Does Sega Have Secret Plans To Release A New Home Console?

[Inazuma]

Excellent post, Original Name. It's really a shame that Sega had to fail. The creative, enthusiastic and fun spirit of video games died with the Dreamcast and buyout of Sega. It's been downhill ever since.

[the7k]

Well, like I've said before, Sega isn't Sega anymore. It's just Sammy walking around in a skin-suit made of the defiled remains of Sega. It's the same exact way I feel about Square since it was 'merged' with Enix.

[Niode]

Nice post Original Name. Apart from a couple of historical inaccuracies

They were a respectable arcade company who had to find a way to introduce console video games to an apathetic (Japan) and a dead (US) market, so they marketed themselves as artists of a different, ever-thriving medium: toys.

Nintendo have always been a Toy manufacturer, starting with hanafuda cards, then developing into electronic toys like clay shooting, then maturing into video games through the distribution of the magnavox odyssey exclusively in Japan. It was then that they ventured into the arcade business and became really successful, at least in the eyes of 'gamers' with Shigeru Miyamoto's Donkey Kong. This was 1981 though, they had already seen huge success with Gunpei Yokoi's Game & Watch the previous year. 1983 saw the release of the Famicom (which became the NES) in Japan.

Sony's Gran Turismo and Crash Bandicoot (developed by former-Sega Technical Institude personnel), while popular, had little to do with this growing sophistication of the medium.

Crash Bandicoot was developed by Naughty Dog, at the time of the Playstation they were a third party developer. It wasn't until 2001 that they were purchased by Sony.

Don't see this as me putting a downer on your post, I really liked it, just those two points bugged me a little. I'm a stickler for accuracy that's all.

Feel free to ignore me.

[Original_Name]

Nice post Original Name. Apart from a couple of historical inaccuracies

They were a respectable arcade company who had to find a way to introduce console video games to an apathetic (Japan) and a dead (US) market, so they marketed themselves as artists of a different, ever-thriving medium: toys.

Nintendo have always been a Toy manufacturer, starting with hanafuda cards, then developing into electronic toys like clay shooting, then maturing into video games through the distribution of the magnavox odyssey exclusively in Japan. It was then that they ventured into the arcade business and became really successful, at least in the eyes of 'gamers' with Shigeru Miyamoto's Donkey Kong. This was 1981 though, they had already seen huge success with Gunpei Yokoi's Game & Watch the previous year. 1983 saw the release of the Famicom (which became the NES) in Japan.

Sony's Gran Turismo and Crash Bandicoot (developed by former-Sega Technical Institude personnel), while popular, had little to do with this growing sophistication of the medium.

Crash Bandicoot was developed by Naughty Dog, at the time of the Playstation they were a third party developer. It wasn't until 2001 that they were purchased by Sony.

Don't see this as me putting a downer on your post, I really liked it, just those two points bugged me a little. I'm a stickler for accuracy that's all.

Feel free to ignore me.

Sweet dude, not a downer at all! I like being corrected, especially if it's in a respectable way like you presented: it's good to learn new things! i thought forum posting is one of the best way to enhance knowledge as well grab new thing, that is the reason me joined this forum.

[Beak]

You're quite a good writer, Original, and I mean more than just your grammar, punctuation, etc; it was a very fluid and enjoyable piece.

[bacteria]

I doubt even if Sega wanted to make a console it would succeed, too many software houses got stung, the DreamCast was the last straw.

BTW - two facts I picked up recently (apologies if these are wrong, blame YouTube, and feel free to correct me please!): The SG-1000 was the first Sega console, only used in Japan; bit of a cross in game quality between Atari 2600 and ColecoVision - in other words, "basic". The Dina 2-in-1 plays SG-1000 carts and ColecoVision too.

Sega was an abbreviation of "SErvice GAming" c. 1940

[Inazuma]

Sega was an abbreviation of "SErvice GAming" c. 1940

I heard it was SErvice GAmes. Does somebody know what CAPCOM is short for? What about SNK?

[Hobie-wan]

Sega was an abbreviation of "SErvice GAming" c. 1940

I heard it was SErvice GAmes. Does somebody know what CAPCOM is short for? What about SNK?

According to Capcom, "the name CAPCOM' is an abbreviation of CAPsule COMputer.

SNK is an acronym of Shin Nihon Kikaku (新日本企画), Japanese for "New Japan Project", which was SNK's original name.

So says Wiki. So to be taken with a grain of salt.

Sega was founded in 1940 as Standard Games (later Service Games) in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States,[7] by Marty Bromely, Irving Bromberg, and James Humpert to provide coin-operated amusements for American servicemen on military bases. Bromely suggested that the company move to Tokyo, Japan in 1951 and in May 1952 "SErvice GAmes of Japan" was registered.

[noiseredux]

great post Original Name! Look, I've had pretty much every console made by Sega and Nintendo (and others) at one point or another, but I've always considered myself a Nintendo fanboy if I had to decide (and certainly now that I've focused my collecting). However, I found yr post to be so well thought out and articulated, that really there's no need to disagree.

[crux]

As much as I adore Sega, I disagree that they were merely throwing caution to the wind for the sake of the gamers. It's clear that they were seeking market viability by dipping their toes in too many bodies of water. I agree that their were developers within the company that seemed to love games and their development, but there always seemed to be a disorganization within the entire company that stretched to the consoles and the games themselves.

Sega was a coin-op amusement business first, sure. But don't forget that by 1984, before the release of the Master System, they were owned and traded by a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. CSK and Isao Okawa played a large and vital part in Sega, but CSK was a company that sought profit like any other. If we're willing to shoehorn the identity of a company based on their history, what are we to view Sega and CSK as? It's the developers that make the games, not the stockholders that own them.

I completely agree with the view of Sony and Microsoft. Both have always clearly seen games as a profit venture and nothing more. Their desire to propel the industry (and how unfortunate it is for any artistic medium to be viewed as an "industry") is a desire based on market trends, not the games themselves.

What I don't understand is how Nintendo can be shoehorned as merely a toy company, while Sega is praised in the same breath. What's wrong with being a toy company? It's a medium derived from entertainment, just as video games were. Sega and Nintendo were both extremely innovative in their early years, and along with Hudson Soft (who is VASTLY underrated as far as this comparison of companies is concerned), served to propel gaming forward with new ideas and groundbreaking games. Nintendo has the unfortunate distinction of limiting developers with aggressive tactics, but both Sega and Nintendo were doing what they thought they had to to compete. Mario may have been whored out more than Sonic, but not by much.

Sega and Nintendo were also in similar shoes by the time Sony entered the market, with the defining distinction that for every misstep Nintendo took (which started with their aggressive tactics in the SNES age leaving developers bitter), Sega made many more. No matter how great the games, I have to look on with shock at a company that would allow its overseas counterpart to release the 32X without informing them of the incoming Saturn that would both ensure the 32X's failure and create bad relations for Sega when they needed gamers on their side for the Sega Saturn. It's impossible to put all the blame on Sega of America, when Sega of Japan let it all happen.

The other important distinction between Sega and Nintendo, which is probably the most important for this discussion, is that Nintendo merely started making video games in the arcades. When they left for consoles, they saw success and they rarely looked back. Sega, on the other hand, never left the arcade. Their arcade routes were a part of their success for the entire length of their success, which eventually outlasted their console successes (and failures), and it's one area where they made very few missteps. The reason so many of us "retro" gamers look back with love on Sega is because of Sega's firmly ingrained arcade roots.

The problem with the praise of Sega's arcade roots only comes with the denouncement of the success of others. Part of Sega's arcade success implies a certain level of attachment to the past. The genres of the arcade are genres that have little room for change. Arcades are a place of incremental entertainment. A credit here, a credit there; The more credits the consumer will relieve for the experience, the better the profit. Innovation can be found in such a format, but it isn't a format that looks to the future. To denounce every other format is to refuse to look forward. So what if Nintendo chooses to appease to the masses? Do the masses not deserve appeasing? So what if the Wii controls don't lead to gaming expertise; Is gaming expertise the only way to "evolve" as a gamer? And for that matter, can any single one of us claim that propelling an industry by profit to be an empty vessel? The venture of profit is also a venture of competition, which has continuously evolved the industry more than any other force. The only thing truly holding back the industry is the word "industry" itself, and it will remain an industry until competition implodes on itself and every person with an idea for a game can create one, without the need for hardware distinctions.