Why exactly did EA say "NO" to the dreamcast(+othe

[Zubiac666]

so why?

and it seems to me that Dreamcast's popularity-cult is (partly)caused by the missing of EA.
Through the absence of EA's mainstream titles dreamcasts library seems to be filled with obscurities.

I read everywhere that the dreamcast is the last "real" hardcore-machine but I can't get why(exept the reason above and the fact that it's Segas last console).

So what's all the fuss with this dreamcast cult?
I know that the DC has many unique and exclusive (2D and 3D-)titles but so have GC/PS2 and xbox.

[Xantan the Foul]

I never really understood the appeal myself. But I'm giving it another chance now. Maybe it'll impress me this time around.

[captain nintendo]

Gundam Side Story 0079....Nuff said !



*Ducks and covers*

[NintendoMan]

I know and love the Dreamcast! ALOT!!!
But I also don't get it when people call it the last true hardcore machine?? What does that mean? If anything would be that I think the GC would be considered that.
(Maybe because all DC stuff got cancelled or something) Someone please help.

[GrayFox]

Gundam Side Story 0079....Nuff said !



*Ducks and covers*

Agrees!

*ducks and covers as well*

[Zubiac666]

I know and love the Dreamcast! ALOT!!!
But I also don't get it when people call it the last true hardcore machine?? What does that mean? If anything would be that I think the GC would be considered that.
(Maybe because all DC stuff got cancelled or something) Someone please help.

I love you dude.

@others
What the hell is this "Gundam side story"-thingy?
*ducks and covers as well*

[GobopopRevisited]

Wasn't 0079 the same game on the PiPPiN?

Anyways, I do think the whole DreamCast scene is there because it was an underlooked system that forever sat in the shadow of Sony's PS2 announcement. It does have some great games, and it was SEGA's last console (...for now :evil: ) But I don't really think much of it. Most of SEGA's core franchise games were pretty meh. And their original franchises came to late in the game. Shenmue well after the US Launch of PS2...

I still would like to get in to the DreamCast, but my area is dry when it comes to the system.

[allsport11]

[quote=NintendoMan]
@others
What the hell is this "Gundam side story"-thingy?
*ducks and covers as well*

Gundam Side Story is a game for the Dreamcast, and a great one at that. :)
Duck and cover is just in case someone disagrees with that statement and I am sure someone will. ;)

[CreamSoda]

Sega Dreamcast is the best system ever!

It's better then that PS2/Xbox/GC all the kids are playing these days.

Good titles...

Shenmue,Shenmue 2,Soul Calibur,PSO Ver.2, Worms: Armageddon, MDK2, Crazy Taxi, Crazy Taxi 2, ChuChu Rocket, Jet Grind Radio, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Capcom vs SNK 2, King of Fighters 2001, SeaMan, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, NFL 2K series, NHL 2K series, NBA 2K series, MSR, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3:Arena, Skies of Arcadia, Grandia 2, Test Drive: Le Manns, Sega Rally 2, Starlancer, 4x4 Evolution, THPS1. THPS2, Matt Hoffmans Pro BMX, GTA2, Bomberman: Online

Just to name a few... :p

Not to mention, anyone just getting into DC or somebody that has recently that doesn't like it... You really had to be there back when all the online titles/features were going, I got into the DC scene a little late. But still in time to enjoy most of the titles while they still had quite awhile left to remain online. And let me just say it was incredible.

How I miss the days of SegaNet/Dreamcast online. :(

[robotriot]

EA said "no" to the DC because they claimed they still had profitable contracts with Sony in 1999 - although as it turned out, they lost quite a significant amount of money in the time frame from when the DC was launched until the PS2 launch. The PS2 also seemed to be the more powerful system right from the start due to advertisment hype I guess, so EA decided it would wait out on the PS2 as it wasn't a long time until its release.

[captain nintendo]

Listen , IMO the DC was an awesome system. The PS2 came out with a bang and once again IMO it wasnt even as good as the DC at the time. The DC had online play and 4 player ports on the unit. Talk about being ahead of its time.

Gundam Side Story 0079 is a fantastic game that even non Gundam fans love.
I have never heard anybody say a bad word about the game. And IMO its better than the crappy Gundam games put out on the PS2 now :/ (Some of the new Gundam stufff is ok)

Dont be closed minded about the DC until you have played it and tried different games in its library. ;)

[classicb]

how about why did EA say yes to the N-Gage? Still doing worse than the DC ever did. (still my favorite handheld)

One reason is "hardcore gamers" seem to like shmups and 2D fighters which the DC has some good ones. Another reason people really like it is since it was overlooked the number of fluff crap games were kept low.

[esquire]

Excuse my ignorance on the history of software development for the DC, but I think before we answer the question, "Why Did EA Say No to the DC?", we need to first ask whether EA was ever even asked in the first place. Think about it. Why would Sega want EA's competition with respect to all of their sports games (NFL 2K vs Madden, NBA 2K vs NBA Live, etc.) Additionally, was there any evidence that 1) EA was asked by Sega to develop software for the DC and 2) EA turned them down?

Assuming EA turned Sega, the answer is quite clear as to why. Why would EA want to get into development on the DC considering the fact that they had a lengthy and profitable relationship developing games for Sony since the early days of the Playstation? EA would have had to invest money in software development houses to program games for the DC. At that time, the DC was an unproven commodity with respect to software developers and publishers making money off developing games for the DC. The DC was only around about 1 1/2 years old before Sega hinted that they would be pulling the plug. Had the DC stuck around a little longer, EA may have developed software for it. However, at the time the DC premiered EA was already developing software for the PS1, PS2 (a year away, but in development) and the N64. Why would EA risk overreaching their operations on such a risk? It was probably a question of simple economics - investment and return. EA was guaranteed more profit by continuing to develop games for Sony in a well-defined market, rather than taking a chance with Sega, which was coming off 3 failed consoles (Sega CD, 32X and Saturn). I am sure EA learned its lesson last time when it developed software for the Saturn. Most of those games were console ports already available on other platforms (Sony and Nintendo). EA probably considered the fact that they could sell X amount of NBA Lives for the DC or 5X amount of NBA Lives for the PS1 or PS2, and make more money in the process.

PS, Sega fanboys, the numbers (5 times more NBA Lives sold on the PS1 than the Saturn) reflected above are not exact. I'll be the first to admit that. So please don't post a thread attacking my numbers or credibility. They were simply used to make the analogy that software titles for the PS1 outsold their counterparts on the Saturn.

[Graham Mitchell]

how about why did EA say yes to the N-Gage? Still doing worse than the DC ever did. (still my favorite handheld)

One reason is "hardcore gamers" seem to like shmups and 2D fighters which the DC has some good ones. Another reason people really like it is since it was overlooked the number of fluff crap games were kept low.

That's true. I think it's revered because it had a bunch of arcade-style games, and because, either due to the timing of it's release or a conscious effort from the developers, vast improvements and changes on the way games were made were starting to show. Shenmue and Ecco the Dolphin are good examples of that. Since the death of the Dreamcast there has been damn little true innovation in console gaming. Though not 100% true, most of the new games we see now are suped-up overhauls of games and gaming styles that made their debuts on the Dreamcast.

It's kind of like how much of the first 2/3 of 16-bit gaming was just improvements upon 8-bit games. The difference is that 16-bit machines were clearly vast improvements upon their 8-bit ancestors. After the death of the stronger 32-bit systems, the amount of improvements in successive machines has been limited to polygon count, predominantly. The games already sounded as good as they were ever going to sound, and they were already in 3-D. The only way to really make an impact on gaming now is to make the games markedly better regardless of aesthetics. I got excited about Dreamcast because that's exactly what they were doing.

But PS2 had a DVD player in it.

[sabre2922]

Dreamcast was and is still my favorite game system ever released.
Great games, Great Graphics, even greater lost potential.
The DC is loved by those in the know of how a perfect all-around system it was.
It had excellent 3-D capabilities and even better 2-D capabilities.
I own PS2, Xbox and DC.
and out of the 3 still like the Xbox and Dreamcast the best even though I have more games on my PS2 (in large part becuase I can find so many cheap used games on it ;) .
some people cant understand the allure of DC? well I cant understand the facination with PS2 even though I have owned 2 of them since its first year of release.
As a machine the PS2 is very weak and poorly designed (just ask any game developer who has made the same game for both PS2 and Xbox) compared to the Gamecube and especially the Xbox its only saving grace is the large variety of games on it, including the backwards compatibilty.
The DC was easy to Develop for even moreso than the Gamecube wich is a fav of developers but shuned by publishers becuase of its "smaller" installed base.
I have a friend who is the prime example of the brainwashed masses that think PS2 is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I have showed him RE4 on Gamecube then he says "they should have put it on PS2 it would have looked just as good" :roll:
I show him splinter cell and Panzer Dragoon Orta and he says "yeah those look good but PS2 could look just as good"
But here is the surprise: I let him borrow my Dreamcast with Shenmue and Code Veronica and he loves it and practically gets addicted to Shenmue then after I get my DC back from him he then goes out and buys a used DC plus Shenmue and a few other games O_O
I mean this is a guy who has played nothing but Playstation since PSone was released x_x
Anyway my whole point is this: Anyone who has spent any real amount of time playing any of the best games that were released on the Dreamcast usually quickly realizes what they missed out on and how great Segas last foray into the console market really was, even if it was prematurely killed off because of the Sony hype machine. ;)

[goatdan]

Excuse my ignorance on the history of software development for the DC, but I think before we answer the question, "Why Did EA Say No to the DC?", we need to first ask whether EA was ever even asked in the first place. Think about it. Why would Sega want EA's competition with respect to all of their sports games (NFL 2K vs Madden, NBA 2K vs NBA Live, etc.) Additionally, was there any evidence that 1) EA was asked by Sega to develop software for the DC and 2) EA turned them down?

It's rather simple, actually -- if a company makes a new console, and another company wants to develop for it they purchase development kits and start development for it. It would be insane for a console company to turn down another company because they were worried about competition -- how many 2D side-scrollers came out for the NES?

Sega wouldn't care if they were making money by selling their own game and getting part or selling EA's game and getting the licensing fee. Remember, each game sold for any console pays that console's manufacturer some money for it.

EA was and is the largest game company around, like them or not. If Sega decided they didn't want them bringing any of their titles to the Dreamcast because they were worried that Madden might outsell NFL2K, then they are also turning down about fifty other huge properties. It just doesn't make sense.


Assuming EA turned Sega, the answer is quite clear as to why. Why would EA want to get into development on the DC considering the fact that they had a lengthy and profitable relationship developing games for Sony since the early days of the Playstation? EA would have had to invest money in software development houses to program games for the DC. At that time, the DC was an unproven commodity with respect to software developers and publishers making money off developing games for the DC.

I don't understand your argument at all. If that is the case, why did EA develop for any new consoles? Why does EA develop for the N-Gage? Why did EA hop on the Xbox wagon right away?

EA has the money to invest, and the fact is that if they wanted to they easily could've invested money in it. The Dreamcast was not any more of an "unproven commodity" when it launched than any other console when it launched.


The DC was only around about 1 1/2 years old before Sega hinted that they would be pulling the plug. Had the DC stuck around a little longer, EA may have developed software for it. However, at the time the DC premiered EA was already developing software for the PS1, PS2 (a year away, but in development) and the N64. Why would EA risk overreaching their operations on such a risk?

I don't know. Right now, EA is developing software for the PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 2, GameCube, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, PSP, N-Gage and PC. They seem to be doing just fine with that much in development.


It was probably a question of simple economics - investment and return. EA was guaranteed more profit by continuing to develop games for Sony in a well-defined market, rather than taking a chance with Sega, which was coming off 3 failed consoles (Sega CD, 32X and Saturn).

I've been through this before with people, but calling the Sega CD a failed console is a little crazy. It did what it did and it sold well enough for the time. It was supported for a long period of time. It wasn't as successful as the Genesis, but there weren't many consoles that were.

In a quote from another article (admittedly, from a fan site but it is true):

The Sega CD lasted three years and had 150 games developed for it. It was the most successful add-on ever produced, which is amazing in light of the price, system, and time.

---

And, if I might add, the Sega CD is why Nintendo contracted Sony to make the Playstation extension for their SNES.


I am sure EA learned its lesson last time when it developed software for the Saturn. Most of those games were console ports already available on other platforms (Sony and Nintendo). EA probably considered the fact that they could sell X amount of NBA Lives for the DC or 5X amount of NBA Lives for the PS1 or PS2, and make more money in the process.

You seem to be trying to state that the PS2 was a proven console two years before it was released, and that EA would obviously be better off not coding anything for the Dreamcast and releasing it on the PS2 instead where it would definitely sell more copies? That doesn't make sense. In hindsight, the PS2 has greatly outsold the Dreamcast... but EA wasn't operating on hindsight when they made the decision not to develop for the console.

You are partially right though. The Saturn was the reason that EA didn't want to develop for the Dreamcast. But it still doesn't make sense...

Sega wanted EA to develop for the Dreamcast, and they didn't purchase Visual Concepts and start the 2K series of titles until EA stated that they wouldn't develop for the console. EA made statements about how they couldn't afford to develop Dreamcast games because of the low sell-through that the console had, and it simply didn't make sense. For a while when EA was making those comments, the Dreamcast had the highest quotia of titles purchased per system ever.

I don't think that the real story will ever be told.

---

Why is the Dreamcast considered the last true hardcore gamers console? Well, while I don't necessarily feel that way, I think that it was the combination of a ton of great 2D titles, the inclusion of a TON of arcade games and the fact that the library has a lot of weird quirky titles that companies just don't risk money on any more.

While I think that there are some great games of each type to be had on each current system, the Dreamcast had a ton. Just off the top of my head, some truly innovative games that it had were Space Channel 5, Typing of the Dead, Seaman, Phantasy Star Online, Samba de Amigo, Jet Grind Radio, Bangai-o, and so on. There was a very high ratio of strange releases like that. While newer consoles get things like Katamari and Dog's Life and so on, the Dreamcast had tons of those titles.

It is the one thing that I really miss about Sega. I hope that they stick around forever, but I worry that if they keep bringing out rather niche titles like they seem to do that they will be widely overlooked. On the Dreamcast, Sega really pushed these fun, niche titles. Nowadays...

That having been said, I don't think that the Dreamcast is the last hardcore gamers machine -- just the last one that it is so obvious on. Between all of the games that I have on my GameCube and Xbox, I know that there are a good number of non-mainstream titles that come out there too.

[suznjak]

sorry to get off subject but since we're talking sega ,does anybody noes if daytona 2 ever got released for the dreamcast or any system x_x

[hydr0x]

sorry to get off subject but since we're talking sega ,does anybody noes if daytona 2 ever got released for the dreamcast or any system x_x

no but in some recent racing game (Outrun 2??) two of Daytona 2's tracks were redone...

[Cryomancer]

EA didn't make games for the Dreamcast because they aren't cool enough to make a DC game.

/fanboy moment

[SoulBlazer]

So, Dan, your post makes sence but what do YOU think is the REAL reason EA decided not to develop for the Dreamcast?

[goatdan]

So, Dan, your post makes sence but what do YOU think is the REAL reason EA decided not to develop for the Dreamcast?

I honestly have no idea. I had always assumed the EA had seen Visual Concepts games and were worried that they looked better and that it might make Madden look like an inferior product if it was on the same system... But then I learned that VC didn't become a Sega developer until after EA had turned Sega down so it blows my theory out of the water.

Maybe EA felt that they could've helped to drive Sega out of the market by not producing games for their console, but that doesn't really make sense either -- each console they are producing for is more money that they can make, especially if it were to take off.

Currently, console developers do have to bend over backwards to ensure EA is on board. This can be seen in Microsoft's dumping of their sports titles to get EA on Live. Sega was the last console developer that really didn't have to do that, as the Sega Sports franchise were exceptional. Had the Dreamcast took off to the point where the Sega Sports franchise was the most popular sports titles peroid, it could have really screwed EA in the end.

I figure that maybe someone just had a personal vendetta against Sega and was in a high enough position to turn down development for them. The only oddity is how the two companies talked about merging shortly after the DC died... if someone big at EA had really hated Sega so much, why would they want to merge together?

I really don't know :/

On an aside, I'd like to mention that I wouldn't have thought anything less of the Dreamcast if EA games were published on it, and I can't think of anyone that would. The trend of EA-hatin' is a recent one, and wasn't the feeling of hardcore gamers during the lifespan of the DC.

[chrisbid]

i pulled out of the gaming scene around 95 when i knew that i couldnt afford 400 bucks for a Saturn or 300 for a Playstation, and when both of those machines launched, there werent many games that i really wanted to play that badly. Instead i picked up a 32X for 1/3 the price of a Saturn, and had fun with Doom, MKII, Virtua Racing and Knuckles Chaotix

I did buy a Playstation in late 1997 with a copy of Final Fantasy VII, but at the time there still werent many PSX game that were appealing to me (i did however buy a copy of Intelligent Qube, excellent move :D ).

I could go into depth about my love for Sega, but i had been a fan since the early 80's with games like Turbo and Zaxxon. Long story short, the Dreamcast reawakened my love for not only Sega, but video games in general. I was spending all kinds of money on new games, and checking game websites like IGN daily on new and upcoming titles. Once the DC died, my interest in modern gaming has been slowly declining. Fun arcade inspired action games are an endangered specie, and the DC was the last console that had a plethora of these games. Its probably why the machine failed. average consumer/morons like brand names, and without a Final Fantasy or Madden on the machine, the Dreamcast was doomed to be a second rate machine in the eyes of the masses.

now to the original question, why did EA pull out? most likely they were paid by sony to not develop for the DC

[esquire]

It was the most successful add-on ever produced, which is amazing in light of the price, system, and time.

Granted 150 games may seem like a lot, but as to overall success of the system this isn't saying much considering its opposition. I mean what other "add-ons" have there been besides the 32X, Jaguar CD and Turbo CD? (and I am not including adapters such as Super Game Boy, Game Boy Advance Player, Game Genie, etc. which didn't have any of their own specific software developed for them). Am I missing another "add on"? The Aladdin Deck Enhancer may be all that comes to mind.

Additionally, the Saturn, which had a lot more releases than the Sega CD, is generally considered a failure by many in the United States (not Japan, so stop right now!). So shear numbers as to software titles is not necessarily an indicator as to whether a console overall is a success or failure.

All I know is that I did not know a lot of people that had the Sega CD when it came out. In fact, I didn't know any. So based on personal experiences and observations, I don't consider the Sega CD as a successful console.

On a side note, I love Sega Consoles. The Dreamcast is one of my personal favorites. I am currently working on complete collections for the DC and Genny.

[drewbrim]

I love the DC. I don't have anything new to offer theorywise as far as EA goes. But I would like to say that anyone who's interested in collecting games for a profit should get into the DC scene on the ground floor. As I feel it will be highly sought after in 15 yrs or so. I kind of relate the console and games to the Turbo Grafx. Very unique, very fun, not as many produced and most of them are unavaliable on another console.

Not saying you should collect games for money. But it's kind of fun knowing my Turbo collection is worth more than my car :) . However my wife doesn't share my entusiasm :/ . And I should also mention that I don't have an unbelievable amount of stuff, it's just that my car is a piece of shit :angry: and it doesn't take much to surpass it in value.

[goatdan]

It was the most successful add-on ever produced, which is amazing in light of the price, system, and time.

Granted 150 games may seem like a lot, but as to overall success of the system this isn't saying much considering its opposition. I mean what other "add-ons" have there been besides the 32X, Jaguar CD and Turbo CD? (and I am not including adapters such as Super Game Boy, Game Boy Advance Player, Game Genie, etc. which didn't have any of their own specific software developed for them). Am I missing another "add on"? The Aladdin Deck Enhancer may be all that comes to mind.

There were other things that were add-ons, or things that were intended as add-ons and never saw the light of day. When it comes down to it, the Sega CD's success meant that other things that were like it were looked at by other companies. As I pointed out, the Playstation wouldn't have been a standalone console without the Sega CD being popular enough for Nintendo to want to make their own.

I'll admit there aren't that many other add-ons, but that doesn't make the Sega CD a failure.


Additionally, the Saturn, which had a lot more releases than the Sega CD, is generally considered a failure by many in the United States (not Japan, so stop right now!). So shear numbers as to software titles is not necessarily an indicator as to whether a console overall is a success or failure.

Well, I wasn't going to get into the Saturn debate because it was and is a completely different beast. The Saturn had more US releases than the Sega CD, but the difference is that the Saturn was a stand-alone console. The Sega CD was an add-on. It is a different situation completely. Sega could only sell the Sega CD to people who already had a Genesis. The Saturn could have sold to anyone. Therefore, the market was much more limited on the Sega CD, and it is like comparing apples and oranges.

The argument that the Sega CD was a failure is something that was created recently as a reason why people didn't trust Sega with the Dreamcast, but it doesn't fit the mold.

Personally, I think that it comes down to how Sega pulled the support from the Saturn in the US that makes it a failure more than anything.


All I know is that I did not know a lot of people that had the Sega CD when it came out. In fact, I didn't know any. So based on personal experiences and observations, I don't consider the Sega CD as a successful console.

Well, based on personal experiences and observations, I have never owned a Playstation 2. In fact, between the people I work with and my friends, none of them own a PS2. I know 12 people with GameCubes. I still don't think that the PS2 is an unsuccessful console, and I still don't feel that the GameCube is a hugely successful console either.


On a side note, I love Sega Consoles. The Dreamcast is one of my personal favorites. I am currently working on complete collections for the DC and Genny.

Good luck with those :) I have a complete US Dreamcast collection now, and I still play it quite a bit. I never loved a Sega console until the Dreamcast, and I have tried to get into their older stuff and beyond a select few titles, I haven't found it to hold up to my SNES stuff. That's just me though.

[BigGeorgeJohnson]

I always heard that EA said " We'll only develop for the DC if you drop your sports lineup" and Sega refused.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it's the most common rumour I have come across.

[drewbrim]

Good luck with those :) I have a complete US Dreamcast collection now, and I still play it quite a bit. I never loved a Sega console until the Dreamcast, and I have tried to get into their older stuff and beyond a select few titles, I haven't found it to hold up to my SNES stuff. That's just me though.


Same here. Well, except for the complete collection part :( . I too never had a Sega console that I enjoyed as much as it's contemporaries. My friends all had the Genny but to me it wasn't as good as the SNES. I may be rambling and getting off topic but this is one of the things that prove that the DC is so good. I was never a Sega fanboy, much closer to the opposite. But even still, the DC won me over.

[crazyjackcsa]

As far as the Success/failure of Sega Consoles go, what Makes a success an a failure? A particular Sell through number? Games released? Years on the Market? Market Share?
I would say market share is the best indicator of Success. I was able to dig up these numbers, not sure the accuraccy but I'll use them.

[Updated 29/01/05]

Total sales figures:

NES: 61,780,000
Sega Master System: 13,000,000
Nintendo Gameboy: 118,420,000 (possibly includes color?)
Sega Game Gear: 8,650,000
Atari Lynx:

NEC Turbografx 16: 2,500,000 (est.)
NEC Turbografx CD:
Sega Mega Drive (Genesis): 30,750,000
(Sega CD): 2,500,000 (North America)
(Sega 32X): 50,000-200,000 (est.)
NEC Supergrafx:
SNK Neo Geo:
Nintendo SNES: 49,020,000

Philips CDi:
NEC TurboDuo:
SNK Neo Geo CD:
NEC PC-FX:
Atari Jaguar: 10,000 (est.)

Nintendo Virtual Boy: 770,000
Gameboy Color:

Panasonic 3DO:* 700,000 (est.)
Sony Playstation: 100,000,000
Sega Saturn: 9,260,000
Nintendo 64: 32,930,000

Wonderswan color:
Game Boy Advance / GBA SP: 65,740,000
Nokia N-Gage: 1,300,000

Sega Dreamcast: 10,600,000
Sony Playstation 2: 81,390,000
Microsoft Xbox: 19,900,000
Nintendo Gamecube: 18,030,000

Nintendo DS: 2,840,000
Sony PSP: 510,000

* Panasonic never released any sales figures for the 3DO

Using these Numbers, One could argue that the DC had the plug pulled early the Satun must have been huge in Japan, because it wasn't here., The Sega CD was not a failure, the market changes massively with the Playstation. The Cube isn't really that far behind. The Virtual Boy was a huge failure. If it doesn't have "Sony" or "Gameboy" it doesn't sell all that well.

Found all this here: http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=14306

[crazyjackcsa]

Also from the same site:

Total:

118.69 GB
101.73 PS
81.39 PS2
65.74 GBA
61.78 NES
49.02 SNES
32.93 N64
30.75 Genesis
19.90 XBox
18.02 GC
10.60 DC
9.26 Saturn
8.65 Game Gear
2.84 DS
0.51 PSP

Japan:

32.47 GB
21.13 PS
19.47 PS2
19.23 NES
17.15 SNES
15.48 GBA
5.74 Saturn
5.54 N64
3.78 GC
3.58 Genesis
2.30 DC
1.78 Game Gear
1.70 XBox
1.45 DS
0.51 PSP"

Japan is quite different. The Saturn was more successful than the N64, Genesis, and the DC. The Xbox is laughable, it may not catch the DC. In the end, It looks like the media, and by extension "preception" is 9/10ths of the battle.

[EnemyZero]

i think the DC was the last original gaming machine, ps2, xbox and GC ...its just been done before on previous console...the DC had ALOT of original titles, like JSR and Powerstone too name a few....when i play my ps2 other than imports of course i feel like im just playing allthe stuff i previously did on ps1 , same with GC most of its the same feeling left over from N64...xbox is a mesh of both

[goatdan]

As far as the Success/failure of Sega Consoles go, what Makes a success an a failure? A particular Sell through number? Games released? Years on the Market? Market Share?
I would say market share is the best indicator of Success. I was able to dig up these numbers, not sure the accuraccy but I'll use them.

Since you stated that you don't know the accuracy, this isn't against you... more of just a "what the heck?" about one figure on there that makes them all unbelievable to me:

Atari Jaguar: 10,000 (est.)

I'll have to dig back up my data, but I believe that Atari test marketed the Jaguar in two cities (New York and LA, was it?) and they sold 25,000 in just a couple days. Then Atari rolled out the console throughout the rest of the US and eventually Europe and Japan.

I heard that there were approximately 5,000 consoles sold in Japan. Something tells me if that's true, the Jaguar _had_ to have sold more than 10,000 consoles worldwide. I have heard that Atari claimed to have sold between 250,000 and 400,000, but that there is a big question if they claimed low to get back tax money. Rumor has it the actual number could've been as high as 750,000.

The Jaguar CD even sold approximately 90,000 consoles if I recall correctly.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with you but just a general O_O about one of them that makes me question them all.

Anyway, on to the important part... I think that success comes in three forms:

1) Length of market stay -- if a console stays on the market for more than a few years without being found in clearance racks, that is part of it.
2) Number of titles -- a console needs to have a decent number of titles released for it. Anything less than 100 total titles means that something is wrong.
3) Goal of the console -- what was the console intended to do? I'm sure that Sega didn't have their eyes set on moving a million PICO systems... but they didn't have to. For a console that is an add on like the Sega CD, your goal is lower. For a standalone console, it is much higher. This also goes into market share -- a non add-on counts as market share. An add-on does not. Otherwise, how would you clump owners of the Sega CD? They HAVE to own a Genesis too. So the main console is still the Genesis, and the Sega CD can then only sell to their own market that already has one, where with a stand alone console, ANYONE can purchase one.

The Saturn was a failure because it had a tiny market share and was abandoned very quickly. The Sega CD was not because Sega only sold them to Genesis owners. Therefore, a sell-rate of equal to 30,000,000 is as unrealistic as Atari's goals for the sales of ET. Sega set their goal and did well within that structure. Again, they did well enough to force Nintendo to ask Sony to start making a CD add-on for the SNES...

[sabre2922]

Ill try to put this mildly EA is a SONY BROWN NOSING KISS ASS :P
That is why they did not develop nor publish any games on the DC and made Microsoft bend over for them just to get them online.
On a side note: I remember reading in one of my old Gamefan mags that many members of EAs development staff thought the Dreamcast was a great peice of hardware and was enthusiastic about working on it until the EA Higher-ups announced that there would be no support for Segas console.

[tonyvortex]

i know i cant be the only one who was drooling on every bit of information prior to the DC launch!i hope someone else can remember this! EA didnt like that sega changed the operating system for the DC so they sort of said oh well then we wont make games for you.it seemed like a pissing contest at the time.ill have to dig up the interview with the president of EA that was in EGM back then.

[-hellvin-]

All I know is I highly enjoy all my neo geo ports on the dreamcast ;D.

[Daniel Thomas]

I remember feeling slighted when EA decided not to support Dreamcast, but now I think their decision makes a good deal of sense. The writing was on the wall: Sega was crumbling financially, Sony was going to release the Playstation 2, and Microsoft was going to release their XBox.

Dreamcast was looked at as a console with a two-year lifespan. There aren't enough resources to develop for three or four console systems, especially when one (Sony) already dominates the market. I'm sure there were people at EA who crunched the numbers, and didn't find it worth the effort.

And then there's the hardware itself. The DC was a great little machine, but it couldn't comete with PS2 and Xbox. There's no way in hell Halo or Ninja Gaiden would look that good on the DC.

I suppose Sega could have continued the Dreamcast, as Nintendo has with the Gamecube, but their finances were terrible. Nintendo can continue to stay in the console market because they have several billion dollars in the bank. Sega was bleeding dollars, and their days were already numbered.

Anyway, that's my take. For what it's worth, I love the Dreamcast and think it's one of the greatest consoles for multiplayer games. But the Console Wars are over, and Sega's time was past.

[sabre2922]

ummm other than Metal Gear Solid 2 and GT3 it took years before anything was released on the PS2 that could not just as easily been done on the Dreamcast.
Just look at the original Max Payne that was in development for the DC it looks better than the hack job port PS2 version.

[Nature Boy]

For the EA question I'd guess along the lines of EA knowing Sega's machine was a sinking ship, or perhaps getting burned by developing for Saturn. That was a tough machine to make games for from what I recall, and if you spent all that effort making good games but didn't get rewarded with good sales, well I can see you not pursuing a relationship on a future machine.

I don't buy the idea that Sega didn't want them - 3rd party support is probably *the* biggest factor to a console's success.

As to the DCs popularity: I figure it's a Sega fan thing. I personally don't like the machine, but I've never been a huge fan of their stuff to begin with. If you were a big fan of their games you got treated to a lot of good stuff, hence the love.

[Captain Wrong]

Dreamcast was looked at as a console with a two-year lifespan. There aren't enough resources to develop for three or four console systems, especially when one (Sony) already dominates the market. I'm sure there were people at EA who crunched the numbers, and didn't find it worth the effort.

I suppose Sega could have continued the Dreamcast, as Nintendo has with the Gamecube, but their finances were terrible. Nintendo can continue to stay in the console market because they have several billion dollars in the bank. Sega was bleeding dollars, and their days were already numbered.

I know I've said this before, but I'm still convinced Sega knew the DC wasn't going to last and only threw it out to market as a way to position themselves well for third party development and to recoup R&D costs already spent on developing the system. Based on things I've read (and a particularly good NextGen interview with Peter Moore) it seems like there was a lot of struggle in the company over the DC and releasing it like they did was their way of compromise.

In addition to EA snubbing the console, Namco didn't really support it either. Sure they did Soul Caliber, which is still one of the top 10 reasons to buy a DC, but after that we got Mr. Driller (fun, but hardly in the same league,) and yet another oldies collection and that's it. Soul Caliber was pretty successful, so why wouldn't Namco bring more "A-list" titles to the machine if they didn't also see the writing on the wall?

I always like speculating about this stuff. I think the story of Sega is pretty damn interesting. It'd be nice to really know someday what happened, but I doubt we ever will.


Oh! As to the "last hardcore machine" status, well, like someone pointed out, the DC's library was dominated by arcade ports. Whether you agree with arcade=hardcore or not, I think it can be said that the machine was certainly a "last of the breed" offering more of the quarter muncher action games than the cinematic style of game that dominates the PS2. Those of us who came of age in the golden age kind of see the DC as the end of the line for the style of gaming we grew up with. For that reason, the DC will always be among my favorites.

[Graham Mitchell]

I always like speculating about this stuff. I think the story of Sega is pretty damn interesting. It'd be nice to really know someday what happened, but I doubt we ever will.


Stephen L. Kent's book the Ultimate History of Video Games talks about it towards the end. From what Sega told him, it seemed that they really tried to keep the DC afloat, and they wanted it to be successful so that they could have a viable console going, and it makes no mention of them just doing it to show their muscle as a 3rd party developer. But, that's just what the book says, and that doesn't mean that it's 100% of the story.

[goatdan]

I remember feeling slighted when EA decided not to support Dreamcast, but now I think their decision makes a good deal of sense. The writing was on the wall: Sega was crumbling financially, Sony was going to release the Playstation 2, and Microsoft was going to release their XBox.

Hindsight is 20/20, but that most definitely wasn't the feeling industry-wide when the Dreamcast was released. The Playstation 2 was coming (which people look at as more important than it was at launch, by the way), but the Xbox wasn't know about -- Microsoft and Sega teamed up to put Windows CE into the Dreamcast as the OS. If the Xbox was such a big deal, Microsoft wouldn't have contributed that to the Dreamcast. If the Dreamcast had caught on, Microsoft would've had two competing products with the launch of the Xbox.


Dreamcast was looked at as a console with a two-year lifespan. There aren't enough resources to develop for three or four console systems, especially when one (Sony) already dominates the market. I'm sure there were people at EA who crunched the numbers, and didn't find it worth the effort.

Again, I point out the fact that EA, which is the biggest software house in the world by the way and definitely has the funding to develop for everything, is currently developing on 10 platforms that are known. Perhaps they are already working on the Nintendo Revolution and others too. Some of these platforms (N-Gage) are not exactly dominating the market.


And then there's the hardware itself. The DC was a great little machine, but it couldn't comete with PS2 and Xbox. There's no way in hell Halo or Ninja Gaiden would look that good on the DC.

The games that came out at the end of the lifespan of the Dreamcast look almost just as good as their counterparts on the PS2. And there is no way in hell that Halo or Ninja Gaiden could look as good as they do on the PS2, but the PS2 is still outselling the Xbox like mad.


I know I've said this before, but I'm still convinced Sega knew the DC wasn't going to last and only threw it out to market as a way to position themselves well for third party development and to recoup R&D costs already spent on developing the system. Based on things I've read (and a particularly good NextGen interview with Peter Moore) it seems like there was a lot of struggle in the company over the DC and releasing it like they did was their way of compromise.

There was a lot of struggle within the company about the release of the Dreamcast, but it wasn't released as an effort to recoup development costs. The president of Sega at the time (can't remember his name) thought that the Dreamcast would be the savior of the company as a hardware manufacturer, and strongly pushed it. Others thought that the Saturn should be the end of the line. At the end, the President runs the ship and decided to release the Dreamcast and put the power of the entire company behind it.


In addition to EA snubbing the console, Namco didn't really support it either. Sure they did Soul Caliber, which is still one of the top 10 reasons to buy a DC, but after that we got Mr. Driller (fun, but hardly in the same league,) and yet another oldies collection and that's it. Soul Caliber was pretty successful, so why wouldn't Namco bring more "A-list" titles to the machine if they didn't also see the writing on the wall?

There was also Ms. Pac-Man Maze Madness, although obviously not a system seller.

I think that the Namco thing comes down to a few things -- Soul Calibur went over excellently and was very, very well received. But Namco only really had one or two other "big" properties at the time and they were both more or less Playstation exclusives -- those were Tekken and Ridge Racer. Other than those, Time Crisis and Point Blank were pretty big properties but since Sega wasn't even releasing their own light gun, it would have been a questionable move.

On an aside, Namco has only released seven Xbox titles so far, and of those only Breakdown is an exclusive. On the GameCube, excluding Nintendo properties (Donkey Konga, for instance), Namco has released 6 games, none of which are exclusives. It just seems that other than on the Playstation, Namco doesn't do too much work. The Dreamcast getting Soul Calibur as a permanent exclusive was HUGE, and still one of the reasons the system is so well loved today.

[NintendoMan]

Oh! As to the "last hardcore machine" status, well, like someone pointed out, the DC's library was dominated by arcade ports. Whether you agree with arcade=hardcore or not, I think it can be said that the machine was certainly a "last of the breed" offering more of the quarter muncher action games than the cinematic style of game that dominates the PS2. Those of us who came of age in the golden age kind of see the DC as the end of the line for the style of gaming we grew up with. For that reason, the DC will always be among my favorites.

I think that is a great reason why it might be considered that.
One of the many reasons I love my Dreamcast is because of all the arcade ports. I have many of them,ALWAYS looking for the ports I don't have.