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".


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.