Why was dreamcast such a failure?

SaberDicer said:
Anyone remeber shenmue, god that was a great game. It was really unstructered but with a cool plot line behind it. It was the first game to really give you a free roaming enviroment.
Click to expand...

Shenmue 2 is on Xbox...
 
Ludic said:
Shenmue 2 is on Xbox...
Click to expand...

yea as is Soul Calibur 2. Whats your point? There are quite a few ports that came off of DC onto the newer consoles and there are also a few sequels to games from the DC that are on the other consoles
 
4 reasons:

1. Sega was in bad shape, financially, when it laucned the Dreamcast, which led to:

a. An inability to market the system effectively.
b. No chance of including a DVD-ROM drive for movie playback (which was a massive incentive for early PS2 adopters to pick up the system).
c. Absolutely zero chance to sustain a financial hit and eat the losses in an attempt to buy market share by selling the console at a large loss (despite that the system was, relatively, inexpensive).

2. A string of burned consumers (too many under/poorly-supported platforms); licensors (committing games/resources to platforms only to see the install base go nowhere), and retailers (Saturn launch was a surprise and excluded a huge number of retailers therefore giving those burned thusly no reason to support Sega's last-ditch attempt) didn't exactly position them ideally for one last go at the brass ring.

3. While the actual software, by and large, was excellent there was no EA, no Square, etc. to really drive hardware sales. Sonic's nice and all but if you're over 12 that's just not enough anymore (unless you're Nintendo).

4. And, probably most importantly, people knew the PS2 was coming in the near-future and that, above all else, killed Sega's chances. Sony did, pretty much, everything right with the PS One and most people managed to ignore their screw-ups (shoddy hardware from a QC POV, for one).

Sadly, while I bleed Sega blue, the company is dead and gone as far as the entity that gave us so many remarkable games software and actually managed to break Nintendo's stranglehold on the market, lo those many years ago.

*sigh* :(
 
I think it went all the way down to $50 new. But by that time, GC and Xbox were out so it was really dead in the water.
 
Dreamcast looked amazing when it was released (Shenmue is a prime example), it surpassed PC games by quite a large margin. I don't see any consoles able to do the same right now.
 
i dont like dreamcarst or gamecube or xbox.. well the controllers i dont.. I dunno, but i cant get accustumed to play with a joystick...

where did "Joy"stick coem from anyways...

edit: There are the kind of thoughts that keep me out of the really good schools....
 
DemonDiablo said:
That really doesnt make much sense. Your making 3rd party games now so Im going to make more money by not making games for your console instead of actually making games for your console which will...well make me money.

That just doesnt quite add up to well from a money making stand point, not to mention that SEGA went 3rd party after DC died out not before.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. EA did not support the Dreamcast because they did not want to help Sega succeed. The hope was that Sega would go bankrupt instead of going third-party.


IcedEmotion said:
If EA isn't a monopoly, explain how I can find a non-EA published NFL game over the next 3 years?
Click to expand...

EA got an exclusivity agreement. That is not a monopoly, that's a contact. It sucks, but it's not a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly.

Let me put it like this: if EA is a monopoly, explain why they don't publish id games. If EA is a monopoly, explain how Sega and Visual Concepts could've made the 2K series to begin with. If EA is a monopoly, explain why the majority of games released every year on every platform have nothing to do with EA. You can't, because EA isn't a monopoly. It's a ruthless company in its competitive and labor practices, but that does not a monopoly make.


DemonDiablo said:
Trying to say EA isnt a huge gaming monopoly is about as futile as when Microsoft was trying to claim that they werent a huge monopoly.
Click to expand...

Let's see here. *takes out copy of Halo 2* No EA logo. *takes out copy of Final Fantasy X* No EA logo. *takes out copy of HL2* No EA logo. *takes out copy of Doom 3* No EA logo. *takes out copy of GTA San Andreas* No EA logo. *takes out copy of GT3* No EA logo. I can go on.

EA has four franchises: Need For Speed, The Sims, Battlefield, and Madden. Gran Turismo is more popular than NFS, and Battlefield is still outnumbered by Counter-strike. Madden was in trouble until EA signed a TEMPORARY exclusivity agreement, and even then the 2K series is renewing its NCAA license in response. The only genre where you have to look to EA for a game is The Sims, and given the amount of people who play games today, for every one person who plays The Sims, there are about 20 who don't.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's Windows is installed on >90% of every home computer on the planet. You can't go to a store without seeing it everywhere. You can go to the video game section and never see an EA logo, however.
 
Mauli said:
where did "Joy"stick coem from anyways...

....
Click to expand...

Joysticks were originally controls for an aircraft's ailerons and elevators. They were fixed to the floor ot the aircraft and stuck up between the pilot's legs.

The first electrical 2-axis joystick was probably invented around 1944 in Nazi Germany. The device was developed for targeting the glide bomb Henschel Hs 293 against ship targets. Here, the joystick was used by an operator to steer the missile towards its target by radio control. This joystick had on-off switches rather than analogue sensors, i.e. a digital joystick. The signal was transmitted from the joystick to the missile by a thin wire.

This invention was picked up by someone in the team of scientist assembled at the Heeresversuchsanstalt in Peenemünde. Here a part of the team on the German rocket program was developing the Wasserfall missile, a successor to the V-2 rocket, the first ground-to-air missile intended for shooting down enemy aircraft. The Wasserfall steering equipment converted the electrical signal to radio signals and transmitted these to the missile.

The Atari standard joystick, developed for the Atari 2600 was a digital joystick, with a single 'fire' button, and connected via a DB9 connector, the electrical specifications for which was for many years the 'standard' digital joystick specification. Joysticks were commonly used as controllers in first and second generation game consoles, but then gave way to the familiar control pad with the Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Master System in 1985 and 86, though joysticks - especially arcade-style ones - were and are popular after-market add-ons for any console.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joystick
 
MvC2 is still one of the greatest fighters ever released

i love my dc so much, i have a spare for a backup
 
Terpfen said:
EA got an exclusivity agreement. That is not a monopoly, that's a contact. It sucks, but it's not a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly.

Let me put it like this: if EA is a monopoly, explain why they don't publish id games. If EA is a monopoly, explain how Sega and Visual Concepts could've made the 2K series to begin with. If EA is a monopoly, explain why the majority of games released every year on every platform have nothing to do with EA. You can't, because EA isn't a monopoly. It's a ruthless company in its competitive and labor practices, but that does not a monopoly make.
Click to expand...

EA was not a monopoly at first, I agree. I'm perfectly happy with them having their Madden games and Sega having the 2k series. However, the second they signed that contract, they monopolized the NFL gaming market, thus making them a monopoly. I don't care if it came from a contract or not, there's no way you can argue the fact that any NFL game coming out over the next few years will have the EA tag on it. I don't even see why you would try to argue otherwise. Try heading to dictionary.com and typing in monopoly, you will find:

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).

2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.

3. a. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
b. A commodity or service so controlled.

4. a. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
b. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how EA is not monopolizing the NFL game market?
 
While it is off-topic, and a whole 'nother thread could go on for years on it, I believe the original statement was that EA is a monopoly, and someone already stated that, as a game publisher, they weren't, but as far as NFL-licensed games are concerned, they monopolized that category.

From a developer's perspective, Sega wasn't too friendly with most of the U.S. studios from the get-go, including E.A. I'm sure that lack of inclusion had something to do with E.A. never creating games for the Dreamcast.

I will say this: I own more Dreamcast games than I do for any other system released in the past ten years, and there is some great quality titles. To this day, I think it's a great system.
 
IcedEmotion said:
Please tell me how EA is not monopolizing the NFL game market?
Click to expand...

Way to move the goalpost (no pun intended.) First it was, "EA is a monopoly." Now it's "EA is a football game monopoly." Don't try to backtrack on your words for the sake of winning an argument on the Internet.

That said, you can still obtain used copies of the 2K series. In three years, when EA's temporary license expires, Sega will come back in and buy the license again. In the meantime, the NCAA 2K series is being revived.

Just to clear up any confusion here: I'm not defending EA's tactics. But it was the NFL's decision to give EA exclusive rights, and they're just as guilty of screwing Sega as EA is. The difference is, no one will complain about the monopoly of the Super Bowl.
 
EA does not have an NFL monopoly.
The NFL is not a service, commodity or commercial activity, it's a company and a trademark.
They have exclusive rights to all NFL related trademarks and brands.
Anyone can still make a football game, they just can't use NFL or NFL teams.
 
Kadarom Douhrek said:
EA does not have an NFL monopoly.
The NFL is not a service, commodity or commercial activity, it's a company and a trademark.
They have exclusive rights to all NFL related trademarks and brands.
Anyone can still make a football game, they just can't use NFL or NFL teams.
Click to expand...

Playing as your favorite football team and clobbering the crap out of your brother's favorite team is half the fun of football games. Why am I gonna play a football game where my team's name is the "Oakland Pirates"?
 
Midways NFL Blitz is actually going to get better, because they won't have the NFL regulations over them, and as for Sega they can still make a football game, they just won't have offically licenced teams or stadiums, but that is almost a moot point to me, as I rarley buy any EA games anyways.
 
inotocracy said:
Playing as your favorite football team and clobbering the crap out of your brother's favorite team is half the fun of football games. Why am I gonna play a football game where my team's name is the "Oakland Pirates"?
Click to expand...
That is irrelevant.
 
Because of lack of good games, they had a few. But not enough to keep up with Nintendo or Sony....
 
i've had three dreamcasts over the years, all of them died for different reasons, and i plan on getting another one evenually, i still have all my controllers and games for it.
 
|MaguS| said:
Poor advertising, they really didn't start till way after the systems launch and after the PS2 was announced. Also the games on it were very hardcore centered, many were arcade ports rather then bringing great original console based titles that the PSX and N64 were known for.

I mean look at its fighting and RPG lineup, pretty pathetic... for platformers it had mainly sonic... but arcade type games it excelled.
Click to expand...


The arcade style games were the best part. i remeber playing with the light guns. What was that game? I gotta find one with that game and a light gun.
 
Most of the main reasons have been elaborated upon here, but there were many small factors in why the Dreamcast and Sega ultimately did badly:

The last poster asked bout the lightgun game. House of the Dead 2 -> Another reason the Dreamcast "failed" was Columbine happened. Because of that, Sega didn't want to further the image of videogames and gun violence in North America so while you could buy HOTD2...you couldn't use the Sega lightgun for it and had to use the controller or wait for a 3rd party gun.

Shenmue -> Ate up something like $70 million from Sega's coffers and ended up not being a popular game despite how utterly awesome it was. I guess most North American gamers would rather play Tony Hawk than run around putting coins in Japanese vending machines trying to collect rare items.

I hug my Dreamcast. I love that thing. It's amazing and the games on it were often unheralded and overlooked. You like Metal Gear games? Try Headhunter, which was originally developed for the DC. This game did poorly on PS2 when it was re-released for that platform after the DC died, and even now I find Headhunter 2 in the bargain bin which is a shame. Many great PS2 games started as DC games (Rez).

The DC was an amazing arcade machine. I even bought the arcade sticks and the SEGA TWINSTICKS just for Virtual On:Oratio Tangram. Nonetheless, what people said is true pirating killed the DC in a way, because the system was sold below cost. Sega had to recoup their profits from game sales. When the DC came out 7 years ago (yes that's right, 1998, man I feel old) I was in highschool and everybody owned a DC but nobody owned a real game. It did make for a create dev community though. If you haven't tried it, look for a game called: "BEATS OF RAGE". It's a custom game based on Streets of Rage but with KOF characters!

The Dreamcast was the last great system for fighting games, especially SNK ones. Last Blade 2 on the DC is the ultimate fighter for me but few people probably know what that is.
 
Spare-Flair said:
The Dreamcast was the last great system for fighting games, especially SNK ones. Last Blade 2 on the DC is the ultimate fighter for me but few people probably know what that is.
Click to expand...

While Last Blade 2 was great, I like Guilty Gears alot better. The original DC version and the Xbox/PS2 versions. Over all my favorite fighter is Virtual Fighter 4: Evolution (Sega Game), its perfect... I can't find a flaw in it...

I love my DC, I own over 50 games for it (after it was canned I was able to buy a hell of alot, dirt cheap). Im sad to see it go but with the titles it had it wouldnt be able to compete with Xbox and PS2. Sega made the best move by going Software only, more profit... Sega has some awsome games and now they can focus on them. Im hoping Nintendo will one day go Software only...
 
I dumped about 20 hours into Shenmue and hated it. Maybe I'll try it again, but it was way too tedious.
 
Kadarom Douhrek said:
EA does not have an NFL monopoly.
The NFL is not a service, commodity or commercial activity, it's a company and a trademark.
They have exclusive rights to all NFL related trademarks and brands.
Anyone can still make a football game, they just can't use NFL or NFL teams.
Click to expand...

The commercial activity is the selling of an NFL licensed game with up to date teams and rosters. So yes it is a monopoly since only EA has that right.

Terpfen, I didn't specify how they were a monopoly in my previous posts, so I didn't 'move the goalposts'.
 
If sega can get the Mutant League Football franchise off the ground again they can make a killing. That game is so much fun.
 
all i can say is dreamcast is the best $10 i spent on a consel lol and with so many $5 games it kicks ass, i waste my life on crazy taxi
 
IcedEmotion said:
The commercial activity is the selling of an NFL licensed game with up to date teams and rosters. So yes it is a monopoly since only EA has that right.

Terpfen, I didn't specify how they were a monopoly in my previous posts, so I didn't 'move the goalposts'.
Click to expand...
No, the commercial activity is making and selling video game software.
Well, actually it's selling software disks and liscensing software. :rolleyes:

Under your definition Apple is a bigger monopoly than Microsoft.
In fact EVERY company is a monopoly.
Only Cheveron can sell gas with Techron.
Only Toys-R-Us can sell Geoffry dolls.
Only McDonalds can sell Big Macs.
Only Chevrolet can sell Silverados and Corvettes.


But, I guess "monopoly" has become like "racist" and "zealot", ridiculously overused and meaningless.
 
nly Cheveron can sell gas with Techron.
Only Toys-R-Us can sell Geoffry dolls.
Only McDonalds can sell Big Macs.
Only Chevrolet can sell Silverados and Corvettes.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no.

There are other types of gas. There are other types of dolls. There are other types of hamburgers. There are other types of vehicles.

In professional football, there aren't any other recognizable franchises outside of the NFL. There are others, but nobody would be willing to pay for them.
 
Kadarom Douhrek said:
No, the commercial activity is making and selling video game software.
Well, actually it's selling software disks and liscensing software. :rolleyes:

Under your definition Apple is a bigger monopoly than Microsoft.
In fact EVERY company is a monopoly.
Only Cheveron can sell gas with Techron.
Only Toys-R-Us can sell Geoffry dolls.
Only McDonalds can sell Big Macs.
Only Chevrolet can sell Silverados and Corvettes.


But, I guess "monopoly" has become like "racist" and "zealot", ridiculously overused and meaningless.
Click to expand...

I think you're twisting things around a bit here. In your examples the brand name is what's licensed, not the content. EA's brand is Madden, the content is NFL football. Techron gas is a brand, the content is gas. Apple OS is just that, an OS. They don't restrict anyone from creating another OS on their hardware, it's just that nobody wants to. Geoffry is a brand, giraffe toys are the content. Big Mac is a brand, the conent is a hamburger. Do I need to keep going? It basically comes down to the fact, can I buy a non-EA NFL game over the next few years? The answer is no. EA controls the selling (commercial activity) of NFL football games containg the official teams and rosters. If I am in the market to buy an official NFL game, I only have one place to turn. That my friend, is a monopoly.
 
Well, I guess I'll throw my .02 on the EA part.

EA is not a monopoly. They just have exclusive rights because they're huge. Kinda like CBS has exclusive rights on televising AFC games, and Fox has exclusive rights on televising NFC games.

What will inevitably happen, is that the competitors (Sega, whoever), will end up releasing a football game, that will use the players names, but fictional teams. Remember the football games in the past like Joe Montana's Football?

While it'll be disappointing that Madden will be the only "official" NFL game in town, it won't keep the competitors from making a football game that's better, just not officially licensed.

EA has become too big for their own good. There are a lot of EA games that I like, however, there are also a LOT of things I can think of to make them better. And releasing 15 titles about the Lord of the Rings to capitalize on a license isn't one of them. And since a large corporation like EA will never stop thinking about ways to maximize profits, it's up to someone else to start the "next" EA. Or Activision, or whatever company you want to think of when I say "small company that focuses on making great games one at a time instead of en masse."
 
heh

now we're going to get Arena Footbal games from Sega
 
Ludic said:
Well, I guess I'll throw my .02 on the EA part.

EA is not a monopoly. They just have exclusive rights because they're huge. Kinda like CBS has exclusive rights on televising AFC games, and Fox has exclusive rights on televising NFC games.

What will inevitably happen, is that the competitors (Sega, whoever), will end up releasing a football game, that will use the players names, but fictional teams. Remember the football games in the past like Joe Montana's Football?

While it'll be disappointing that Madden will be the only "official" NFL game in town, it won't keep the competitors from making a football game that's better, just not officially licensed.

EA has become too big for their own good. There are a lot of EA games that I like, however, there are also a LOT of things I can think of to make them better. And releasing 15 titles about the Lord of the Rings to capitalize on a license isn't one of them. And since a large corporation like EA will never stop thinking about ways to maximize profits, it's up to someone else to start the "next" EA. Or Activision, or whatever company you want to think of when I say "small company that focuses on making great games one at a time instead of en masse."
Click to expand...


The NFL actually wanted this deal not EA, it guarentees them funds without a bidding war, and it also grants access for more use of NFL films.
 
Qwertyman said:
The NFL actually wanted this deal not EA, it guarentees them funds without a bidding war, and it also grants access for more use of NFL films.
Click to expand...

Regardless of who wanted it, it benefits both parties. The NFL gets a proven game to represent their sport which they make licensing fees off of, and EA gets to say that you're spending your extra $30 over the ESPN title because they have "real NFL teams/players/stadiums", or whatever they are and aren't allowed to put.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top