[Interesting] Start-up melody FDS vs. Menu melody NGC

[Starfighter]

what. no dreamcast?

Like SignOfZeta mentioned, Dreamcast came before them. I consider that console to be out of sync with the rest of the generations, making it even more awesome. I would actually take Dreamcast over Xbox because of the shoot 'em ups.

Sidenote: I liked PS2 better "back in the day" so I've got like 60 games for PS2 that I'd rather have on Xbox because of the graphics, that kind of sucks.

Anyway, the Gamecube. Yeah. I really like it. The more I think about it, the more I want to put it as my wallpaper, get a tattoo with it and what not. But first I have to get the PC Engine-one!

[DragonmasterDan]

what. no dreamcast?

Like SignOfZeta mentioned, Dreamcast came before them. I consider that console to be out of sync with the rest of the generations, making it even more awesome. I would actually take Dreamcast over Xbox because of the shoot 'em ups.

Sidenote: I liked PS2 better "back in the day" so I've got like 60 games for PS2 that I'd rather have on Xbox because of the graphics, that kind of sucks.

Anyway, the Gamecube. Yeah. I really like it. The more I think about it, the more I want to put it as my wallpaper, get a tattoo with it and what not. But first I have to get the PC Engine-one!

The Dreamcast is an inbetweener. I see it and the Nuon as being the two middle systems. The next generation started with the PS2 in my book.

[nat]

Couldn't disagree more... The Dreamcast was clearly the first of the "128-bit" generation. "On paper" technical specifications aside, the game library is comparable graphically to the PS2. The Dreamcast library itself is 100% more awesome, though, because of the greater focus on [2D] shooters (opinion, of course).

The last official (SEGA-licensed) Dreamcast game was released in 2007. The last official (Nintendo-approved) GameCube game was released in 2007. I generally determine "lifespan" of consoles based on when the first and last official games are released:

Dreamcast (Nov 1998-2007)
Playstation 2 (Mar 2000-2009)
GameCube (Sep 2001-2007)
XBOX (Nov 2001-2008)

Compare to:

Playstation (Oct 1994-2004?)
Nintendo 64 (Jun 1996-2002)

The DC is clearly a part of that "128-bit" era, whatever you want to call it. IMO the only "inbetweener" was the Nintendo 64, that overlapped the end of the "32-bit" generation with the beginning of the following.

The Dreamcast was an interesting situation in that the console itself had a relatively short production run in the grand scheme of things (due to SEGA's financial troubles) despite the fact that games continued to be produced on a regular basis after hardware production ceased.

[DragonmasterDan]

Couldn't disagree more... The Dreamcast was clearly the first of the "128-bit" generation. "On paper" technical specifications aside, the game library is comparable graphically to the PS2. The Dreamcast library itself is 100% more awesome, though, because of the greater focus on [2D] shooters (opinion, of course).

The last official (SEGA-licensed) Dreamcast game was released in 2007. The last official (Nintendo-approved) GameCube game was released in 2007. I generally determine "lifespan" of consoles based on when the first and last official games are released:

Dreamcast (Nov 1998-2007)
Playstation 2 (Mar 2000-2009)
GameCube (Sep 2001-2007)
XBOX (Nov 2001-2008)

Compare to:

Playstation (Oct 1994-2004?)
Nintendo 64 (Jun 1996-2002)

The DC is clearly a part of that "128-bit" era, whatever you want to call it. IMO the only "inbetweener" was the Nintendo 64, that overlapped the end of the "32-bit" generation with the beginning of the following.

The Dreamcast was an interesting situation in that the console itself had a relatively short production run in the grand scheme of things (due to SEGA's financial troubles) despite the fact that games continued to be produced on a regular basis after hardware production ceased.

I don't use when the first and last licensed games on a console released as the lifespan, primarily because as shown with the Dreamcast, Atari 2600 or the Neo-Geo games come out long after the systems mainstream viability is gone.

Also, you're looking at Japan and not the North American market. I think the last NA releases for Dreamcast were in 2002. Based on that I see the Dreamcast as an inbetweener.


Added in edit: As a good example with the PC engine, Dead of the Brain came out in 1999, I don't consider that the end of the PC Engine's lifespan. It happened much earlier and the game being released in 1999 was an anomaly. Fire Emblem Thracia 776 came out in 1999 as well, despite that I think the Super Famicom was dead maybe 2 years earlier.

The reason that licensed releases came out for the Dreamcast long after hardware production ceased is the same as for the Neo-Geo, due to a nearly identical arcade board (yes, Naomi hardware could have more RAM and such than the Dreamcast, but it was the same platform and not identical like the Neo-Geo), it was very easy to port over arcade releases with little extra work to be done to generate a little extra revenue. 

[Necromancer]

The Dreamcast is firmly in the '128 bit' generation.  It's capabilities are far beyond those of the PlayStation and Saturn, and while the PS2 is a bit more powerful, the Dreamcast isn't that far behind (closer than the PS2 is to the xbox).

[DragonmasterDan]

The Dreamcast is firmly in the '128 bit' generation.  It's capabilities are far beyond those of the PlayStation and Saturn, and while the PS2 is a bit more powerful, the Dreamcast isn't that far behind (closer than the PS2 is to the xbox).

I look at this not on technically capability but on what it was in competition with. A good example is Colecovision, it was on the market in 82 and is technically just a step behind the NES and 7800. But it was off the market during their era and competed mostly against the Atari 5200. I see the Colecovision, Atari 5200 and Dreamcast as being inbetweeners in the sense that they were part of a subgeneration that had no contenders that caught on. Another example of that is the Jaguar, 3DO, Amiga CD32 sub-generation. Which despite global releases being only a little over a year off of PLaystation and Saturn, I see as a separate generation. 

[SignOfZeta]

The DC only really had about 3 years of real support from Sega. Sega announced they were killing it in January 2001, but to me the real "end" was the release of Sakura Wars 4, which was the last high profile 1st party game for the machine (3/21/2002). Sega was huge with 1st party releases, and but the time ST4 was out they had slowed to a trickle since all DC projects were being converted to PS2 and Xbox. Sure, shooters and chick sims just kept coming (some of them very good) but they didn't really constitute a supported system.

In that time period the only real comp it had was the PS1, so I'll always consider it something that went against the PS1. In reality what really killed it was debt from the Saturn days, and the PS2...which hadn't even been released yet. Customers are so stupid.

Despite the unnaturally short lifespan the DC really kicked ass during that period. If you look at the first two years of the PS2...what have you got? Almost nothing. A bunch of terribly awkward games that due little more than prove people can execute code on the thing. All consoles have that rough period, but on the DC it seemed to last about a week. As soon as Seventh Cross and Godzilla were done, then came ultra top tier stuff like Soul Calibur, MvC2, and VOOT.

[DragonmasterDan]

Despite the unnaturally short lifespan the DC really kicked ass during that period. If you look at the first two years of the PS2...what have you got? Almost nothing. A bunch of terribly awkward games that due little more than prove people can execute code on the thing. All consoles have that rough period, but on the DC it seemed to last about a week. As soon as Seventh Cross and Godzilla were done, then came ultra top tier stuff like Soul Calibur, MvC2, and VOOT.

Year one of PS2 was lousy. But year two had big games like Metal Gear Solid 2, GTA III,ICO, Final Fantasy X. Not all of these are my cup of tea mind you. But there were some huge releases in year two.

Added in edit: Oh also, I figured I'd comment on a few other things.

The DC only really had about 3 years of real support from Sega. Sega announced they were killing it in January 2001, but to me the real "end" was the release of Sakura Wars 4, which was the last high profile 1st party game for the machine (3/21/2002). Sega was huge with 1st party releases, and but the time ST4 was out they had slowed to a trickle since all DC projects were being converted to PS2 and Xbox. Sure, shooters and chick sims just kept coming (some of them very good) but they didn't really constitute a supported system.

I agree, and if you go from late November 1998 (the date of the Japanese release) to January 2001 (when they announced they were leaving the hardware business) it's about 2 years and three months. This is why the Dreamcast becomes a tweener. In the US market, it was even less, from 9,9,99 to January 2001, not even a year and a half.

So yeah, I agree.

In that time period the only real comp it had was the PS1, so I'll always consider it something that went against the PS1. In reality what really killed it was debt from the Saturn days, and the PS2...which hadn't even been released yet. Customers are so stupid.

Well, not debt but also damaged reputation. After the Sega CD died with poor support, the 32X was brought in as a stop gap, and the life of the Saturn (at least in the US) was ended early by the Bernie Stolar regime. Sega had a poor reputation and a distinct lack of trust with consumers and had also managed to aggravate a few publishers to a point of not publishing for the Dreamcast (two notable examples were the behemoth Electronic Arts, and the outspoken but tiny Working Designs). These were also huge factors in the Dreamcast's failure.

Also, Debt from the Saturn days? The Saturn was profitable until Sega announced they were releasing next generation hardware. Again, that's their own fault, your sales are going to tumble when you announce new hardware. I can't imagine Nintendo is projecting record DS sales this holiday season having already announced the 3DS for example.

[SignOfZeta]

"Damaged reputation" doesn't make a company go broke, debt does. Microsoft, Exxon, and many other companies have much much worse reps and are doing f*cking great.

The majority of gamers misunderstand this part of Sega history. They do remember getting burned on the 32X though. Its like the f*cking potato famine of gaming...

Sega's rep was decent enough to sell an absolute shitload of DCs at first. The DC itself, was a success. On its own, it would have been fine. In reality though it didn't exist in a vacuum, and the costs from the past were too much for the DC to overcome. The DC was killed not because it didn't move units, but because Sega needed to go 3rd party in order to make more money, and Sony, Nintendo, and MS didn't want to compete with their own console. This is what makes the "death of a platform" different now that it was in the past. The DC didn't just peter out and die, it was killed, actively, as part of a larger business strategy. The same was true of the Neo Geo Pocket and HDDVD. In the 80s formats would languish for years until it was certain the market didn't need them. Nowadays it actually doesn't matter how popular it is. A shady back room deal can kill it very quickly. HDDVD was fine one minute, selling more or less the same as BR, and then in a period of about two weeks it was f*ckING DEAD. There's never been anything (legal) like it.

So, basically, Sega sacrificed the DC to make shitty Sonic games on the Cube. The DC is the Jesus of gaming.

[DragonmasterDan]

"Damaged reputation" doesn't make a company go broke, debt does. Microsoft, Exxon, and many other companies have much much worse reps and are doing f*cking great.

Yeah, but the other part of the problem was that the debt wasn't accumulated because of the Saturn, it started because Sega told everyone "The Saturn isn't our future" while being 18 months away from their "next gen" product and almost 2 and half years away in the US.

The majority of gamers misunderstand this part of Sega history. They do remember getting burned on the 32X though. Its like the f*cking potato famine of gaming...

Sega's rep was decent enough to sell an absolute shitload of DCs at first. The DC itself, was a success. On its own, it would have been fine. In reality though it didn't exist in a vacuum, and the costs from the past were too much for the DC to overcome. The DC was killed not because it didn't move units, but because Sega needed to go 3rd party in order to make more money, and Sony, Nintendo, and MS didn't want to compete with their own console. This is what makes the "death of a platform" different now that it was in the past. The DC didn't just peter out and die, it was killed, actively, as part of a larger business strategy. The same was true of the Neo Geo Pocket and HDDVD. In the 80s formats would languish for years until it was certain the market didn't need them. Nowadays it actually doesn't matter how popular it is. A shady back room deal can kill it very quickly. HDDVD was fine one minute, selling more or less the same as BR, and then in a period of about two weeks it was f*ckING DEAD. There's never been anything (legal) like it.

So, basically, Sega sacrificed the DC to make shitty Sonic games on the Cube. The DC is the Jesus of gaming.

It was decent enough to sell quite a bit at the US launch, the US launch pulled in around 200,000 systems, the rest of the holiday season was slow. One of the biggest problems was that they overproduced the hardware and wound up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 million systems sold at the end of 2000, and 4 million sitting in warehouses unsold. It was a success in the US initially, but died off quickly. Sega took huge loses on all that unsold hardware sitting, had major issues with piracy on the platform frightening developers and had to clearance out their massive overstock in early 2001, that was the death of the Dreamcast. And obviously it did make financial sense for Sega to go third party. But their fate was sealed long before.

[SignOfZeta]

There is a reason I said "debt from the Saturn days" and not "the Saturn". SOA pulling in basically zero revenue for a year and a half was a stupid idea (thanks Bernie).

I also don't really think that piracy had much to do with anything. Piracy is absolutely out of control these days and the games industry still turns in billions. I don't know a single person with a DS that doesn't have a flash cart (or a half dozen of them) and yet the DS is the most profitable platform by far.

When Sega says, "its done". That's when you lose your developers, and your customers, and they did this in just a couple of years. Even the 3DO had a better/longer chance than that.

[nectarsis]

hehehe

[ceti alpha]

"Damaged reputation" doesn't make a company go broke, debt does. Microsoft, Exxon, and many other companies have much much worse reps and are doing f*cking great.

A damaged reputation is not always the death nail of a company, but it can be especially if there are other factors involved. Certainly Exxon is an example of what you're saying, though I'm not sure how you can put Microsoft up there with Exxon. I'm not even sure that Microsoft has a bad reputation. Sure, some people might have bought into that "I'm a Mac" schlock, but you could say that marketing campaign has pretty much become ubiquitous and a sign of all things pretentious. In fact, Harris polls show that Microsoft's reputation is actually ranked pretty high in relation to other companies, including Apple. I'm not in any way trying to say that Microsoft's reputation is spotless and that it didn't take hits with Vista, but comparing Windows Vista to the Exxon Valdez oil spill might be overstating things a bit.

[DragonmasterDan]

hehehe

Yep, 1997 was the "The Saturn is not our future" year.

"Damaged reputation" doesn't make a company go broke, debt does. Microsoft, Exxon, and many other companies have much much worse reps and are doing f*cking great.

A damaged reputation is not always the death nail of a company, but it can be especially if there are other factors involved. Certainly Exxon is an example of what you're saying, though I'm not sure how you can put Microsoft up there with Exxon. I'm not even sure that Microsoft has a bad reputation. Sure, some people might have bought into that "I'm a Mac" schlock, but you could say that marketing campaign has pretty much become ubiquitous and a sign of all things pretentious. In fact, Harris polls show that Microsoft's reputation is actually ranked pretty high in relation to other companies, including Apple. I'm not in any way trying to say that Microsoft's reputation is spotless and that it didn't take hits with Vista, but comparing Windows Vista to the Exxon Valdez oil spill might be overstating things a bit.

Well stated, in the case of Sega their reputation was seriously damaged to the general game buying public who time and time again saw Sega made platforms crash and burn and get abandoned too early in their lifecycle.

[SignOfZeta]

The biggest loss in that chart seems to be between 1997 and 1998, which was the span during which SOA wasn't releasing anything so it pretty much  proves my point. While losses continued all during the DC years, its impossible to say from a simple chart what was due to interest on debt or other factors.

The huge climb between 2001 and 2003 was after the DC was canned, but it was also after most of their big name staff quit, and they closed a shitload of arcades so, once again, hard to say from a simple chart how much of the increase in profits was from moving all their software to third parties.

It would also be interesting to know how much of a factor (huge, I'm sure) Isao Okawa's basically floating Sega for years and years had on things before he died. He basically gave his stock back in 2001 (worth almost $700 million).