| kain_kusanagi said: "Nintendo is launching a new system after coming off of great success with its predecessor; Sega wasn't." 1. The Sega Saturn did very well in Japan and did decently elsewhere. It was not the abysmal failure many think it was. "Nintendo's finances are doing great; Sega's weren't." 2. That's has nothing to do with the consumer. People don't buy a console becuase of the strangth of it's companies finances. "Nintendo's first party franchises are leagues more successful than Sega's." 3. Nintendo fans love Nintendo games no more than Sega fans did leading up to Dreamcast. Die hard fans aren't the problem, it's getting everyone else to jump on board that's difficult. I happen to be a Nintendo fan and I'm still a Sega fan just like I was leading up to the Dreamcast. I thought the Dreamcast was going to kill the competition, but my eyes where blinded by my fandom. I'm seeing much of the same coming from the Wii U that I failed to see in the spectacular Dreamcast. "Nintendo is specifically courting 3rd parties with blockbuster games, such as GTA. Sega was specifically missing one of the biggest 3rd party games at the time, Madden, and was in fact competing directly against it with their own pigskin offering." 4. That's true, however all those 3rd party games the Wii U will have will be available on the Xbox 360s and PS3s already sitting in peoples homes. Any slight upgrades the Wii U might offer may not be enough to sway people into buying a whole new console to play the same 3rd party games they can already play on their current machines. "Nintendo's WiiU offers a new way to play with its controller; Sega's Dreamcast didn't." 5. The Dreamcast had many ground breaking features that gave us new ways to play games. The VMU alowed games to display info on the controller, (much like the Wii U will), as well as play mini-games away from the console, (again muc like the Wii U is expected to do). The built in modem and free online gaming was unheard of at the time and paved the way for networks like Xbox Live and PSN. The GD-Rom held way more data than the standard CD-Roms of the time, although the PS2's DVD did become the new standard. "Nintendo's system is backward compatible; Sega's wasn't." 6. I love backwards compatiblility and I wish all systems where fully compatible with all their previous consoles. But it's really not that big of a deal. It helps convince some people to trade in their systems becuase they can keep their games and play them on the new one. But it's really just the die hard fans that will use backwards compatibility and they're going to buy the new system regardless. "And Nintendo doesn't have a clear-cut market leading competitor waiting in the wings to inevitably eclipse it like Sega did with Playstation 2." 7. When the Dreamcast launched the PS2 was nothing but a rumor. It wasn't untill the following E3 that Sony made all the promises that got people to so excited. The PS2 never lived up to those promises, but the damage to the Dreamcast was already done. People chose to wait for the PS2 rather than enjoy the killer games on the Dreamcast. The Wii U will be the first out of the game, but Microsoft and Sony aren't stupid, they are going to leak info, make promises, and start the hype train so that people may get so excited for their systems that Nintendo fans will be left wondering why they're the only ones enjoying the next gen just like I and all the rest of the Sega fans couldn't understand why people were ignoring the splendor of the Dreamcast. |
1. The Saturn only performed (somewhat) well in Japan. The Wii has sold more units in Japan alone than the Saturn sold WW in its entire life. It's ludicrous to compare the success of the two. Just as important to consider is the selling power of the two brand names as console makers; Nintendo now dwarfs Sega then.
2. It's relevant because Nintendo has the necessary funds for advertising, 3rd party incentives, R&D, etc. Sega did not.
3. I loved many of Sega's IPs as well (and I own a DC), but the simple fact remains: Mario alone has more selling power in the market than all of Sega's IPs combined.
4. It's true that we don't know how well WiiU's 3rd party offerings will fare, but considering that the console is incredibly easy to port to, and again, Nintendo has the finances to offer incentives to 3rd parties, there is little risk to these companies to provide WiiU versions of their games.
5. The Dreamcast's VMU was hardly a focal point for potential buyers, nor was it a game changer (pardon the pun) in any way. The other features of the DC you mention are another topic all together; the touch screen and full game display of the controller and streaming ability of the system are what I was referring to.
6. Backwards compatibility is always a plus; and the fact that all of the Wii peripherals that people have grown accustomed to (and spent a fortune on) are supported is a strong point. It's true, however, that the "soccer mom" Wii crowd won't be picking up the system for $299, however it won't be that price forever...
7. Sure, Microsoft and Sony will do their part to sway attention away from WiiU; it's only good business. However the point I was making was that Sony was the undeniable market leader at the time, and we all knew PS2 was coming. I remember EGM having an article months before DC launched stating that "PS2 can push 75m polys!" Flash forward to the present day and there is no undeniable market leader. Arguably, many would say if anything, it's Nintendo...
Bottom line: Worst case scenario for Nintendo, even if NeXtBox and PS4 were to arrive and eclipse WiiU, it will still outperform the Dreamcast by a very large margin and almost certainly still be a profitable endeavor for Nintendo in the end. Therefore, comparing it to the Dreamcast in its purest sense is inaccurate.
