Would you buy a PS3 if it was a Sega product?

[njiska]

Every now and then someone on this board states that Sega needs to make a new console. Not because there's a gap in the console market, or because Sega is sitting on some special technology, but simply for the brand name and history.

So given the dismal reaction to the Sony Playsation 3 i had to wonder, how would all these Sega Zealots react if it was the Sega Playstation 3?

A completely new Sega console for $599, would you have a different view then?

The point i'm trying to make is that a console should be based on it's merits not it's name.

[odyeiop]

I'd still have to say no.

I really feel that 599 is to much to pay for a console at this point. Blu-ray or not =P

I could really do without seeing Blu-ray take off for now as it is, so I'd rather see the media norm stay at DVD for a while. At least another couple of years =P

[Daltone]

I wasn't sure if I should answer "Yes" or "No" , in the end I went with the latter. Whilst I do plan on getting one someday, sticking a Sega logo on the thing isn't going to make me jump up and down and rush out and save £1500 (ish) to buy a PS3 and an HD TV.

All this militant support of brands is something that bamboozles me.

[lordnikon]

I vote NO. I can't stand what I consider "blind commercialism".

I am a huge Sega fan. Their previous consoles were great hardware, and had a ton of innovative titles from first party Sega developers. Especially during the Saturn and Dreamcast days where their AM divisions really got a chance to shine.

However now Sega is a shadow of their former selves. The AM divisions no longer work on console ports anymore to ensure quality. Now third party companies are being hired out to port games over to consoles. Not only this, but third party companies are being hired out to work on NEW titles on existing Sega IP(Shining Tears, Super Monkey Ball Adventure). Hell Yuji Naka left Sonic Team for god sakes!

Lets face it. It is over. The Sega we knew and loved is now gone. A few remaining titles from the AM divisions will trickle out, but Sega is now focused on publishing.

If sega were to come out with a new console, or if the PS3 was branded with the Sega moniker, it would have no impact on my purchasing decision. Playable content is what makes a system worthwhile. The PS3 will no doubt have barrels of great games to play due to it's brand strength in the Japanese market. However the "Sega" brand would hold no significance to me beause the development teams which created such amazing content in the past have all nearly been destroyed. Sega is now nothing but an empty shell.

[Slate]

If sega had it, It would HAVE to be $400 for the pro system before i considered it.

And it would have to have Sega titles like Jet Set Radio and Crazy Taxi.

[njiska]

some relative stuff

Thank you for getting my point and not just making a comment on the PS3 as it stands.

The subject is blind commercialism, not would sticking sega on the PS3 save it.

[Kid Ice]

I wouldn't pay that much for any console, so no.

[Yago]

No! I don't care who makes it. Price and Blue Ray, sorry, not interested.

[DonMarco]

I would buy a PS3 if it didn't have a Blu-ray drive. The technology is still a few years too early and costly. Without the drive, Sony could churn them out at $300 easy, maybe $400.

[badinsults]

$500 is $500. I don't care what label is on it. It could be the MicSeNinony system and I would not buy it.

[jcalder8]

$500 is $500. I don't care what label is on it. It could be the MicSeNinony system and I would not buy it.
Exactly what I was going to say.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey, let's make more topics so we can agree on irrelevant points! YAY!

DOWN WITH CRASS COMMERCIALISM, UP WITH NINTENDO, ETC

/me beats a dead horse in front of the choir

[Push Upstairs]

Nope.

As said before Sega is a hollow shell of its former self. And i dont pay that much for a console...no matter who is cranking it out.

I do consider my XBOX a "spiritual" sucessor in the Sega line...but thats because i bought it simply for "Outrun 2". 8-)


I'm interested in Blu-Ray (for its higher storage space) but i'm not an early adopter.

[njiska]

Hey, let's make more topics so we can agree on irrelevant points! YAY!

DOWN WITH CRASS COMMERCIALISM, UP WITH NINTENDO, ETC

/me beats a dead horse in front of the choir

Yeah a lot of you don't seem to be getting my point. I could care less about the merits of the PS3 as a system because that's not what i'm trying to discuss here.

What i was trying to discuss was blind consumer loyalism to a name. One that's been brought up here before with threads about whether or not Sega should make a new console or the more recent, Petetion Atari for a new console thread.

The reason i chose the PS3 is because it already has the stigma of being horribly over priced for what it is, so if people were willing to buy it if it was really a sega product, it would show their loyalty.

[jdc]

If it was a good Sega system with software to back it up then sure, why WOULDN'T I?

I could care less whether Sega "used to" kick ass or is now dead and gone. If a new 3DO was launched that showed promise, I'd buy it. Hell, I bought TWO GameCubes, and in my opinion the Dreamcast kicked the shit out of THAT system eight ways til Sunday.....but I'm still going to buy a Wii, which COULD end up being not necessarily better than it's predecessor.

All companies make shit and all companies make gems. You take the good with the bad when you invest in a console.

[WanganRunner]

It is what it is. It's a $600 piece of equipment that generally underwhelms me.

I wouldn't care if it was made by Astro-glide, I'm still not excited about it. I don't see how having a Sega logo on the outside of the system rather than a Sony logo would change anything about it.

[X SMF X]

It's the price, not the name that makes me not want to buy the thing, maybe after a few price drops I may consider it, but not now.

[Damaramu]

Gonna "me too" here and agree with others:

It's just too damn expensive.

$500-$600 for a game system? Alone with no games? No way in hell. I could piece together a good PC for that much.

I love my PS2 but I have to give Sony a big middle finger on this one.

[DonMarco]

I voted "no" because your average Sega fan and launch system buyer is about three times smarter and more critical than your average Sony launch anything buyer. Also, they are more handsome and rich and sexy to look at.

I honestly believe that if Sega had somehow survived in the console market to this day, the system they launched this October would have been DVD, powerful as hell, and designed for online gameplay. VF5 would be a launch title, and considering how sucessful the VF4 games were on the Dreamcast... That's saying a lot. It also gives me a little smile before I realize that VF is all but forgotten. Sonic isn't so dependable anymore. And like someone mentioned above, the lead teams and people have either left or given up the fight.

And even though Sega is little more than a name to most people, I (a still-loyal fan) am waiting for their next console, and will buy it until the facts tell me other wise. Be it a Mini-HDDVD console with a 1" harddrive in 2012 or a flash media chip-based handheld in 2010.

[njiska]

And even though Sega is little more than a name to most people, I (a still-loyal fan) am waiting for their next console, and will buy it until the facts tell me other wise. Be it a Mini-HDDVD console with a 1" harddrive in 2012 or a flash media chip-based handheld in 2010.

But the question is, and was why do you want one? There's no need/reason for Sega to even attempt to release a new console and as far as i can tell your desirefor one is based on Name and heritage.

The thing is if a new one was released it would be no different then sticking a Sega logo on a PS3, it'd just be another console.

[Apossum]

Nope. I'm not into corporate loyalty in the least. I go where the games go :)

[Push Upstairs]

I go where the games go :)

Which is the reason why i have the XBOX.

Custom soundtracks are nice, as is the ability to save without plopping down $$ for memory cards...but i really view those as awesome extras.

But the second reason i chose an XBOX is because it is less prone to become an expensive paperweight àla PS2.

[smork]

Poll doesn't make much sense. I doubt anybody would look at a Sega PS3 with the same specs and price point as the Sony PS3 and buy it on name alone. I think maybe 1% of the people are that idiotic.

I bet most of the people voting "yes" on the poll -- if not all -- are people going to buy the PS3 regardless of who manufactured it. I voted "no" -- even though I am going to buy one, just not at $600. Maybe at $400, probably not until less than that.

If your question is, would who manufactures a console affect my decision to buy or not to buy, I'll say no, for sure. It's features and games that attract me.

Now if it were a Sega PS3 that played all PS1, PS2, Saturn, and DC media and cost $600, I might do it. Don't think that's the question. I'm a shitty person to ask as I never buy anything at launch -- except if the Wii comes in at $199, i'll be on it like flies on shit.

I would like to see a new Sega console though -- though I am perfectly content to play my older Sega consoles and play Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's latests....

[Sylentwulf]

No, Ive never really been a sega fan. I'll buy it with the sony brand on it though, since it will most likely once again be the only console with jap RPG's on it again.

[Julio III]

Well, it depends for me: If it has exactly the same features/hardware and exactly the same games as the actual PS3 then no. If it has exactly the same features/hardware but Sega games were exclusive to it, then yes. But if Sega were to make it a few of the features/hardware would be different. I would prefer the controller because i hate the analogue stick position of the dual shock. It would have rumble and would very likely still have those "6 degrees of freedom" meaning sega games like monkey ball wii would be for it instead. It wouldn't have blu-ray as thats a Sony technology so would be much cheaper also. So overall, I would be really up for it.

[2Dskillz]

Not at that price.

I need a Blu-Ray device as much as I needed mini-discs, or umds...

[bangtango]

Well, would the Sega fans have bought a Sony Dreamcast if it had the exact same library and Sega just happened to publish the games exclusively for the system?

A lot of average gamers, not the ones on these boards, would pass on the Sega Playstation 3. Why? Probably due to so many hang-ups with the Sega CD, 32X and Saturn. x_x

[sabre2922]

NO

I luv videogames but $500.00 for a freaking game system is absurd I dont care who makes it.

Socond: Sega no longer has the resources $$$ to release another console especially in todays market.

Hell they dont even have the reputation with most old-school Sega fanboys of making some of the best games in the biz anymore with games like Shadow the Hedghog , Sonic Riders etc, while not TERRIBLE they certainly arent the quality that they used to be known for.

Back in the Saturn/Dreamcast days Sega was #1 with me both as a console maker and game developer/publisher but those days are OVER for the most part.

Now Sega is just a second tier game developer with a few great games Virtua Fighter/Phantasy Star series and more and more shitty to average games.

[dankicksass]

I have a PS2. I actually have purchased only one PS2 new, but I have four or five dead PS2s due to drive failures from Sony's poor manufacturing capabilities. I have a Sony television and a Sony DVD changer and surround-sound setup. I have two broken Sony stereos that work for some aspects and one Sony stereo that works all-around. It would seem that I buy a lot of Sony products.

That said, I will not purchase a PS3 for myself. $600 is an excessive amount of money for a system that will not graphically or stimulatingly outperform the Wii and 360 I don't have yet. The vast majority of software for the PS3 is likely to be duplicated on the 360 and Wii anyway, in superior renditions. I don't need Sony to force a new Betamax/MiniDisc/UMD on me with Blu-Ray. I don't need them to lie to me about system specs. I don't need them to provide to me again poor online support.

Sega wouldn't do that to me. If Sega and Sammy announced this week that they were working on a new home console, with Saturn and Dreamcast library support and maybe a SMS/Genesis online backlibrary download section like Nintendo's Wii, I would welcome it with open arms. But I would also expect them to offer it at a price that an average person could afford, with software that impressed me and controllers that would be comfortable and ergonomic to hold. I would expect them to port arcade titles in a true manner.

Sega and Sammy would handle a new console much better than Sony seems to be handling the PS3 launch. Sega has new arcade boards out since last year that look very do-able in a home console form. If Sony tanks their launch and can't recover, I wouldn't be suprised to see Sega and Sammy grab their seat back in the world of console gaming.

That's my story, and I'm stickin to it.

[RegSNES]

I don't care if the system cleaned my apartment and did my taxes. It wouldn't matter if Nintendo's name were on it and it had gold bars from Fort Knox (sp?). The machine costs $600. Not even if it were the last game machine on the planet. No.

[sabre2922]

I go where the games go :)

Which is the reason why i have the XBOX.

Custom soundtracks are nice, as is the ability to save without plopping down $$ for memory cards...but i really view those as awesome extras.

But the second reason i chose an XBOX is because it is less prone to become an expensive paperweight àla PS2.

Ok I know this is getting off the subject but I have to respond to this and play devils advocate:

Dude you cant honestly believe that ?

The Xbox 1 has HALF the library of the (paperweight) Playstation 2 and that doesnt even include many classic AAA PSX games.

I have had 3 NEW PS2s but its been well worth it overall in every aspect.

Dont get me wrong I dont like Sony and Im not crazy over thier console designs or quality, BUT if your trying to state that you like Xbox because thats "where the games are" then (no offense) but I think you are missing out BIG TIME.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------
If a gamer has a Playstation 2 he/she can play:

Every Metal Gear (Solid) game released thus far in the main series: MG 1@2 (included in the MGS3 subsistance release) and Metal Gear Solid 1-3.

All of the Resident Evil games 1-4 and code veronica -x

All of the Silent Hill games 1-4 the only exceptions being the play novel and recently announced "Origins" wich I think could be ported over to PS2 to reach a larger install base.

Final Fantasy 7-12

Tekken 1-5 , Hell if one has Tekken 5 on that ONE single disc you can play the arcade versions of 1-3 and part 5 8-)

Im sure you get the point by now those are just a handful of the most popular franshises ALL available for Playstation.

Sure a couple of those games have a few extra polygons or look "shinier" on a Gamecube or Xbox but who really cares about that when its basically THE SAME GAME.
----------------------------------------------------------

for example I wrote this on another forum about the Metal Gear Solid 2:substance release on Xbox

The ONLY Metal Gear game that can be played on any Xbox console thus far is Metal Gear Solid 2:substance wich was a slighty shotty and rushed port overall that contains slowdown and bugs that are not present in the PS2 version(s) of the game.
Due in large part by the fact that MGS creator Hideo Kojima did not want to work on the Xbox 1 and had basically mastered the PS2s complicated architecture so he therefore always prefered to work on the Playstation 2 hardware.

[Fuyukaze]

God no! That's like asking if you'd buy a Kia if it had Ferrari logo on it. Just because it had someone else' name on it doesnt mean I'd want it any more. In fact, I'd hate the company thats name was slaped on it for allowing it to be used like that.

[Oobgarm]

I wouldn't pay that much for any console, so no.

I'll agree on that point.

But yeah, blind commercialism is no good.

[Push Upstairs]

I go where the games go :)

Which is the reason why i have the XBOX.

Custom soundtracks are nice, as is the ability to save without plopping down $$ for memory cards...but i really view those as awesome extras.

But the second reason i chose an XBOX is because it is less prone to become an expensive paperweight àla PS2.

Ok I know this is getting off the subject but I have to respond to this and play devils advocate:

Dude you cant honestly believe that ?

The Xbox 1 has HALF the library of the (paperweight) Playstation 2 and that doesnt even include many classic AAA PSX games.

I have had 3 NEW PS2s but its been well worth it overall in every aspect.

Dont get me wrong I dont like Sony and Im not crazy over thier console designs or quality, BUT if your trying to state that you like Xbox because thats "where the games are" then (no offense) but I think you are missing out BIG TIME.
;)

I go where the games i want are at and "Outrun 2" was THE game that made me want that particular system.

"Sonic 2" was the game that made me want a Genesis as was "Super Mario 3" for NES.

Yes i could own a bazillion games on a PS2 but none interested me enough to say "Yeah, now i want a console".

It might be hard to understand in this day and age of people owning countless game systems, but i chose the XBOX because it offered a game i really wanted and i'm sticking with my choice and making the best out of what it has to offer me. :)

And none of the games you mentioned for the PS2 interested me one bit.

[kainemaxwell]

Even if it was Sega I still couldn't see myself supporting a system with that high a price tag unless the technology was proven (considering not many know of blu-ray yet).

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey, let's make more topics so we can agree on irrelevant points! YAY!

DOWN WITH CRASS COMMERCIALISM, UP WITH NINTENDO, ETC

/me beats a dead horse in front of the choir
Yeah a lot of you don't seem to be getting my point. I could care less about the merits of the PS3 as a system because that's not what i'm trying to discuss here.
In all seriousness, this was a point that didn't need to be made. All that this thread has accomplished was illustrate once again that some people will look at it as an issue of blind brand loyalty, while others will deny that Sega's consoles had troubles like Sony's have. Between these two groups there can be no agreement...and thus, all the thread manages is to waste our time once again.

[sabre2922]

I go where the games go :)

Which is the reason why i have the XBOX.

Custom soundtracks are nice, as is the ability to save without plopping down $$ for memory cards...but i really view those as awesome extras.

But the second reason i chose an XBOX is because it is less prone to become an expensive paperweight àla PS2.

Ok I know this is getting off the subject but I have to respond to this and play devils advocate:

Dude you cant honestly believe that ?

The Xbox 1 has HALF the library of the (paperweight) Playstation 2 and that doesnt even include many classic AAA PSX games.

I have had 3 NEW PS2s but its been well worth it overall in every aspect.

Dont get me wrong I dont like Sony and Im not crazy over thier console designs or quality, BUT if your trying to state that you like Xbox because thats "where the games are" then (no offense) but I think you are missing out BIG TIME.
;)

I go where the games i want are at and "Outrun 2" was THE game that made me want that particular system.

"Sonic 2" was the game that made me want a Genesis as was "Super Mario 3" for NES.

Yes i could own a bazillion games on a PS2 but none interested me enough to say "Yeah, now i want a console".

It might be hard to understand in this day and age of people owning countless game systems, but i chose the XBOX because it offered a game i really wanted and i'm sticking with my choice and making the best out of what it has to offer me. :)

And none of the games you mentioned for the PS2 interested me one bit.

Thats kool

BUT Outrun 2006:coast to coast is on the PS2 also and is basically Outrun 2 with a few extra features oh yea I forgot the Xbox version has a few more polygons my bad ;)

I understand that you dont like METAL GEAR SOLID, FINAL FANTASY,RESIDENT EVIL, TEKKEN,Devil May Cry, God of War or Gran Turismo...........then again maybe I dont but hey to each his own :D

[Push Upstairs]

It was more a matter of "Outrun 2" as opposed to "Coast 2 Coast". I wasn't even aware "Coast 2 Coast" was coming out until after i got my XBOX.

Yes "Coast 2 Coast" came out for PS2 as well...but if i already have an XBOX and its coming out on the XBOX why do i need to buy another system? ;)

[rbudrick]

The funny thing is, although I doubt the Ps3 is going to sell well in the states due to price, I think it will take off in Japan just from people buying blindly on brand name, though folks here say they wouldn't buy a Sega console on brandname at that price.

The lines in Japan will probably go around the corner as always, and people will camp overnight.

-Rob

[Retsudo]

At the $600 price tag, I wouldnt buy it if it was made by Kellogs. And I love Corn Flakes :P

[krooked love]

i would buy it if it was a sega product i still have my sega masters and genisis and i still they have some of the best games ever. I think sonic the hedghog would be in a new form of gaming not yet discovered by people yet. it would be some you would try to think of but you just cant because it would be revolutionary. and if they made a brand new wonderboy game that would blow all of the other systems away and it started a new game craze and every year there would be a wonderboy parade.

[7th lutz]

Not for $600.00. I don't care if it has blu-ray or not. I buy game consoles for playing not for anything else. I wouldn't buy any game console that price.

[AMG]

$500 is $500. I don't care what label is on it. It could be the MicSeNinony system and I would not buy it.


Totally agree.

[Richter]

nope

cause 2 yrs after the release they'll drop support on it

[le geek]

Nope. :)

I'd by a PS3 if it was cheaper and it had a game I couldn't wait to play.

Cheers,
Ben