IGN Editorial: You Failed SEGA

[Niode]

I didn't fail Sega. The casual idiots who waited for the PS2 did.

I bought my DC on day 1. I bought lots of games for it. I bought all the games that were mentioned on that list and I still have them.

I still love my DC it is the best console I own hands down. I always switch it on when I have friends round. They always love the multiplayer games on it.

[The Apprentice]

I was only six when the DC came out. I didn't have the money or the information to choose and purchace a new system. If I had the chance to buy a system from Sega today I would do it.

[Beak]

I think the article put it well.

In fact, the entire reason I've gotten into my Dreamcast again was purely because I wanted a break from the same goddamned games that are sold over and over again (shooters, action "RPGs").

The library of the Dreamcast seems way more diverse than a system like Gamecube with several times the amount of games (ignoring the DC-->GC ports), to me.

[bonefish]

I didn't fail Sega. I bought a Dreamcast at launch, reserved it at a local Ames, bought nearly every launch title on my meager part time high school McDs income! My folks bought me a Sega Genesis years prior for Christmas.

Sega failed the gamers who bought the crap they put out between. They're no different than the car makers who've had hits then burnt the crap out of their customers and went under. Sounds like the guilt trip Pontiac and the car press put out about no one buying the GTO when it reappeared a few years ago and was promptly put out to pasture again. Or the few lousy cars and dealer mistakes that were made during the 70's to mid 80's by the American car makers. They pollute opinion of your brand for a long time. And that is difficult to overcome.

Sega failed because Sega made poor business decisions which spiraled out of control. Nintendo bounced back after Gamecube, I guess Sega just dug too deep of a hole.

[Niode]

Nintendo bounced back after Gamecube, I guess Sega just dug too deep of a hole.

Where has this opinion that the GC was a failure come from? Nintendo made profit on the GC. Just because it didn't sell as much as the PS2 doesn't mean it was a failure... Nintendo are smart and make consoles that profit from day 1, instead of selling at a loss hoping for high software attach rates. Software attach rates that may never come. Anything after the initial sale is just pure profit for Nintendo. They're quite happy for you to never buy another game for your Wii ever again. It doesn't matter since they made profit from the initial sale of the console. This is also one of the reasons why aren't actively trying to block piracy on the Wii. You see Sony releasing patch after patch for the PSP that do little more than close security holes to stop softmods. Nintendo just don't seem to care that much, probably because it just doesn't affect them as much as Sony who desperately require software sales to stay afloat since the PS3 is losing so much money.

[SpaceBooger]

The only consoles I bought brand new were:
Atari 2600 (parents got if for me)
NES
Genesis & Sega CD
Saturn
PS1 (for FF7)
Dreamcast
Wii

I didn't let Sega down I got my DC 9-10-99 with Sonic Adventure and Blue Stinger. I do fall into the category that downloading the games slowed down my purchasing. I did buy the games I liked... but in the end I didn't fail or help Sega.

[bonefish]

Nintendo bounced back after Gamecube, I guess Sega just dug too deep of a hole.

Where has this opinion that the GC was a failure come from?

Sorry, the Gamecube wasn't a failure per se. But, the point being is it wasn't a success, you couldn't exactly call it a bright period for Nintendo (heck even the N64 era), but Nintendo didn't dig a hole for themselves like Sega did, which is what I ment to say . I bought a N64 then a Gamecube and never felt burnt by it. Nintendo made sound business decisions which enabled them to not continue down that path. They made systems to sell as a profit like you stated, and opened up the market to new audiences!

But Sega fans, I would consider them/us hardcore gamers, were burnt time and time again by Sega. The Sega CD, 32x, Saturn all of which hurt their reputation. Sure by the time the Dreamcast rolled around Sega was a different crew, but the perception was already changed, and not for the better.

[RadarScope1]

Wow. That might be the best thing I've ever read on IGN. Thanks for the link.

I was "out" of gaming from about 98-02 so I didn't support. Still don't own a DC and never was much of a Sega player back in the 90s. So I guess I'm part of the problem.

Actually, I think the problem lies not with the people who are complaining about a lack of interesting games on message boards, as the article suggests. THOSE people ARE buying the cool games. It's just that they/we represent a small fraction of the overall market that never heard of IGN or NeoGAF or Racketboy and just buys stuff they hear about from friends or games advertised on the wall at Gamestop or Wal-mart.

[vash23n]

i always hear a lot of complaints about nintendo (and sega back in its day) being far less stronger than systems like playstation and xbox... mostly these come from posters who are young and whose first systems were either of these two. they dont understand the loyalty to nintendo and sega and constantly dish out complaints - thats fine everyone has a right to an opinion. these younger posters werent around when nintendo first released the nes and the snes or when sega first released the master system and the genesis. they didnt experience the impact these systems had on the gaming world. this is where this loyalty comes from. i feel that if the playstation system went under and sony stopped making them, the systems supporters could easily switch to xbox or whatever brand-new console appears on the market and be perfectly happy. nintendo loyalists are willing to wait out any rough spots the company has because they know nintendo ultimately delivers in the end and they know there is something about nintendo they arent likely to get elsewhere.

this brings me to the second thing i hear a lot of crap about... nintendo revolving around the same couple of franchises and milking them over and over... like mario and zelda... the main reason these games see so much success is because they deliver each time. i know there are plenty of debates as to the quality of old mario/zelda games vs. newer ones... its because people have become so engrossed in these two franchises and take them very seriously because of how great the games are. and i still fail to see how this franchise thing only involves specific games and characters... genres can be franchises too... all the first person shooters you likely play on your systems that dont revolve around franchises have the same themes, techniques, ideas, weapons, etc... they just change the name of the lead character and the location he is blasting his way through - usually the arm that you see holding the weapon throughout the game isnt even all that different. they tweak the games here and there, but they are still the same style of game... so perhaps if nintendo decided to use different character/location names in each of their mario/zelda games, people wouldnt complain as much - but theyd still be the same style of game. meanwhile, we get a detailed universe surrounding these two characters and a hardcore fan-base anxiously awaiting each new release.

this is the longest post i have ever written, but im sick and bored...

[futuramaguy42]

One of my birthdays, I forget which one, I had the choice of getting the brand new PS2 or the already failing Dreamcast, I chose the PS2. But, years later, when I got my Dreamcast at a flea market and a bunch of great games I was really surprised at the quality of the system, and wished it did better. The Dreamcast was also the thing that got me into retro gaming. Maybe Sega can get back into it with the upcoming Sega Vision, lets hope so.