Would the Dreamcast have failed if it had been made by another company.

[ATARI7800fan]

After looking at the history of the Dreamcast and seeing how well it did the first 2 years do you think it would have done better if it had been launched by another company or if the Heads of Japan had been different people. Did it fail from lack of mainstream game's or the fact the SEGA name was attached to it. Was it doomed from the beginning.

[+wood_jl]

I love it. But during those years, the nation (world?) was DVD-crazy. The fact that the PS2 was a DVD player too was HUGE to people, as a DVD player was somewhat rare and expensive (hard to imagine now, I know) in those days, and the "perceived value" (by virtue of it doubling as a DVD player) of the PS2 (and the name/PS1 market leadership) was too much to overcome.

 

I think if the Dreamcast would have played DVDs, it would have lasted longer. Personally, I don't care, and it wouldn't have made the games any better, but it would have increased the installed base of users, and would have detracted from PS2 sales a lot. The games were excellent on Dreamcast, so that wasn't the problem.

Edited July 24, 2011 by wood_jl

[tz101]

I really don't know why Dreamcast failed. Gamecube didn't play DVD discs either but Nintendo didn't quit the business altogether.

 

To the OP: It would have taken a company with deeper pockets than Sega to make it work. Some retailers simply were not about to clear shelf space for four game systems and with the advent of Xbox that meant that someone was the odd man out. EA supported the other consoles of the time, but not DC, which did not help matters either.

 

Once SOA and SOJ parted ways in marketing philosophy, it was only a matter of time for Sega anyway.

[zylon]

Dc failed in Japan's market but succeeded in the US. This was mostly due to fallout from canceling the Saturn which was loved in Japan.

[ATARI7800fan]

I really don't know why Dreamcast failed. Gamecube didn't play DVD discs either but Nintendo didn't quit the business altogether.

 

To the OP: It would have taken a company with deeper pockets than Sega to make it work. Some retailers simply were not about to clear shelf space for four game systems and with the advent of Xbox that meant that someone was the odd man out. EA supported the other consoles of the time, but not DC, which did not help matters either.

 

Once SOA and SOJ parted ways in marketing philosophy, it was only a matter of time for Sega anyway.

out of those why would developers support the Xbox, Microsoft had no experience in the console market and had no set user base.

[GKC]

It's hard to pinpoint any one reason why the Dreamcast failed. I'm sure, like everything else, there were numerous factors. I know I bought one launch day and enjoyed it (still do). A lot may have had to do with the coming of the PS2, Gamecube and xbox but I also think gamers changed. The arcade titles that Sega consoles were known for were being replaced with FPS and Madden like games. I love the pick up and play titles that Sega had historically offered but I'm not sure if those titles were able to move consoles to the general public by the time the Dreamcast launched. Sony saw this fact (that gamers were changing) even with the launch of the first Playstation. I could be completely wrong (and usually am) but that's my two cents.

 

To answer your question, if a company like Microsoft had launched the Dreamcast they could have had the resources, which Sega didn't, to stay with the Dreamcast. Maybe...

Edited July 24, 2011 by GKC

[HatefulGravey]

I always thought a large part of the problem was how easy it was to pirate the games. It was just way to easy and people took advantage of that. Its hard to make money when the only part of the system selling is the hardware. I know I had a few friends that owned it that didn't have a single DC game on a commercial disc.

[StoneAgeGamer]

The Dreamcast was almost a perfect storm of fail. Sega's past mistakes (32X and Saturn), easy to pirate, PS2 hype, PS2 DVD player, Sega's bleeding pockets, and in fighting within the company.

 

The sad thing is that there was really nothing wrong with the Dreamcast itself. It did almost everything right IMO. The only issue was 3rd party support especially from EA. However the 2K series held its own and in some cases surpassed the EA sports series. It will definitely go down as the most popular failed console of all time and is still probably one of the most beloved consoles.

 

I think it may have lasted a little longer if it were made by another company, but the PS2 hype train and built-in DVD player were just too much for it to handle.

[PsychoKittyNet]

The failure of the DC caught me by surprise iirc, everyone I knew wanted or had one and was very popular, and them it was gone. Kind of sad, growing up when Ninendo and Sega were top dogs it was kind of surreal to not see a Sega console on the market, more so to see Sonic on a Nintendo system.

[toptenmaterial]

I agree with TZ. Remember, the original XBox never turned a profit- they just had the cash to wait it out until the next gen. The Dreamcast sold well; about 10 million units. They just couldn't recoup costs quick enough and had to drop out.

[Seob]

I really don't know why Dreamcast failed. Gamecube didn't play DVD discs either but Nintendo didn't quit the business altogether.

 

To the OP: It would have taken a company with deeper pockets than Sega to make it work. Some retailers simply were not about to clear shelf space for four game systems and with the advent of Xbox that meant that someone was the odd man out. EA supported the other consoles of the time, but not DC, which did not help matters either.

 

Once SOA and SOJ parted ways in marketing philosophy, it was only a matter of time for Sega anyway.

out of those why would developers support the Xbox, Microsoft had no experience in the console market and had no set user base.

Name and money, easy to develop because of the hardware similarity between xbox and pc.

[Rex Dart]

Well I guess if Sony had made it, it would've done great. Right?

[+wood_jl]

Remember, the original XBox never turned a profit- they just had the cash to wait it out until the next gen. The Dreamcast sold well; about 10 million units. They just couldn't recoup costs quick enough and had to drop out.

 

Hah! I forgot about this (Xbox losses) completely! I remember reports that by the end of the original Xbox run, Microsoft may have lost $4 BILLION (good grief, that can't be right) on the whole thing. So, the entire nature of the game console industry had changed drastically, since Sega (and Nintendo and Atari etc) had started. Evidently, it takes BILLIONS to throw down a rathole just as the cost of entering the market. In retrospect, it appears (to the layman) that Nintendo has done such a job of staying in the game, being the sole 1980s console company still in the biz.

 

 

edit: I guess it is $4 BILLION

 

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1018173/xbox-lost-microsoft-4-billion-over-4-years

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/09/26/forbes-xbox-lost-microsoft-4-billion-and-counting/

Edited July 24, 2011 by wood_jl

[tz101]

As has been said, Microsoft had name and money. They could afford to lose money on Xbox for awhile, whereas Sega could not.

[mbd30]

I think it may have lasted a little longer if it were made by another company, but the PS2 hype train and built-in DVD player were just too much for it to handle.

 

I don't know that "hype" has as much to do with the success of the PS2 as the fact that Sony had all the popular franchises and third party support. They didn't need hype. If you wanted the new "Gran Turismo", "Final Fantasy", "Metal Gear Solid", etc. you had to get a PS2. Sega was in no position to compete.

[StoneAgeGamer]

I think it may have lasted a little longer if it were made by another company, but the PS2 hype train and built-in DVD player were just too much for it to handle.

 

I don't know that "hype" has as much to do with the success of the PS2 as the fact that Sony had all the popular franchises and third party support. They didn't need hype. If you wanted the new "Gran Turismo", "Final Fantasy", "Metal Gear Solid", etc. you had to get a PS2. Sega was in no position to compete.

 

Maybe they didn't need hype, but there was hype. Some of the graphical claims of the PS2 before it came out were outlandish. However I agree with you, hype was probably not needed. However once the PS2 was announced DC sales plummeted significantly even though no one had even played the PS2 yet. To me that is hype hurting the DC. maybe the PS2 eventually lived up to most of the hype (it was a great system), but no one knew for sure if it would until it actually did.

[+wood_jl]

I think it may have lasted a little longer if it were made by another company, but the PS2 hype train and built-in DVD player were just too much for it to handle.

 

I don't know that "hype" has as much to do with the success of the PS2 as the fact that Sony had all the popular franchises and third party support. They didn't need hype. If you wanted the new "Gran Turismo", "Final Fantasy", "Metal Gear Solid", etc. you had to get a PS2. Sega was in no position to compete.

 

Maybe they didn't need hype, but there was hype. Some of the graphical claims of the PS2 before it came out were outlandish. However I agree with you, hype was probably not needed. However once the PS2 was announced DC sales plummeted significantly even though no one had even played the PS2 yet. To me that is hype hurting the DC. maybe the PS2 eventually lived up to most of the hype (it was a great system), but no one knew for sure if it would until it actually did.

 

You guys are both correct. The PS2 was SUPER-OVERHYPED, even though it didn't need it, and even discounting the hype, the PS2 is WAAAAAAY up my list of favorite consoles, standing on its own merits (that is, without the hype).

 

Since Dreamcast launched first, Sony turned up the hype about the time of the launch, in order to sway people into waiting for PS2. Remember all the "Emotion Engine" bullcrap? I still think PS2 (and Dreamcast) graphics (and games) are great, but "Emotion Engine?" I haven't heard bullshit that deep since "Blast Processing" on the Genesis. I'm not taking away from the PS2 (I love it) but it was hyped. It also didn't need the hype, with the game franchises mentioned above.

[ATARI7800fan]

so its sounds like in Popularity and the level of games that it was indeed a system in the PS2's class when it come to popularity among gamers, it was just owned by a company that had tarnished there name and really did not have the money to make up for any possible money loss including pirates. So really in a way it was a PS2 level quality system that had a unfair short life cycle. It was one of the few systems that got it all right but still failed and will be heart-fully remembered by gamers. In a Way it sounds like it was a swan song for SEGA.I mean it is one of the few consoles I know that is still so warmly remembered by the gaming community. There are so many tribute videos not just by youtube but places like IGN and G4. Plus videos like this defiantly help to show how good looking of a system it was.

 

Seems sad one of the reasons a console like this would fail was because of brand loyalty. Do you think we will ever see the true power of the Dreamcast like the PS2 got to do.

Edited July 25, 2011 by ATARI7800fan

[zylon]

Brand loyalty did help kill it in 2 different ways. The other brand people bought the other brand, and many Sega people just didn't buy or refused to buy DC. I refused to buy one after the Saturn debacle and only bought a DC when they were on closeout for $50.

I'd spent 1997's income tax check on Saturn and lots of stuff and system got cancelled in less than a year. That happens, but the worst part was Sega took all the stuff back instead of letting it sell on clearance or reduced prices. They were still demanding top dollar for everything Saturn related up until early 00's.

[ATARI7800fan]

I play my Dreamcast more then I do the Xbox 360.

[atarian63]

We were sellingthese at the time and the 1st year kicked butt, but I have to be another to say the carry over from playstation 1 and DVD coming shortly,di shorten the DC life later on. It really was ground breaking at release. We had it setup on a large TC and a sub system and it just sold itself. People were trading in playstations like crazy.So sad as it was and is a great system.

I am a big SEGA fan and was never really upset at the time, though being a dealer and older I wasn't as upset about changes,I just bought the next thing from sega as well.

[sheath]

Sega's efforts with the Sega CD, 32X and Saturn are simply scapegoats. The real issue why the Dreamcast is regarded as a failure is that it was canceled so shortly after its successful launch. The reason that happened is because Sega of Japan ran out of venture capital, which happened shortly after they ran out of annual revenue from their Arcade businesses.

 

The same thing would have happened if Nintendo's portable monopoly vanished, or Sony's electronics empire disappeared, or Microsoft's OS monopoly was broken. Actually, all three of those things have just now happened. Watch the news to see if these corporations handle the changes any better.

Edited July 28, 2011 by sheath

[chrisbid]

for the dreamcast to be a success, it had to be a hail mary pass. but it ended up far short of the goal line.

 

 

the ps2 did not really take off gamewise until grand theft auto iii was released in late 2001... a year after the ps2 launched. up until that point, the ps2 lineup was pretty suspect. its main selling point was the dvd player.

 

if sega had somehow landed gta iii, things wouldve been different.

[SoulBlazer]

for the dreamcast to be a success, it had to be a hail mary pass. but it ended up far short of the goal line.

 

 

the ps2 did not really take off gamewise until grand theft auto iii was released in late 2001... a year after the ps2 launched. up until that point, the ps2 lineup was pretty suspect. its main selling point was the dvd player.

 

if sega had somehow landed gta iii, things wouldve been different.

 

To be fair, though, that's ALL systems. It always takes a year for any new system to have a 'killer game' for it, that people are going to rush out and buy the system just for that one game. On top of that, it takes about a year for a system to build up a good library of games and for the bugs to be worked out, perhaps even a price drop.

 

The Dreamcast never had that 'killer game'.

Edited July 28, 2011 by SoulBlazer

[flynnz]

Just about everyone I asked back then "are you getting a Dreamcast?"....they almost all said they are waiting to get the PS2. So not sure Sega or any other company could have done anything to combat PS2 hype back then.

Of course this is anecdotal, but I am willing to bet this trend was the largest contributing factor in the DC's demise.

Edited July 28, 2011 by flynnz