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

[toptenmaterial]

I always laugh at the comments about the Dreamcast needing DVD to succeed. This assertion ignores the fact that every DVD player sold sent royalties directly back to Sony.

 

I don't think the people who waited for PS2 - and then bought one and watched DVDs on it - gave a shit about royalties, or who paid whom. They just wanted a DVD player, wanted a console, and thought they were getting 2-for-1 value since DVD players were expensive. Laugh now, since DVD players are $30, but they were $200 or more in the year 2000.

 

I am still in the mindset that Sega might have lasted at least another holiday season or two if they had gotten a DVD player add-on out to the market. It's been stated that last holiday season for Sega was integral, and despite a nice price drop and an excellent, hefty library of titles, systems still sat on the shelf while people simply waited for the PS2, enjoying their Nintendo 64s and PlayStations in the meantime. I have no doubt that DVD functionality was a part of that decision on a lot of gamers' parts, as it was pretty big deal on the PS2. It was the first platform to take a major video format like that and include the playback capability in the system without requiring attachments (sorry, Video CD and Laser Disc bombed). Like the above post states, people were getting a 2-for-1 and DVD players were expensive back then.

I am wondering if Sega had the cash to include a DVD player and potentially take a loss on the hardware (sorry if I'm beating this to death).

 

DVD was a huge deal then, especially for an affordable unit, you guys are right about that. The PS3's blu ray player has been sighted (can't remember where) as being the nail in the coffin for HD DVD (Super DVD or whatever it was called).

[zylon]

Dvd and Backwards compatibility aside, DC didn't fail in US market. It didn't dominate it either. Sega Of America was doing quite well, Sega of Japan was sinking. Partly because of DC failing over there, and from loss of other revenue they got used to having.

[sheath]

HD-DVD was shut down for one reason, Sony's monopolistic business practices. Paying off and buying movie studios for exclusive Bluray releases was the only thing that made the battle seem even in the first place. Paying off Warner was what ended the "war". That's all off topic though.

 

Game consoles only became multimedia machines when non-gaming megacorps got involved in the industry. Even Sega's multimedia efforts were still games, maligned as they have become.

[Amstari]

There was a lot factors that caused Sega to leave the hardware market but I believe it was Peter Moore (former president of Sega of America) that killed the Dreamcast.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Moore_%28business%29

 

This has also been discuss in this topic: Dreamcast - What are they worth these days so I wont repeat myself but the Dreamcast may have lasted a few more years if he hadn't made a big announcement that it was being discontinued. They could have sold existing stock and continued to support existing DC owners while still transitioning to a multi-platform developer.

 

I still play the DC a lot. There is still games being made for it and exciting developments like the SD card adapter.

[goldenegg]

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

 

The Gamecube was far from a successful system. Nintendo had numerous price cuts on the system and was still unable to move units. Nintendo's still around because they have a ton of money in the bank, which is something Sega didn't have. Nintendo owes their longevity largely to their hugely successful handheld systems.

 

Sega shot themselves in the foot with how they handled the 32X and the US Saturn launch and could never fully recover. On top of that, the lack of DVD support definitely drove a large number of gamers to other consoles. To make things even worse, the simplicity of pirating Dreamcast games didn't help already poor software sales.

 

It really was a shame to see Sega step out of the hardware market, as I had been a Sega fan from the start. At least their final console was a great one, so as far as I'm concerned they went out on a high note.

[Rex Dart]

It really was a shame to see Sega step out of the hardware market, as I had been a Sega fan from the start. At least their final console was a great one, so as far as I'm concerned they went out on a high note.

 

Amen.

[dendawg]

The Gamecube was far from a successful system. Nintendo had numerous price cuts on the system and was still unable to move units. Nintendo's still around because they have a ton of money in the bank, which is something Sega didn't have. Nintendo owes their longevity largely to their hugely successful handheld systems.

 

While it's true the Gamecube didn't sell anywhere near as successfully as the PS2 or Xbox, Nintendo was able to do something Microsoft or Sega couldn't: make a profit from their hardware sales. THAT'S the reason they're still around.

[flynnz]

Not so sure the DVD player is what made or broke the PS2. I would wager, had the ps2 not had dvd playback, it still would have been the dominant console of the time. PS1 did a fantastic job of entering Sony into the market and people were excited to see what the next system would be like. That to me is what brought all the hype and excitement, not that it could play movies. Did dvd playback help sales? I'm sure it did on some level, but I don't think it would have mattered all that much had the system not been able to play movies. (and let's not forget it was a horrible dvd player to boot. Remember how many movies wouldn't work on it?).

 

It was the excitement in the brand Playstation that did in the DC. and to me dvd playback was a simply a side note to all that mounting hype and excitement of that brand....not the driving force behind it.

 

I know it might be hard to remember now, but at one point the Playstation brand was the "only game in town" for games. Even early on in the PS life, it dominated the Nintendo N64 (which was Nintendo's first console to fall way behind the competition), so what chance did the Dreamcast really have against the next big thing from Sony?

Edited August 1, 2011 by flynnz

[sheath]

Quite to the contrary, it seems obvious to me that the PS2's pre-launch popularity helped seal DVD's legitimacy earlier than would have happened normally. The inclusion of Bluray in the PS3 was almost certainly in the hopes of achieving the same result.

 

Few systems in video game history achieved the level of dominance that the PS1 and PS2 did.

[flynnz]

Quite to the contrary, it seems obvious to me that the PS2's pre-launch popularity helped seal DVD's legitimacy earlier than would have happened normally. The inclusion of Bluray in the PS3 was almost certainly in the hopes of achieving the same result.

 

Few systems in video game history achieved the level of dominance that the PS1 and PS2 did.

 

Oh I agree the ps2 helped dvd saturation (though more so in Japan). But I would say based on game sales alone, its main driving factor was its gaming brand. I don't think the ps2 having dvd playback had anything to do with the DC's demise, nor do I think dvd playback would have saved the DC....I think the playstation as a gaming brand was more than enough to kill the Dreamcast, sadly

Edited August 2, 2011 by flynnz

[ATARI7800fan]

Though for the first year the most sold thing and used for the PS2 was the matrix movie, at least in Japan.

[+wood_jl]

I don't get the attempts to break down the PS2's success into components of (1) Playstation1 momentum and (2)DVD capability. It's silly. If they'd have sold two models - one with/own without DVD playback, then this would be a point to be argued. Since they didn't and people bought for either/both reasons, why not let it rest, at that? I'm not dismissing either PS1 Momentum or DVD capability, but THEY WERE BOTH HUGE. Sony Hype could be #3, although (as has been pointed out previously in the thread) the system had enough merit to succeed without the hype, but it was hyped anyway.

 

There's just no way to convey to people how big of a deal it was to get a 2-in-1 device when DVD players were expensive. The PS3 did NOT get the same boost (that Sony was hoping for) by including Bluray playback. If one observes the relative dearth of PS3 popularity **RELATIVE TO PS2 POPULARITY**, one notes that both (PS2 and PS3) had momentum coming out of the gate, from their predecessors, yet PS3 hasn't been as popular as PS2, and at the same time, Bluray hasn't gained steam nearly as fast as DVD.

 

So having a movie disc player doesn't always work, but it worked better when it was the standard everyone was clamoring for (DVD) to get away from VHS tapes. The DVD player must have factored in the PS2's popularity, because DVD demand was exploding at that time, in a way that Bluray hasn't. I don't understand trying to dismiss this part. Too young to remember the high price (and earn the money for it) of DVD players in 2000?

Edited August 2, 2011 by wood_jl

[flynnz]

I don't get the attempts to break down the PS2's success into components of (1) Playstation1 momentum and (2)DVD capability. It's silly. If they'd have sold two models - one with/own without DVD playback, then this would be a point to be argued. Since they didn't and people bought for either/both reasons, why not let it rest, at that?

 

 

Well I can't speak for others, but for me it's just an interesting discussion. Because if for example you believe that the dvd playback was a huge reason for the success of the PS2, would the Dreamcast have been as successful doing the same thing? etc. It's really just a way to discuss if there was anything that Sega could have done differently to combat Sony in the marketplace. My thoughts are, probably not.

Edited August 2, 2011 by flynnz