submitted 7 months ago by Tekkip20@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It is undeniable that the dreamcast was a solid machine that had good games and a sleek look, but was ultimately overshadowed by the goliath that is the PS2.

What do you guys think, how could the Dreamcast kept surviving? Should SEGA thought reeling back the Saturn?

It certainly was praised, but didn't get the chance it needed, personally I considered it to be a part of the prior gen (N64, PS1)

Let me know your thoughts!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

People tend to lump in the Sega CD with the failed systems, but it was actually the most successful console add on ever, supporting over 200 games.

This was part of the problem with the 32X. Sega USA ran with the CD and turned it into a success when Sega Japan didn't want it. When Japan was prepping for Saturn, US demanded the 32X and when Japan said "no", US said "yeah, well, look at Sega CD, what do you know?" Sega USA arrogance willed the 32X into existance and, well, you know the rest.

Guitar Hero sold more, but how many games USE the guitar? 4? 5?

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

The CD and 32X were effectively just life support to keep the Genesis alive while Nintendo put out a whole new generation of console. Sega could've leapfrogged Nintendo's SNES if their follow-up to the 16-bit cartridge based Genesis and competitor to the 16-bit cartridge based SNES had been the 32-bit disc based Saturn, but in 1993 instead of 1994-95. "Nintendo just caught up to what we're leaving behind." Video game history would be incredibly different. Nintendo would've maybe lost a significant amount of market share to Sega. Sony might've stayed out of it or at least would've had real disc competition. Sega might've stayed in the hardware game, which maybe would've kept Microsoft from entering since there's no vacuum to fill. This might've affected PC gaming too since devs could basically double dip their work to put out very similar games on both PC and Xbox.

Sega CD was successful in that it kept Sega players from jumping over to buying a SNES. Idk how that worked though because an entire SNES was cheaper than the Sega CD add-on. They could only sell games to people who had already bought a Genesis AND shelled out a SNES and a half worth to keep it relevant. If you didn't own a Genesis or a SNES and you're at Circuit City or whatever looking at them, it's kinda hard to not choose the SNES. Genesis was $150 while the SNES was $200, sure, but the SNES was new and polished while the Genesis was already 2 years old AND they felt the need to release a $300 add-on to keep up with the SNES. So if you're trying to get your money's worth, you could either spend $300 on a SNES and a couple of games, or you could spend about the same for an older console and maybe one or two extra games, or you could dump $450 (equivalent to $1,019 in 2024) and still not have any games. So how in the fuck did the Sega CD succeed? Sega was just really good at marketing, I guess.