By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 25 March 2009
Edit Thread
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:
disolitude said:

PS3 is nothing like the dreamcast. When dreamcast came out...things it offered couldn't be experience anywhere else. The amazing visuals, online, plethora of AAA games, ease to develop for...which lead to homebrew and emulation

As a gamer I don't see much diffrence between what ps3 and 360 offer and ps3 was late to the party and is more expensive. Those 2 basically copied each others busines model (with ps3 doing most of the copying) while DC was an innovator ona ll levels and well ahead of the curve.

Also, if sega had 1/4 of the funds sony sunk in to the ps3, Dc would have spanked all consoles last gen. Sega was losing 300 mil a year in 2000 and 2001 and they almost went out of business. Sony was losing over 4 times as much a year or 2 ago and that is with the PS3 + 2 other profitable platforms.

Good joke!  DC with a plethora of AAA games and ease to develop for...lol!  PS3 doing most of the copying? LMAO!  The Cell, Blu-ray, HDMI 1.3, a unified rendering system known as the RSX+Cell combo (like one giant GPGPU solution), LS (local store), etc. not innovative? You are killing me!  Where have you seen those things before?  Plus, the PS3 is the visual king in several genres across all platforms.

I'm wondering if you knew that around $70M was spent on Shenmue back then!  That sounds like a damn good budget to me (they just blew it on one game).

Also, the amount of money changes due to inflation. $70M back then is a lot more, now.  If you think Sony has lost money on the PS3, it's about half the amount MS lost up to now (including their newly found profits).

I love when people think they know something...but it turns out they dont.

Dreamcast being easy to develop for and having a huge amount of great games in a short amount of time is a known fact at this point. Dreamcast was on the market for less than 2 years and even on metacritic it still has more AAA games than PS3 which has been out for longer... despite Metacritic ommiting some Key dreacmast games, like Resident Evil Code veronica, Sonic adventur...

Look up any article talking about Dreamcasts success of failure for proof...such as this one... http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=2891

All the stuff you describe (bluray, HDMI 1.3, cell RSX) is completely irrelevant if the games are exactly the same on both platforms. Other than a few exclusives for both console, ps3 and 360 have offered pretty much the exact same gaming experience... Bluray hasn't been able to prove viable in gaming except for manditory instals, RSX has shown to be worse than the ATI conterpart int he 360 and the Cell has demostrated to be needlesly complicated. Dreamcast didn't need any of that stuff to make great games...hence why Sony's business model had to be changed afterthis gen started as it was out of date. Times have changed and hardware hype doesn't drive sales anymore.