We discuss why the Dreamcast Died Early, and Why its better then PSWii60

I think two things killed Dreamcast:
-Sega having too much debt. They couldn't market they Dreamcast much, and just couldn't take a hit on selling hardware cheap. Although Sony and MS have taken losses on hardware before, they have other divisions to fall back on, while Sega was just a video game company.

-Sega just had a terrible reputation outside of hardcore gamers. Like EGM, PSM, and many other magazines said, the Dreamcast appealed VERY well to hardcore gamers. Many were willing to buy it, and it was a very well liked console by them. Many I know refused to buy a Dreamcast because of no EA Sports, and they were too burned out by Sega killing off other platforms (so they didn't trust Sega). That's the main reason most I knew didn't buy a Dreamcast. Some just said Dreamcast sucks, and PS2 was better (I'm talking people at school telling me PS2's awful launch was better than Dreamcast awesome launch + 1 year of games). Those casuals who bought a Dreamcast just weren't familiar with many of the games (due to lack of advertising or word of mouth outside the internet), which left people buying PS1 ports to Dreamcast (like Tomb Raider, Test Drive 6, etc.).

I know there may have been other reasons, but those are the two reasons I see that hurt the Dreamcast.
 
It's death is easy to figure:

1) Lack of 3rd party support

2) Lack of dvd player

3) Sega's tarnished hardware rep thanks to Genesis add-ons & the Saturn

4) Games were easy to copy

I still own mine & love it though.
 
[quote name='klwillis45']It's death is easy to figure:

1) Lack of 3rd party support

2) Lack of dvd player

3) Sega's tarnished hardware rep thanks to Genesis add-ons & the Saturn

4) Games were easy to copy

I still own mine & love it though.[/quote]

5) People were more interested in the Playstation 2

/thread
 
[quote name='ninja dog']5) People were more interested in the Playstation 2

/thread[/quote]

because of the awesome launch. AMIIRTIE.
 
Sony lied about what the PS2 was capable of, they tried to make it look way more powerful than the Dreamcast, when it really wasn't.

Worked for the PS2, for the PS3, not so much.

I think Sega just didn't have the budget required to compete.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']Sony lied about what the PS2 was capable of, they tried to make it look way more powerful than the Dreamcast, when it really wasn't.

Worked for the PS2, for the PS3, not so much.

I think Sega just didn't have the budget required to compete.[/quote]

I don't think that I was ever convinced that the PS2 would be more powerful than the Dreamcast. What drew me in was the fact that it doubled as a DVD player and that it could play all PSOne titles. Since I never had a PSOne, it afforded me the option to get caught up on all the great titles from that generation.

The Dreamcast came out too early and no one cared about it. Everyone's friends were playing the PS or N64. That, coupled with only a handful of really brilliant titles led to its demise.
 
Sega gave up. They remembered the Saturn's failure and didn't want a repeat, methinks. I love my launch Dreamcast, though.

Speaking of, I checked products coming to my store yesterday, and there were some refurbed dreamcasts on the way. Awesome.
 
The Dreamcast died because EA didn't publish on it (thus, no sports games that caught the majority's attention) and because Sega fucked up their last two systems horribly in the US. Consumers basically knew that they were going to fuck up, so the system died, and Sega of America really deserved it.

But the Dreamcast is better than the PSWii60 because the games on it kicked ass. The Dreamcast generally wasn't about games as cinematic experiences or laggy, unreliable online play like it is now. It was about games that were fun and addictive as hell, and creativity even played a part in the development process. It was also better than the PSWii60 because it was basically the last great system for arcade games. Oh, sure, there's XBLA with it's faux arcade games like Omega 5 or Castle Crashers (Final Fight with poop jokes? c'mon), but the Dreamcast had stuff that was good. It was a system about games, not gimmicks, and that's something that's been all but completely lost in the last few years.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']

But the Dreamcast is better than the PSWii60 because the games on it kicked ass. The Dreamcast generally wasn't about games as cinematic experiences or laggy, unreliable online play like it is now. It was about games that were fun and addictive as hell, and creativity even played a part in the development process. It was also better than the PSWii60 because it was basically the last great system for arcade games. Oh, sure, there's XBLA with it's faux arcade games like Omega 5 or Castle Crashers (Final Fight with poop jokes? c'mon), but the Dreamcast had stuff that was good. It was a system about games, not gimmicks, and that's something that's been all but completely lost in the last few years.[/quote]

This is everything I have been looking for, for like forever.
 
[quote name='GuardianE']I don't think that I was ever convinced that the PS2 would be more powerful than the Dreamcast. What drew me in was the fact that it doubled as a DVD player and that it could play all PSOne titles. Since I never had a PSOne, it afforded me the option to get caught up on all the great titles from that generation.[/QUOTE]That was more so the reason. The PS1 was VERY popular and PS2 came out just as PS1 was STILL very popular (being the new thing playing DVDs and PS1 games, made everyone want it).

And like Chac said, no EA support hurt it too, since EA was the number 1 publisher at the time for sales (and Madden sells millions).
 
One thing that has always stood out for me about the Dreamcast is the large amount of new IPs that were developed for the console. New IPs that were good, unique, and unlike other games within their same genre. Nowadays we're drowned in a deluge of crappy sequels, spinoffs, remakes, and copycats. Where's the originality?
 
[quote name='Krymner']One thing that has always stood out for me about the Dreamcast is the large amount of new IPs that were developed for the console. New IPs that were good, unique, and unlike other games within their same genre. Nowadays we're drowned in a deluge of crappy sequels, spinoffs, remakes, and copycats. Where's the originality?[/quote]

It died when Peter Moore fucked up marketing for the Dreamcast.
Activision killed it when they said, " fuck you, we can't make a sequel we have no interest in you"

This article also makes me laugh.
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145154&did=1
 
Didn't the downfall start when EA snubbed them. Added that the thing had zero lock outs. You could play burned Cd's on the thing. I like the Dreamcast, yet hated that controller.
 
sega didnt support it properly and gave up too soon. not to mention it was segas answer to the n64 and ps1. it could have had a longer run if they wouldnt hae gotten scared by the ps2. the controller was a bit of a problem too they needed another one but the games where there this is coming from someone who bought one day 1. i get the feeling they didnt have a solid plan for the future though. its one of the few older systmes id buy again if i could find the right games at a decent price.

i think its beter than the wii but as far as comparing it to the ps3/360 its not as good as them but its definelty in a catgory in its own. the games were off the chart great then though and i regret never playing shenmu or never seeing chakan the forever man.

and i dont think it helped when the president of sega at the time left after a few years when he went it seemed alot of people felt that was a sign.
 
My 2 cents, well actually it's 5 points here... so, uh... here's my nickel:

1. The controller was fine, a huge leap from the N64 controller. It had... triggers, and the VMU was the shit, honestly. Sorry Nintendo, but the Dreamcast was the first Dual Screen console. The games made much more of leap forward with titles like Soul Calibur the best evolution in gaming we have yet to see in our generation. The closest thing to it was Tekken 2 on the PS1.

2. Games were easy to copy, but alot of people didn't have CD-burners back then. The R4 is much easier to acquire and you don't see Nintendo giving up on it.

3. The dreamcast introduced Cel-shading to games with Jet Grind Radio a trend that has grown very well into titles like Okami, No More Heroes, and the upcoming Mad World. DC wins with originality.

4. First console MMO (PSO). I wasted my life on that damn game... and what little Meseta I had in HS.

5. The reason it died so soon is because of the DVD player, thanx Sony you killed the hardcore gaming and made it appeal to the masses who wanted to watch movies w/o rewinding. What didn't help was that games weren't really cool then. Being a gamer in 1999 did not get you any props, we're about to hit 2009 and there are nerds on my Dr. Pepper bottle. Master Chief is fucking everywhere, so is WoW, and video game movies don't come down to Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter. We've come along way, but we owe most of the credit to the Dreamcast.
...RIP...
 
Sega's tarnished reputation, and the Playstation brand name doomed it from the start.

Disagree that it's better than the current stuff. The 360 is the most fun I've had with a console since the SNES. The HD graphics and robust online system (which goes for the PS3 as well) put it ahead of the DC without even getting into specific games.

I would agree that the DC is better than the Wii, but so is every console I've ever owned--and I've owned a lot!
 
2 things killed the DC. The Saturn, and Sony's "why would you want that piece of shit Dreamcast when the PLAYSTATION 2 is coming?" douchebag marketing.
 
Few:

1. Didn't use DVD as a storage medium.

2. Games were mostly overrated experiences that rarely delivered on fanboy hype. Seriously, the system didn't have the epically awesome lineup that some thought it had. Its best games were mostly arcade ports (SFA3, MVC2, etc.) that didn't really appeal to a mass audience.

3. The controller was an absolute piece of shit. Its lack of a second analog stick, essentially made it unusable for advanced 3d gaming.

4. The VMU couldn't hold shit.

5. Games were incredibly easy to copy.

6. None of the games really pushed things forward in a truly significant way. There was no GTA3 level paradigm shifter on the system. The closest thing it had was maybe PSO or Soul Calibur.

Oh, and anyone who says the DC is better than the 360 shouldn't be allowed to breed. Seriously, the games really haven't held up that well with time, and many of the ones that do have or are going to be released on other systems.
 
Wait, how is the lack of a second analog stick relevant... at all? Back then, all that shit was ever used for was Timesplitters, and that game was for morons. And I'm really not sure how not using the DVD as a storage medium has much of an impact on anything, either.
 
A lot of people seem to forget that the DC actually did beat the PS2 in sales once. It was the week before SEGA announced its decision to cancel the DC. One week where it could have given SEGA hope because gamers were truly starting to get interested in the system and seeing it as better than the PS2, but they decided to pull the plug instead. The system wasn't even doing badly. It was obvious that it was gaining momentum.

SEGA killed the Dreamcast, nobody else.
 
[quote name='evanft']Few:

1. Didn't use DVD as a storage medium.

2. Games were mostly overrated experiences that rarely delivered on fanboy hype. Seriously, the system didn't have the epically awesome lineup that some thought it had. Its best games were mostly arcade ports (SFA3, MVC2, etc.) that didn't really appeal to a mass audience.

3. The controller was an absolute piece of shit. Its lack of a second analog stick, essentially made it unusable for advanced 3d gaming.

4. The VMU couldn't hold shit.

5. Games were incredibly easy to copy.

6. None of the games really pushed things forward in a truly significant way. There was no GTA3 level paradigm shifter on the system. The closest thing it had was maybe PSO or Soul Calibur.

Oh, and anyone who says the DC is better than the 360 shouldn't be allowed to breed. Seriously, the games really haven't held up that well with time, and many of the ones that do have or are going to be released on other systems.[/quote]

Count me as one of the people that shouldn't breed according to you.

The Dreamcast was a blast for its time in ways the 360 never was for me. The only exclusive game on that console to ever amaze me was Braid. There was a lot of other fun to be had, but JSR or Powerstone fun...wouldn't go that far.

Like you said Dreamcast games have gone onto other consoles, but it's not the same because by that time they were no longer completely fresh experiences to me.

Though if you want to say ps2 is better than DC, I'm down with that.
 
[quote name='Richlough']Dreamcast better than Wii ? Obviously . Better than 360 or PS3? not a chance .[/QUOTE]

I'd put it ahead of the PS3 in the game category, although obviously that won't last forever since the PS3 is going to last a lot longer. So much good, original stuff for the DC. Like the 360, it'll eventually overtake it just based on sheer volume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top