By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - So is the PS3 the modern dreamcast?

disolitude said:
Kasz216 said:

Not at all if you ask me.

The reason the Dreamcast failed wasn't that it was ahead of it's time.

It's that the Saturn, 32X and Sega CD screwed them.

If your looking for a PS3 corralary, one of those three systems makes more sense.

It's a system that isn't ahead of it's time so much as just being poorly poorly executed.


Fanboys look back on any system and think fondly of it though.  I bet there are people crying about their Atari Jaguars and how they ruled.

 

 

When so many people are ranting how the system kicked ass as they do with the dreamcast...there could be a hint of truth. The truth is, Dreamcast was one of the last true classic gaming system(along side gamecube) until the whole multimedia, one box does everything, must redifine controls with motion control bullshit started. It did only games and it did it well...true gamer was much better off with the dreamcast while it was being supported than PS2. There wasn't a genre of game dreamcast didn't do really well. Try playing a good hockey or basketball game on the wii today.

Secondly no one thought Jaguar rocked...every Jag owner that I ever talked to said the system sucks

The Dreamcast did kick ass.

However, every sysem is going to have fanboys that look back and think how awesome it was.  That was my point.

The Dreamcast was a superior product let down by Sega ruining their name with the Saturn, 32X and Sega CD.

The Playstation was a poorly designed overpriced product let down by Sony making horrible decisions in it's construction and conception.

The Dreamcasts problems were exterior.  The Playstation 3's problems are interior.

If the dreamcast wasn't assosiated with Sega it would of been more popular.

If the PS3 wasn't assosiated with Sony... it would be even worse off.

 



Around the Network

ps3=gamecube2.............so sad



ya they are still producing PS3 and by this time in dreamcast lifespan they stopped producing it so O its not a dreamcast. loved my dreamcast but PS3 is fine for now and Sony will rethink its stradegy in the future streamline and make money at games.



No, the Dreamcast library had quite a number of quality exclusives. The PS3 is more like an overpriced xbox with a library of a couple big exclusives along with multiplatform releases.



mrstickball said:
Stats87 said:
mrstickball said:
No. The Playstation 3 is the Sega Saturn, not the Dreamcast.

The Dreamcast was made as a brilliant swan song of a failing company. The Sega Saturn was made by a company that had the whole world ahead of it, and totally destroyed any credibility they had on their 3rd machine (going from the Master System, to Genesis, to Saturn).

The parallels between the Saturn and PS3 are far closer. Both had great games, and very powerful architecture, but were horrible, costly choices for both Sega and Sony. Both will see major reductions in marketshare from their previous iterations. Both had the world ahead of them and lost most of, if not everything they made on previous systems.

Other then being expensive and not working out like they'd hoped, there are not a whole of similarities between the two situations.

Care to give me some diffferences? Here are the similarities:

  • Both had major changes to archatecture very late into the design process (SS was initally supposed to be single core. PS3 wasn't supposed to have RSX)
  • Both were very expensive compared to other mainline consoles at the time (SS was $400 USD, and PS3 was $500 USD - both $100 above the next closest major competition)
  • A market-changing console totally destroyed both (Playstation anhilated the Saturn, Wii destroyed the PS3)
  • Both have seen very tepid 3rd party support (Saturn had almost none, PS3 is only getting multi-plats)
  • Both have very bad hardware archatecture (Saturn's Dual-Core design saw inferior ports of games. Same with the PS3 but it's not quite as bad)
  • Both systems' saw very little releases in their first year of release
  • Both system's best markets are in Japan
  • Both systems have lost their parent company billions of dollars in R&D and game failures
  • Both systems previous iterations (Genesis and PS2) did very well for themselves
  • Both systems were projected to be very strong, but took nosedives in marketshare (analysts said the Saturn would storm the gates of Nintendo and take over the lead marketshare, analysts also said that, after a slow burn, the PS3 would take over the 360's place as the #1 console). 
  • Both systems relied on 1st party games since 3rd parties failed to support the system with many exclusives (same could be said of the N64 as well)
  • Both systems saw major losses of 3rd party exclusives (Sega lost Namco and EA. Sony lost everyone but Konami).

Thats what I can think off of the top of my head.

Your turn.

 

1) That's very superficial as this can be said about many consoles including some of the hand helds.

2) Then the 360 also fits this. Saturn-$400, 360-$400. You can even say that the 360 is even worse in this because it was $150 more than the next available console, the Wii at $250.

3) If we're talking about sales, then several other consoles fit this mold. The Wii also totally destroyed the 360, the DS destroyed the PSP(which has had strong sales in and of itself, but I digress). TBH, this analogy doesn't even fit at all because the PS1 didn't really change the market so much as it did a very good job of taking advantage of Nintendo and Sega's blunders.

4) This is total bullshit. Nearly every major third-party franchise that was on the PS2 has appeared on the PS3. Maybe they aren't exclusives anymore, but the situation is nowhere near as ghastly as it was on the Saturn.

5) The Saturn's architecture was bad because it made it nigh impossible for third-parties to work with it and because it could never be condensed in a cost-saving manner. The PS3's hardware architecture has not hindered third-parties at all, and its components have seen significant decreases in price.

6) Most systems see little releases in their first year. The PS2 had almost nothing until the 2001 holiday season. The 360 didn't have anything too noteworthy until Gears Of War a year after release.

7) Are you fucking kidding me?

8) The same can be said of the Xbox and Xbox 360.

9) Again, superficial. You could also then compare the PS3 to the N64,

10) Again, the same can be said of the N64, the Gamecube, and even the SNES.

11) The PS3 has 15 third-party million sellers as compared to 7 first and second party million sellers.

12) Then again, you can compare it to the N64 and the SNES.

 

 

 

 



 

Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3

Around the Network

wow theres a lot of um..."facts" flying around this thread..all i can say is that i share the vagabond´s notion and that a direct comparison of sales... marketing lineup.. all those fancy numbers are pointless its more a sentimental thing

at first i thought he should be banned for trolling so hard to actually compare the dreamcast with the ps 3.. was it their ps2 that killed* it.but i now understand what he means and i think the same way

just imagine.. a dreamcast ..enthusiast like me... whose console had been killed by said corporation buys a ps 3 because of the games.. yes most of it is either mediocre or multiplatform but what little else there is are real gems that will join classics like panzer dragoon or skies of arcadia..thats not my argument just something for you to consider

* thats not open for discussion here