• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Believe me, a new Sega console would repeat all the same mistakes Saturn and Dreamcast.

SEGA rules, but Sonic fucking sucks.

Glad to see they are bringing back stuff like Crazy Taxi or Golden Axe, wonder how those will turn out.
The importance of Sonic has increased recently, not that I mind, but it is necessary that games like Sonic and Like a Dragon exist and subsidize production of new hardware as soon as possible, only then will Sega leave this comfort zone and be able to bring RPGs and other games that are in the drawer.
 

Ozzie666

Member
Sega failed more than they succeed, lets be clear on that. The Dreamcast was however a beautiful straight forward system , except for that controller and no DVD support.

I'd imagine Sega would make 2 SKUS, one handheld, with a dock and external GPU for home play. It's the only thing that hasn't been done yet to any degree of success. Switch is closest.

Old Sega woud probably still use Power VR, maybe a powerful ARM CPU. The external GPU could bring it up a high performance level. Capture that japense market first with the handheld aspect, external CPU power for the west and hard core.

Developers are already used to scaling wither its Series S/X, or PS4/5 and soon to be Pro? Just a dream I know.
 
Sega is a shell over its former self. You would think going 3rd party their company would have grown, but they've only shrunk putting out a much smaller assortment of games.

Selling Visual Concepts was a massive mistake and I think one of such magnitude that they'd never be able to return to the console space.

They failed to push their key franchises even as a 3rd party publisher. Shenmue should have been one of its highest priorities. Phantasy Star should have gotten a Final Fantasy like budget.

We've seen a fighting game renaissance with Mortal Kombat, Tekken, and Street Fighter... Where is Virtua Fighter? Virtua Fighter 5 came out in 2007...

The reality is that they lost Yu Suzuki, Yuji Naka, Naoto Ohshima, and Hirokazu Yasuhara. Even Toshihiro Nagoshi has left Sega.

It's a problem impacting several Japanese companies, but Sega has been especially hit hard by it, because it seems as though they haven't really groomed a new generation.

This has not been a problem for Nintendo, who has mainly been able to retain their talent or at least relationships with their talent. For them success begets success.
 
People love to call decisions that don't work out mistakes as if the result itself determines whether a decision was good or bad.

That's just not how life works though. Sometimes you only have bad choices and you try to chose the least bad choice. Sometimes you make a good decision with the best data you have, but circumstances change. Sometimes you just don't luck out.

Not all decisions that don't work out are bad decisions, and they certainly aren't all mistakes.

On another forum I got into it with some people who say that Sony should have bought FromSoftware after Dark Souls 1 came out, but they ignore that Dark Souls became so popular because it was multiplatform. In an alternate universe where Sony bought FromSoftware, they might not have been that popular at all. In a similar universal where Ubi Soft made God of War instead of Sony, it might have been a significantly larger franchise. If Halo had released on all platforms and didn't have the push of Microsoft behind it, maybe it wouldn't have been nearly as big a franchise.

Was it a mistake for Nintendo not to use CDs for the N64?

And sometimes bad decisions have good results. Sony's failures with the PS3 revolving much around the price, lead to 3rd parties supporting the Xbox 360 more, which lead to Sony having to put more into their first party games. This ultimately lead to a massive separation in the following generation. If you went back in time and had Sony design and release the PS3 so it came out price equivalent with the Xbox 360, we might not have gotten Uncharted 2 or the Last of Us. Sony's multiplayer games probably would have been more successful and there would have been less attention put on single player games like Ghost of Tsushima.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
People love to call decisions that don't work out mistakes as if the result itself determines whether a decision was good or bad.

That's just not how life works though. Sometimes you only have bad choices and you try to chose the least bad choice. Sometimes you make a good decision with the best data you have, but circumstances change. Sometimes you just don't luck out.

Not all decisions that don't work out are bad decisions, and they certainly aren't all mistakes.

On another forum I got into it with some people who say that Sony should have bought FromSoftware after Dark Souls 1 came out, but they ignore that Dark Souls became so popular because it was multiplatform. In an alternate universe where Sony bought FromSoftware, they might not have been that popular at all. In a similar universal where Ubi Soft made God of War instead of Sony, it might have been a significantly larger franchise. If Halo had released on all platforms and didn't have the push of Microsoft behind it, maybe it wouldn't have been nearly as big a franchise.

Was it a mistake for Nintendo not to use CDs for the N64?

And sometimes bad decisions have good results. Sony's failures with the PS3 revolving much around the price, lead to 3rd parties supporting the Xbox 360 more, which lead to Sony having to put more into their first party games. This ultimately lead to a massive separation in the following generation. If you went back in time and had Sony design and release the PS3 so it came out price equivalent with the Xbox 360, we might not have gotten Uncharted 2 or the Last of Us. Sony's multiplayer games probably would have been more successful and there would have been less attention put on single player games like Ghost of Tsushima.

It's all this back and forward and competition that is healthy, makes me very confused when many people on this board are happy at the idea of MS leaving the console business. As a gamer, regardless of your favorite platform, having less competition would be bad.
 

marquimvfs

Member
nazare300x300.gif
 
It's all this back and forward and competition that is healthy, makes me very confused when many people on this board are happy at the idea of MS leaving the console business. As a gamer, regardless of your favorite platform, having less competition would be bad.

I mean ultimately I don't know how much Microsoft has really driven Sony. They haven't really driven them all that much in the last 10 years. If anything Microsoft drove Sony to buy bungie creating more consolidation in the market. I'm not sure that is the competition that we wanted.

There is something lost by Xbox leaving the market, but I think there will be new ways for competition to happen.
 

Celine

Member
Arcades are still doing decently in Japan and other parts of Asia but in the West most of the big ones got absorbed by FECs (Family Entertainment Centers) and a lot of what they put out aren't even traditional games anymore. Although, some companies have done well for themselves in the market, like Raw Thrills.
During 2019 "video games" accounted for only 11.7% of the revenue generated by the amusement industry in Japan.
What led the amusement industry in the Country that year were prize games (about 90% of which are crane games) by being responsible for the absolute majority of the revenue generated (55.3%).
In second place were medal games with 29%.

(Data by the Japan Amusement Industry Association).

 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
I mean ultimately I don't know how much Microsoft has really driven Sony. They haven't really driven them all that much in the last 10 years. If anything Microsoft drove Sony to buy bungie creating more consolidation in the market. I'm not sure that is the competition that we wanted.

There is something lost by Xbox leaving the market, but I think there will be new ways for competition to happen.

I don't think that's true. Even just the existance of series X pushed Sony to build the best PS5 possible. And who knows what pricing might have been like during covid if there was no Xbox. Plus they have all the studios working a full budgets to fight off the compeition.
If there was no gamepass, you likely wouldn't have ps plus premium, and perhaps even higher subscruption fees. I understand there is still a ceiling, but it's higher.

Not so sure on the other competition stepping in at this point. If Google or Apple bring out a console, what exclusive games will they have? Maybe money hats to Xbox for timed exclusives? But then how is that any different than an xbox console.......
 
I don't think that's true. Even just the existance of series X pushed Sony to build the best PS5 possible. And who knows what pricing might have been like during covid if there was no Xbox. Plus they have all the studios working a full budgets to fight off the compeition.
If there was no gamepass, you likely wouldn't have ps plus premium, and perhaps even higher subscruption fees. I understand there is still a ceiling, but it's higher.

Not so sure on the other competition stepping in at this point. If Google or Apple bring out a console, what exclusive games will they have? Maybe money hats to Xbox for timed exclusives? But then how is that any different than an xbox console.......


You could argue that this is negative competition that that money could have been used elsewhere in a more conducive place if Sony didn't have to compete.

Also they probably should have raised prices to drive off scalpers.

I didn't mean that apple or google would step in, but that there are other ways for competition to happen. As in, Sony will probably start competing with Steam and Switch.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
You could argue that this is negative competition that that money could have been used elsewhere in a more conducive place if Sony didn't have to compete.

Also they probably should have raised prices to drive off scalpers.

I didn't mean that apple or google would step in, but that there are other ways for competition to happen. As in, Sony will probably start competing with Steam and Switch.

Well valve is very close to likely launching a steam console. And probably should. But the question is, are they going to release it half heartily with no advertising, no retail partners, and no exclusives? Because with out those three they will never see the volume needed to even bother Sony or Nintendo.
 
Well valve is very close to likely launching a steam console. And probably should. But the question is, are they going to release it half heartily with no advertising, no retail partners, and no exclusives? Because with out those three they will never see the volume needed to even bother Sony or Nintendo.

There is no chance a Steam console has any success. As you mention volume is a big problem.

When you're looking at off the shelf parts, there is no way Valve is going to get enough volume to really have an effective price. On top of that it would be unlikely to be modular and upgradable, without being even more expensive.

When you consider Valve's lower royalties, it makes even less sense, because you need to sell hardware for even more and if it is like the steamdeck and it can run windows, you're beyond screwed.

Without physical game sales, why would retailers carry it unless they got really good margins on it?

So you're looking at a machine weaker than a PS5 and probably more expensive than a PS5 Pro...

Or significantly more expensive than a PS5 Pro and still weaker than a PS5 Pro. Or astronomically more expensive and thus not really in the ballpark of consoles.

The original Steam Machine came out in 2015 and we've been that road and it wasn't worth it. 90% of steam users are kb/m. I think there is this constant desire to try and see if Valve can't compete with Sony, but they can't. It would be a lot easier for Sony to compete with them than the other way around.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
There is no chance a Steam console has any success. As you mention volume is a big problem.

When you're looking at off the shelf parts, there is no way Valve is going to get enough volume to really have an effective price. On top of that it would be unlikely to be modular and upgradable, without being even more expensive.

When you consider Valve's lower royalties, it makes even less sense, because you need to sell hardware for even more and if it is like the steamdeck and it can run windows, you're beyond screwed.

Without physical game sales, why would retailers carry it unless they got really good margins on it?

So you're looking at a machine weaker than a PS5 and probably more expensive than a PS5 Pro...

Or significantly more expensive than a PS5 Pro and still weaker than a PS5 Pro. Or astronomically more expensive and thus not really in the ballpark of consoles.

The original Steam Machine came out in 2015 and we've been that road and it wasn't worth it. 90% of steam users are kb/m. I think there is this constant desire to try and see if Valve can't compete with Sony, but they can't. It would be a lot easier for Sony to compete with them than the other way around.

I think if they can deliver a portable at a decent price, they could do the same with a newer apu mini console. The newer strix halo that is rumored might be perfect, 40 cu's would be plenty for a lot of people. Like a $499 price. But alas, I still wouldn't expect them to sell more than 5-10 million if direct only.

The prior Steam machine was wrong in many ways.
 

CrustyBritches

Gold Member
The console business isn't worth getting into. Sony dominates the market, Nintendo only makes handhelds, and Xbox is struggling. Who wants a piece of that diminishing pie?
 

Durin

Neo Member
I just miss the weirdness that was the Dreamcast. VMUs were a neat idea for your controller, and as a separate device for silly little mini-games. Not to mention all of the fantastic arcade ports that yielded the best library for a console so short-lived.

Never been as excited by another console release as much, even though over time the PS2 had probably the best library of any console still.
 
What made Sega fail in the past is the same thing that would make it fail today.
cultural differences

Sega's headquarters is in Japan but the American branch was the one who was successful, not them.
The Mega Drive sold much less than it could have, ending the 4th gen with 3M units sold in Japan. so they fixed the Mega Drive mistakes (from their perspective) on the Sega Saturn.

a) A new mascot adapted to the country, Nights.
b) RPGs (the need for rpg was decisive for maintaining 2d) at the time rpg was synonymous with 2d or limited 3d
This partially explains why they made a prelude console that would later become the Sega Saturn 2D with limited 3D. think of the prelude console as a 3DO Jaguar dai san dankai.
c) Arcade at home basically pleases Capcom (the most 2D company at the time that even launched cps3 arcade board at the height of the 2D decline) and SNK

The commercial performance of the Saturn surpassing the Playstation throughout 94-95, as well as the Saturn ending the gen with twice the base compared to the Mega Drive, proved them right.
However price of success in Japan was the alienation of Sega's Western base, it's not difficult to notice the lack of Sonic and NFL game.
Dreamcast fixed the Sega Saturn mistakes (from their perspective) Sonic Adventure, NFL 2k cheap price However this time alienation of Sega's Japanese fan base occurred, Dreamcast ending commercially below Mega Drive in japan.

Hypothetically in the future they would try to correct the Dreamcast's mistakes, among them, the biggest of all be launched before the competitor.
being launched first exposes the product's tactics and strategies, so the competition exploits weaknesses. But cultural differences will continue to be Sega's biggest challenge.
 
Sorry to nitpick, but Xbox Series S is only putting out 4TF of power. Sure it has the newer CPU, RAM, and SSD but I would absolutely argue that it's quite a bit worse than the Xbox One X in terms of capability. If SEGA were to drop a new console putting out 8TF, it would be quite a bit more powerful than the Series S.

That all being said, what would it bring to the table that doesn't already exist?
Hell, the damn thing can't even render @4K. The One X could. One X is still a beast.
 

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
A myth was created that Sega made mistakes in the past.

In fact, every company makes mistakes, but the impacts vary according to the capital the company has.
In the console market, the so-called mistakes is something necessary, few companies are as rich as Microsoft that can afford to make a mistake with Xbox One and basically relaunch the system with versions S and X or have enough money to put the best processor and the best gpu like they did Original xbox.

All other companies are forced to look for smart solutions to balance the scales.

Sega planned the Genesis successor as a console with limited 3D and excellent 2D capability, we are talking about 1991 here, very different from the myth that the console would be fully 2D (not even SNES was fully 2D ) this early concept, later became a console with single SH-2 so that after Sega discovered the PS1 specs and its 3d emphasis, they added the second SH-2 and other chips to make it our beloved Sega Saturn .

Why did this happen?

Simple, Money.
The plastic of the PS1, the length of the wire and quality of the cannon were not the best, memory card transferring this additional cost to the consumer save its games. But PS1 internal components were some of the best in 1994 and there were contracts ensuring exclusivity.
there was no way for SEGA to have a competitive console against companies that have dozens of times its capital, note that Nintendo, being richer than SEGA, did not dare to put CD-Rom in its consoles. This conclusion inexorably leads to the use of so-called mistakes ( wich are mistakes only when it goes wrong when it goes right they call it genius)

What would a hypothetical Sega console look like in modern times?


There is the 12TF 16GB Xbox Series X on the market today, there is also the 6TF 12GB Xbox Series S representing the minimum power to receive multiplatforms.
SEGA would have two options
Making a console above 12tf and using a lower quality cpu than the Wii U did, maybe 12gb of memory or
Make a console with 8 teraflops and 16GB of memory with expansion to 24GB solseparately.
This configuration would allow SEGA to surpass the Xbox Series X graphics but using Series S resolutions

I anticipate that this strategy of looking for more power is bad due to the advent of PRO consoles

Sega has enough money to put a console on the market, a Switch would be easy, I hope they still have a competitive instinct in them.
Tl;dr but I don't believe you.
 
Top Bottom