those examples don't work well at all. Dreamcast and saturn are total opposites. Dreamcast was very easy and cheap to program for, saturn was difficult and pretty expensive for the time. Why they didn't get support was for many other reasons as well.

The Dreamcast was a breeze to develop for, one of several reasons why it had such an unusually large proportion of really great games as a percentage of its total library.

The problem is you're comparing the PS3 to consoles with far superior libraries. The Dreamcast and Saturn, while not the successes that Sega would've liked, both have stacks of good games (the Saturn's import selection is especially brilliant) and leave the PS3 in the dust. Furthermore, they are very different from EACH OTHER let alone Sony's machine.

There isn't really a machine coming to mind that I could liken the PS3 to. It's a reliably designed console from a manufacturer fresh off two consecutive generations of utter dominance both software and market-wise, but has a pretty average selection of games and from a developer's perspective, isn't as friendly to work with as its rivals. We could produce an essay's worth of comparison points but imo you can't call a console the "insert name here" of a generation if it can't hold a candle to that console's software selection.

Dreamcast was not a pain to develop for, Sega saturn was

Ps3 and Saturn are similar in that sense

But leave the almighty Dreamcast out of this, EA turned their backs on Sega (no doubt with a little bit of persuasion on sonys part, keeeeeerching$$$$$)

Also Sega have released more 1st party games for Master system/Game gear/Megadrive/Saturn/ Dreamcast than sony have ever released on their 4 consoles (psp/ps1/ps2/ps3)

Sega 1st party>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sony 1st & 2nd party

They cant be compared cause the dreamcast and saturn were cool consoles!!

I don't think the PS3 is comparable to the Dreamcast because a lot of developers release their games simultaneously for both the X360 and the PS3... Also, a lot of people have been talking doom about the system since the X360 started to perform a little better lately. I think these claims are totally unfounded because PS3 is actually not doing bad! It already has an installed base of 16.5 or something million, which is considerably larger then the Dreamcast's userbase back in the day! To add to that; Multiplatform games don't perform bad on the PS3 in comparison with their X360 counterparts... Especially when looking at the tie ratios and the scale of the userbase. PS3 is doing fine! It's just performing a little under par with what people expected I guess... But that's because Microsoft played it smart for this holiday season with price-cut after price-cut! If the price-cut didn't improve X360 sales, that would be a story!!! Now, it's just common sence blown out of proportion! As happens all the time, but it still is something you would expect with a pricecut that brings the system down to mass market approval!

No, no no. PS3 = N64 of this generation.

heh there is the key EA being moneyhatted  by sony..... maybe microsoft is still pissed that the first console they worked on the dreamcast was sunbbed over moneyhatting and are using this gen to get back as sony.....     man i remember how cool my friend kameron was with online play for sports games, and having crazy taxi ... i cant even remember all the games he had

Yup, sony were the ORIGIONAL moneyhatters

Microsoft WILL avenge Segas demise at the hands of sony.

How dare you compare ps3 to Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was perfect machine, i love you. Sega Saturn... pff, considering it was gonna be a 2d only console...