of their biggest competitors in the arcade space, which caused a bit of rivalry between the two companies. Namco's arcade games were a big selling point for Sony in the early years of the PS1. It was easy for Sony to compare the PS1 favorably to the higher end arcade games that Namco produced. It was also a way to counter advertise Sega. But over time, Namco moved away from the arcade formula too, by making games that were more console-like. Though Tekken Tag Tournament was a big selling point for the PS2.





When was the Sega Saturn sold at a $150 dollar price point? That must have been a US thing, at a fire sale price point? The Sega Saturn launched at $399 with Virtua Fighter 1 as the pack-in game in the American market. The Playstation 1 launched at $299 with a demo disc. I don't think the original PS1 had a pack-in launch game to help sell hardware. But the system was still $100 dollars cheaper than the Saturn.

Sega originally planned to sell the Saturn at a $499 dollar price tag, in America. But the rumors that they got that the PS1 was going to be sold at a lower price caused Sega to drop the Saturn price to $399, with an earlier launch date than expected. The early launch date actually hurt the Sega Saturn in North America, as there was a low supply of consoles and not every retailer got a shipment on day one. This caused many retailers to boycott Sega and not sell the Saturn, which killed exposure at retail. The killing blow was when Sony announced the 4299 price tag for the PS1.

Sega lost a lot of money on the Saturn hardware. basically every Sega Saturn sold lost them money. The hardware was much more expensive for Sega to produce than it was for Sony to produce PS1 consoles. Sega always sold the Saturn at a loss. the only way they could keep up with the PS1 was to package the Sega Saturn with more games. Like the Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Cop and Daytona pack-in.

Nintendo was able to sell the N64 at a $199.99 price point at launch because of the lack of a CD drive and their very efficient use of hardware. The downside was that their cartridge games would cost more than the disc based games of the PS1 and Sega Saturn.

But by the time the N64 launched, Sony was able to drop the price of the Playstation 1 down to a $199 price point to compete with the N64.

the Playstation 1 was just so appealing to third party developers and publishers, because it was easy to develop for, had a great retail presence and discs were dirt cheap to mass produce.



How was that a bad thing? Granted I do understand that from a consumer perspective, I do understand that they were looking for more bang-for-you-buck type games than just arcade ports. But, the Dreamcast was Sega's attempt at merging their arcade market and home console market together by releasing the NAOMI arcade board at the same time as the Dreamcast hardware. NAOMI was basically the arcade version of the Dreamcast, which allowed for straight ports with little difference between the two.



GTA III was released two years after Crazy Taxi. Also, the Dremacast was basically killed by Sega by the time GTA III was released. GTA III really was a game that didn't have a lot of hype around it before it launched, but became popular very fast because of "word-of-mouth" . It had mostly to do with "did you now you could pay for a prostiture to give you a blow job, then run her over later on and get your cash back?", type of controversy. Which helped sell that game as being one of the essential PS2 releases for the console.

No doubt on Sega's arcade roots.

But it was kind of weird because on one hand, Sega was really arcadey with arcade ports, but their sports games have always been pretty fleshed out with detail and stats and real names (back when licensed games were just becoming the norm).

Nintendo games had more depth in them when it came to Mario (vs. Sonic), Metroid (vs. any Sega side scrolling action game), etc.... but Nintnedo's sports games have always been cartoony arcadey stuff where half their games back then didn't even have real players or depth.

Back when it was Mario vs Sonic.......... Mario hands down. OK, its didn't move as fast, but it just had so much more depth, hidden secrets, and levels. SOnic was more like, here's some nice fast visuals, get to the end of the level asap with almost no secrets to look for.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Back when it was Mario vs Sonic.......... Mario hands down. OK, its didn't move as fast, but it just had so much more depth, hidden secrets, and levels. SOnic was more like, here's some nice fast visuals, get to the end of the level asap with almost no secrets to look for.

Good sir, I take umbrage at that suggestion!

Sonic series -- at least, the 2d ones -- was all about finding secrets. To me, the speed wasn't about getting to the end of the level a.s.a.p, it was about using your speed and momentum to reach higher areas of the map and explore alternative paths, launching yourself off ramps to do so.

When I replay Mario and Sonic games nowadays (I completely adore both franchises), I tend to speed through levels as quickly as possible in Mario and I explore alternative paths to reach the giant warp-rings, so it's almost a complete flip in my case.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Good sir, I take umbrage at that suggestion!

Sonic series -- at least, the 2d ones -- was all about finding secrets. To me, the speed wasn't about getting to the end of the level a.s.a.p, it was about using your speed and momentum to reach higher areas of the map and explore alternative paths, launching yourself off ramps to do so.

When I replay Mario and Sonic games nowadays (I completely adore both franchises), I tend to speed through levels as quickly as possible in Mario and I explore alternative paths to reach the giant warp-rings, so it's almost a complete flip in my case.

I hear ya. Speed in Sonic could lead to higher platforms.

In Mario, you had pipes, vines, clouds, bumping bricks to find shit, there were some dark levels, and doing weird shit like trying to reach the top of the screen and run across the top.... or find a ride and go underneath everything and find a secret exit.

In NES Mario, my bros and I wouldn't even care so much about beating Bowser. It was trying to maximize points hopping onto enemies or bumping turtle shells back and forth. lol. Must been sign of the times when arcade gaming was more about high scores than completing all levels and wrapping to level 1.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I hear ya. Speed in Sonic could lead to higher platforms.

In Mario, you had pipes, vines, clouds, bumping bricks to find shit, there were some dark levels, and doing weird shit like trying to reach the top of the screen and run across the top.... or find a ride and go underneath everything and find a secret exit.

In NES Mario, my bros and I wouldn't even care so much about beating Bowser. It was trying to maximize points hopping onto enemies or bumping turtle shells back and forth. lol. Must been sign of the times when arcade gaming was more about high scores than completing all levels and wrapping to level 1.

My friend's mom would play through Mario methodically, trying to collect all the coins and get all the hidden coin blocks, also for the higher score. I think it's cool the games could be enjoyed in various ways, even back then when the technology was more limited.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

The dreamcast is the greatest console of all time.

It failed because people are morons

I hate people

 

[sol_bad]

I honestly think that Sega and the industry as a whole fuck them in the arse.
Why do I say that?

I was a huge Sega fanboy as a kid and loved my Master System and Mega Drive. Many hours of fun games.
Then the 32X and the Mega CD were released, slightly better graphics for actual game games and then a world of FMV titles. FMV games were interesting at the time but not something I wanted to invest in. Along with this we also had the Atari Jaguar and Panasonic 3DO hit the market. The Jaguar had better graphics but the games didn't review well and they did look janky. The 3DO also pushed FMV games. We also had the Ultra 64 rumours that it was sticking to cartridges as well as a new Sony console entering the market and Sega true next gen console.

32X, Mega CD, Jaguar, 3DO, N64, Sony, Saturn
I was seriously over it all and I switched to PC gaming because we just happened to get a new one, our first "family" PC.

Over the next couple of years the 32X, Mega CD, Jaguar and 3DO consoles all died a horrible death.
My friend had a console and I saw "arcade perfect" versions of Point Blank, Time Crisis and Street Fighter Alpha. My eyes had been opened and just to be sure I checked out how the Saturn was going and it's games were far from "arcade perfect". That Christmas in 96 or 97, I got a Playstation.

Basically the industry had no direction and didn't know what it wanted to do. I'm sure there were many people in my same shoes.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Street fighter alpha is better on saturn

 

[EctoPrime]

You never really got extra content for the home console versions of arcade games from Sega. Unlike say Namco that included all the extra stuff in Soul Blade or an entirely new scenario in Time Crisis on Playstation. While games designed for the home systems featured much more content for the same price.

The Saturn port of Manx TT Superbike includes two tracks. The second is an alternate route so it is more like 1.5, you also get reverse-mirrored but not reverse or mirrored options. I dont see how Sega could think releasing a game with such a limited amount of content when some demos offered even more was a good idea.

Colin Mcrae Rally on Ps1 had atleast two different demos that featured five different tracks for the cost of a magazine and even more if you include the PC demos. While Sega Rally had four total .

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

you didn't get extra content but the games were better

 

[Rolling_Start]

ITT I have learned that OP doesn't know what a "fad" is.

He's correct that Sega had wider problems with the appeal of its software, but the originality and quality of it's software wasn't the problem. It was appeal, marketing, and making the transition from tight core gameplay loops of the arcade to more longer, more content heavy games with less emphasis on second by second execution (though they had some notable successes here).

Virtua Fighter was the first real 3D fighting game, so you can forgive it being an evolution of 2D. It spawned four sequels. VF3 was huge in the 3D fighting game community and was if anything too deep and too complex for the Tekken and MK crowds.

Virtua Racing was groundbreaking. Daytona was a show-stopper and is still a legend to this day. Virtua On is the first properly 3D twin stick combat game, even the Saturn version is a ton of fun, and it spawned sequels.

Phantasy Star Online had over a million users on a system with less than 10 million userbase, at a time when no-one else even had dial up. It's language barrier breaking messaging system was cool as hell. I went online and found over 100,000 people online globally in the early days. It was an incredible experience that.

Skies of Arcadia was a fantastic, original game. Shenmue was highly original, and is still my favourite game of all time. Jet Set Radio was the first cell shaded game (you need those black outlines, people) and had an original mix of powered grinding, graphitti-ing and linked, streaming levels, and the most boss soundtrack of all time.

F355 had incredible depth, it was basically Ferrari porn. Also has online modes, back in 2000. Oh crap, and Metropolis Street Racer, the blueprint for half of today's driving games.

Have to stop now and go to fucking work.

TL : DR - Sega had problems moving from arcade to home, where the the focus is different, with money, and with marketing. But that's not the same as games being "faddish".

 

[theclaw135]

Sega clung too long to the belief that pushing arcade games popular in Japan would sell consoles in the west. Atari 2600 Pac-Man anyone?

 

[v1oz]

What made Sega famous in the first place was their arcade heritage. Honestly you cannot separate Sega from their roots, which is why they are a shell of their former self, they're not as prolific and they don't develop many hit games internally these days.

The main reason to even get a Mega Drive in the early days were the System-16 ports. The main selling point of the Dreamcast were the Naomi arcade ports. In those days arcades were like the cinema and console ports were like the home VHS releases. Shooters, beat-em ups and racing games in particular would have to prove themselves in arcades, which in those days housed the competitive scene, some gamers literally used to live in arcades.

Even later during the Dreamcast generation. Arcade games like the Tekken series and Ridge Racer games still sold very well on PS2. In fact the Dreamcast itself sold quite well, Sega were just mismanaged, ran out of cash early in the console's life and therefore could no longer afford to support the DC on the market. 9 million units sold within 3 years is a very respectable figure and is by no means a complete flop. The way the console business worked back then, is that consoles were sold at a loss and the business was not profitable for the early years of a new console's life. Microsoft for example lost billions with the first Xbox but they had the money to burn. Sega like the Commodore Amiga were just terribly mismanaged and had lots of political infighting within the company - they are even extremely lucky to not have gone bankrupt.

 

[GreyHorace]

I don't follow the console wars as much as most hardcore gamers. However, I do think Sega had no one to blame but themselves for their decline in the industry. The truth is, the competition just had better offerings for gamers than what Sega had. Nintendo is still thriving because the continue to think outside the box. Sony had that monster 3rd party support and despite some stumbles are dominating the industry today. And Microsoft has their technical expertise and vast resources to back them up.

I'm glad Sega is still around though. Their games may be a bit more niche now but at least they provide variety in an otherwise stale gaming landscape.

 

[petran79]

Arcade Market was mostly for youths and adults, due to arcades notoriety.

Consoles did not attract that demographic, focusing on younger ages. Only luxury systems like Neo Geo and Sharp x68000 did target them, since they were purely arcade game focused.

Poor console arcade ports mostly were for kids and younger teens, just like the early 80s Atari2600 and computer ports.

 

[EightBit Man]

SEGA didn't fail people, people failed SEGA.

 

[Lucumo]

Ah, Virtual On, the franchise Bandai Namco copied (Gundam Extreme Vs) and is making millions with. As Miku Miku says, Sega was often pretty ahead of their time. Their exit of the console business was the worst thing to ever happen to it.

 

[deriks]

Sega made a lot, and I mean, a big fucking lot of bad choices, and the arcade titles wasn't a contribuiton, but maybe the focus to it

Even during the Mega Drive era, Sega was doing everything that could to keep the console alive with the Sega CD and the 32X. Too much investment, too much cost to consumers, too less games to sustain

Than the Saturn came with not much thinking by their developers, that thought the world will preffer 2D in an age after Jurassic Park, bad in marketing, doing an premature launch with few consoles and even less stores to support, and it was more expensive and where are the big games?

The roots of Sega died in the Saturn as soon as 1997, and they're keeping alive by machines

With that, Sega decided to change his thinking and maybe was the first console to think with the developers, since Windows CE should ease ports. The Dreamcast was a great thing, and did wrong with just one thing, the GD-ROM. Since the PlayStation, games used two, three and even four discs and Sega could change that with a DVD player, but they choose another format that was just a little bigger than a normal CD. Piracy came fast and money went down to them, and when PS2 came out, "normal people" bought because it wasn't just a console, it was also a DVD player

 

[bobone]

I wouldn't call them fad games. They were arcade ports. And very good ones at that.

The thing that killed SEGA was a change of demographics with the Saturn and bad management with the Dreamcast.

Sony offered new and different experiences to a user base that was growing up. The selling point of the Saturn didn't catch on with people, and Japan was the only country that cared about "perfect" arcade ports. USA wanted sports, racing, action, etc.

The Saturn had NOTHING that could compare to the flagships from Nintendo and Sony. It was a complete bloodbath. As someone that was in middleschool at the time; there was zero talk about the Saturn. Literally no one had that thing.

The Dreamcast did much better, and was a huge win for them at first. The games were much more mainstream; and they had tons of superior ports compared to the N64, PS1. But the damage was done at that point.
SEGA never had the massive warchest of money that Nintendo and Sony count on during bad times. 1 bomb was enough for them, and the little bombs of the SEGACD, 32X, Nomad didn't help either.