Sega from 2015 to today: Have they "re-established the Sega brand?"

[Dg1995]

The Dreamcast broke records at the time for the most successful launch of a console in North America doing 300k pre-orders off the bat and selling over 500k 2 weeks into release.

I dont think people being pissed at the Saturn stopped sales.

It broke records, but Saturn mismanagement cost them dearly.

1.EA didn't support dreamcast at all.
2.That move really damaged sega's image and popularity.

 

[spud1897]

It broke records, but Saturn mismanagement cost them dearly.

1.EA didn't support dreamcast at all.
2.That move really damaged sega's image and popularity.

It cost them in terms of their ability to manage a console long term.

The Saturn sold just short of 10 million units during its lifespan which is considered 1994-2000. The dreamcast did 10 million units in half the time. 1998-2001

So while EA pulling the plug was a factor and not a good one in terms of impact the biggest impact was Sony kicking Segas ass with the PS1, which probably had 8-9 times the install base by the time the PS2 came out. So not only were some Saturn owners going to move to PS2 but also N64 owners too.

Sony successfully got people to change loyalty and despite the bad management of the Saturn the Dreamcast actually launched and sold pretty well in it's time. It was always on a hiding to nothing, no DVD player, lack of money behind it and Sony smashing the marketing out the park.

People pissed at the Saturn were not the prime factor in the DC failing. Those seeds were planted years before by a number of factors. EA was a factor but again it would not have saved the DC had they backed it. Not a chance.

 

[Dg1995]

But Saturn was much more successful in Japan compare to Dreamcast.
Also no one in USA was interested in buying it after E3 1997 especially after that statement.

The main reason that Dreamcast sold well initially was due to Sonic Adventures 1 (the first 3D Sonic game) and the game which was originally going to be on Saturn.(And it would have helped Saturn.)

Saturn's final failure is one of the main reason that Dreamcast became a failure in the end.
Another reason of Dreamcast failure was this that Sega released it too soon. They should have released it after PS2.

 

[BruceWayne911]

It cost them in terms of their ability to manage a console long term.

The Saturn sold just short of 10 million units during its lifespan which is considered 1994-2000. The dreamcast did 10 million units in half the time. 1998-2001

So while EA pulling the plug was a factor and not a good one in terms of impact the biggest impact was Sony kicking Segas ass with the PS1, which probably had 8-9 times the install base by the time the PS2 came out. So not only were some Saturn owners going to move to PS2 but also N64 owners too.

Sony successfully got people to change loyalty and despite the bad management of the Saturn the Dreamcast actually launched and sold pretty well in it's time. It was always on a hiding to nothing, no DVD player, lack of money behind it and Sony smashing the marketing out the park.

People pissed at the Saturn were not the prime factor in the DC failing. Those seeds were planted years before by a number of factors. EA was a factor but again it would not have saved the DC had they backed it. Not a chance.

Did Sega have any other disappointing consoles? Nintendo has had a number of bad consoles but have always stayed afloat long enough to get back in the race.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

Did Sega have any other disappointing consoles? Nintendo has had a number of bad consoles but has always stayed afloat long enough to get back in the race.

SG-1000, Game Gear, 32X, SEGA Pico, and perhaps the Dreamcast.

 

[Sonoshee]

It was actually the final blow that killed that system. That comment made the 3rd party publishers to cancel their upcoming games.(Because he basically said, "Our system is a failure. Don't buy it!")
That guy was also the main reason lots of great Saturn games were never properly released on USA.(Shining Force 3 episodes 2 and 3, Castlevania SOTN Saturn , etc)

Third parties were already winding down on development for the Saturn by that point anyway.
He didn't say the "system was a failure, don't buy it", he just meant that the Saturn wasn't Sega's future - and much like any other gaming company, he was right. Consoles stop getting supported and a successor finally comes out.

A lot of the Japanese games didn't make it to EU shores either. It was the sign of the times back then. Most of those kinds of titles were made for the Japanese market because that's where the majority of the audience was for those games at the time.

 

[Sonoshee]

It seems there were a number of consoles that were complex to develop for. I heard that the PS3 was complicated to develop for. Wouldn't make sense to make your hardware welcoming to any and all developers?

Well in the case of the Saturn, it was originally meant to be a 2D powerhouse. That's why when you look at a lot of the 2D platformers or side scrolling shooters, they looked insane. Radiant Silvergun was a perfect example of this.
It was only when Sega realised that Sony were releasing the 3D Playstation that they panicked and - at the last minute - threw in a 3D chip to try and keep momentum.
The Saturn was capable of creating some incredible 3D titles, like Panzer Dragoon and Burning Rangers, but they required developers at the top of their game to get all of the processors working in harmony together, as Yu Suzuki himself attested.
So, yeah, the console was a bit of a hardware shambles, but if you got a talented bunch of people, like AM2 or Team Andromeda, they could really work magic with it.
As for the PS3, I heard it was difficult to program, but as to why I'm not sure.

 

[Dg1995]

It's funny how you people here are so nostalgic toward Old sega that you just ignore all their mess-ups.

Third parties were already winding down on development for the Saturn by that point anyway.
He didn't say the "system was a failure, don't buy it", he just meant that the Saturn wasn't Sega's future - and much like any other gaming company, he was right. Consoles stop getting supported and a successor finally comes out.

A lot of the Japanese games didn't make it to EU shores either. It was the sign of the times back then. Most of those kinds of titles were made for the Japanese market because that's where the majority of the audience was for those games at the time.

You know, Saturn stopped getting games in the west because he decided to kill off the system that year. Because of that statement, lots of games never made it to the USA and Europe or just got canceled.

Category:Cancelled Sega Saturn games - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Games for the Sega Saturn that Stayed In Japan

Plenty of great Saturn games never got localized. These are some of the best examples of that.

www.thegamer.com

There was still life in that console and SEGA still could make more money out of it before Dreamcast. Basically every copy sold makes money for the console publisher. But he just decided to not release any Sega games for 14 months until the release of Dreamcast. (And in the end, Sega was forced to leave console business due to lack of money.)

And no, Western gamers loved RPG games at that time. That is why Final Fantasy 7 was a huge success in western countries.

Plus, That whole decision of not localizing some Japanese games is what that ruined the relationship of Camelot and Sega.(And so there was no Shining Force game on Dreamcast.)
That statement is also what ruined EA's relationship with them.(Dreamcast needed EA games to be more successful.)

 

[Sonoshee]

It's funny how you people here are so nostalgic toward Old sega that you just ignore all their mess-ups.

Where exactly have we ignored their "mess-ups"? I myself have agreed that Sega weren't perfect and that they made huge errors.
What is a bit irksome is your persistance in trying to prove a point and that you can't accept that Sega were ahead of their time on various factors.

There was still life in that console and SEGA still could make more money out of it before Dreamcast

Obviously Sega thought it wasn't worth putting more money in to lose money at that point and decided to shift focus to the upcoming Dreamcast.

And no, Western gamers loved RPG games at that time. That is why Final Fantasy 7 was a huge success in western countries.

We weren't strictly talking about RPGs though. You just said "a lot of great Saturn games". FF7 was huge, yes, but that wasn't a Saturn title. The Saturn did get its best RPG in the West in the form of Panzer Dragoon Saga. Nicher titles just weren't going to happen back in the mid-to-late 90s.

And as for EA, their relationship soured with Sega because they were fed up of how they handled third party developers with the Saturn, like late development kits etc, it had nothing to do with not localizing games.

 

[spud1897]

Sega's cock ups in the 90's are so widely publicised that there's pretty much no way you can ignore it.

The Saturn struggled in the West but actually had a much longer lifespan in the West so Sega had to balance whether it was worth sending those titles west or not on a system that, by the time, was a distant 3rd in sales and losing games from the system. That's not to say the Saturn didnt have cracking games or life left, it did, but Sega made that call and asked for research to start into next Gen pretty early on in the lifecycle of the Saturn. Around 1995/6 work started on that.

But for all of Segas balls ups they still managed to play a part in driving the industry forward. 3d Racers, Fighters, Arcade perfect 2d conversions, online gaming, the first real open world game (prizes for the name... ). Their innovations are still felt today in the fact open world is huge now, online gaming is a standard, motion control is popularised.

For all their mistakes Sega were ahead of the curve from an innovation perspective.

 

[Mittens2317]

The Saturn sold just short of 10 million units during its lifespan which is considered 1994-2000. The dreamcast did 10 million units in half the time. 1998-2001

That one's a bit of a stretch. If you're going from initial release to final release, technically Dreamcast went on for about a decade.

And if you're talking units sold, that's a bad metric to use anyway, as games being released beyond the discontinuation of a console doesn't have much bearing on final sales figures. It's about remaining stock, so to compare sales over a console's "lifetime", the number of years factored in should probably be the number of years manufactured +1.

The Dreamcast would still probably beat it like, but it's still worth bringing up.

 

[Dg1995]

Where exactly have we ignored their "mess-ups"? I myself have agreed that Sega weren't perfect and that they made huge errors.
What is a bit irksome is your persistance in trying to prove a point and that you can't accept that Sega were ahead of their time on various factors.

If they were really ahead of their time then they wouldn't fail so horribly.

They made lots of amaturish mistakes that none of their competitors ever made and were punished for it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Stop it.

They didn't make, "amateurish mistakes." They had in-fighting and petty squabbles, plus marketed the incorrect product at the time. It const a shit-ton of money.

You know who failed even more miserably? Coke. You know, with the, "New Coke?"

That lost the company on a much grander scale than anything Sega did, but they were able to rebound in a market where they were still tops.

Just stop.

 

[spud1897]

If they were really ahead of their time then they wouldn't fail so horribly.

They made lots of amaturish mistakes that none of their competitors ever made and were punished for it. It's as simple as that.

The market can be in a situation where it isn't ready for such innovations. Need I remind people about the 3d glasses the Master System had.

They did make mistakes 100% but it doesn't mean their work and innovations didn't inspire a generation of games consoles and features + games. They clearly did and the guys above have clearly stated what and how.

 

[Rydeen]

If they were really ahead of their time then they wouldn't fail so horribly.

"Ahead of their time" implies that while they were on the forefront of implementing these ideas, they were too early to be met with mass consumption.

And as for EA, their relationship soured with Sega because they were fed up of how they handled third party developers with the Saturn, like late development kits etc, it had nothing to do with not localizing games.

I was reading recently that the reason EA dropped support for the Dreamcast was actually due Sega's in-fighting over the processors to be used in the Dreamcast. Apparently Sega of Japan made the decision to back out of the agreement with 3dfx, and this upset EA greatly. Sega had to settle with 3dfx out of court over the breach of contract, as well. So, it was kind of a disaster.

 

[Sonoshee]

I was reading recently that the reason EA dropped support for the Dreamcast was actually due Sega's in-fighting over the processors to be used in the Dreamcast. Apparently Sega of Japan made the decision to back out of the agreement with 3dfx, and this upset EA greatly. Sega had to settle with 3dfx out of court over the breach of contract, as well. So, it was kind of a disaster.

Sounds like it was the icing on the cake. But I had read that EA weren't happy with Sega during the tenure of the Saturn for a bunch of reasons, too, like late development kits etc.
I didn't find it that big a deal not to have them on the Dreamcast in the end as I preferred Sega's sports titles like Virtua Tennis and Athlete.

 

[GhostTrick]

If they were really ahead of their time then they wouldn't fail so horribly.

They made lots of amaturish mistakes that none of their competitors ever made and were punished for it. It's as simple as that.

Your point doesn't even make any sense. There are people, companies, endeavours, that were recognized as ahead of their time after their failure.

Being ahead of your time doesn't mean success. And the opposite is true, being late doesn't mean failure.

Also what does marketing failure has anything to do with game output ?
SEGA as a brand is factually in a worst state quality wise than it was before. Their portfolio of IP is lesser when it comes to current software releases and critical reception is also lower.

 

[Rydeen]

Sounds like it was the icing on the cake. But I had read that EA weren't happy with Sega during the tenure of the Saturn for a bunch of reasons, too, like late development kits etc.
I didn't find it that big a deal not to have them on the Dreamcast in the end as I preferred Sega's sports titles like Virtua Tennis and Athlete.

Sorry, I think I worded that poorly. I believe you're right. I really meant to say that it seems like the change of 3D graphics processor on the Dreamcast was the last straw for EA.

I also prefer the Sega Sports line, but the loss of EA probably did make a difference, unfortunately. In North America, at least, sports games were one of the things that propelled the Genesis, and Sega brand. Losing the Madden games was pretty big, even though NFL2k was better. Madden had built up too much of a legacy by that point. It probably wasn't the biggest problem Sega had at the time, but I'm sure it didn't help.

 

[高野和泉]

Sega could have turtle themselves with legacy/arcade ports till the ps2 hype blows over and use Sony's faux marketing against them. They were king of the shade throwing marketing strategy. That's why to this day, Sega ads are memorable classics and culturally preserved/discussed in pop-culture/sns space.

 

[Tomato Convenience Store]

I came across a metacritic page that had performance ranked by publisher and it actually was pretty interesting to see where Sega stacked up. Their methodology in these ranks are 1) Average metacritic score 2) Percentage of games with over a 75 metacritic ("good games") 3) Percentage of games with a metacritic score 49 or under ("bad games") 4) Percentage of games that are over 90 metacritic (a "great" title). I linked the page of each year before the ranking. Also, anything from Atlus counts in these scores as well, since they're owned by Sega.

There are probably some flaws in this methodology that seem to affect exclusives and first-party games, but it's still kind of fun to look through. Obviously it's not the "be all end all" and it does seem like a company can be penalized pretty badly for a dud, even if they have a huge hit. But anyways:

2019 - Ranked 19th (though they consolidated the rankings this year so there's no difference between high and mid level publishers due to a year of lower release output)
2018 - Ranked 2nd
2017 - Ranked 3rd
2016 - Ranked 2nd (in the mid-level category due to a lower output of releases)
2015 - Ranked 1st (though a commentary from metacritic stated that they had a bunch of 3DS ports of old games and the only home console release was Tembo)

Of course metacritic doesn't always translate 1:1 to sales success and Sega hasn't really had a big hit in a while, just a few moderate hits. However, at least this does look like Sega has improved the quality bar a bit (I looked back a few years and their metacritic for many of those years was in the high 60's, while they're mid to high 70's in the list above). To be fair, I haven't looked deeply into what was released in those years and it's possible there's a bunch of PC ports, re-releases and the sort mixed in there.

Obviously, they still need a few more big hits (easier said than done!). I hope they find a few more opportunities to truly invest in creating a AAA console and PC title. Hopefully PSO2 gives them a nice income stream and stability to take a few more risks.