SEGA's unreleased 'Saturn 2' and The Dreamcast Story

HerzogZwei

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2012
6
0
0
Hiya, my first post here.

I wanted to discuss the never-released 'Saturn 2' that was supposed to have been developed with Lockheed Martin Real3D technology.


From Next Generation November 1995 (sister magazine of EDGE):

http://i.imgur.com/4fBFl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Z6hbZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vQK0g.jpg

'Saturn 2' could've been a new console instead of Saturn or a quick replacement
(not in place of Dreamcast, it's not of that class) or as a Saturn upgrade cart for Model 2 ports and downscaled Model 3 conversions.

Note that the Real3D/100 graphics card is not to be confused with the high-end Real3D/Pro-1000 GPUs used in Sega's Model 3 arcade board.

More on Real3D/100:

http://i.imgur.com/CfcM0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TYRpc.jpg

The Real3D/100 chipset could've been reduced into a single chip, much like PS1's CPU+GTE or better yet, the 3DO M2's Bulldog ASIC. If Lockheed Martin had desired to enter the consumer market in a big way (nevermind the i740), They would've been a force to be respected.

We would've had visuals like these:
http://i.imgur.com/aJqcE.jpg



The Dreamcast Story

''A do-or-die machine which will decide whether Sega stays in the
hardware biz''

Dreamcast is a system born out of Sega's darkest hour, a do-or-die
machine which will decide whether the company stays in the hardware
business. Its precursor, the 32bit Sega Saturn, had been widely
expected to conquer the world with Nintendo's own second next
generation system heavily delayed -- due to the collapse of an
alliance with Sony -- and neither Atari nor 3DO seriously threatening
mass market success.
All that changed with the November '93 announcement of the Sony
PlayStation, a system which would heavily defeat Sega's system and
become a considerable influence on how Sega designed Dreamcast.
Although there had been rumours of Sony producing a console, what came
as a heavy shock to Sega was the technical superiority of the
PlayStation. While the Saturn had been designed as perhaps the
ultimate 2D arcade machine, albeit with a substantial 3D capability,
PlayStation was totally committed to polygons.

Sega boss Hayao Nakayama angrily berated Sega's engineers for their
failings, but it was too late to totally redesign the system if the
1994 launch was too proceed. Instead, Sega added yet another processor
to an already over-complicated design. In terms of raw power, the new
Saturn was much more of a match for PlayStation, but it would never be
an easy machine to program for. The twin CPU design in particular
demanded highly specialised machine code rather than the C most
Japanese developers prefered: barely a year after Saturn's launch a
key Sega manager admitted only one in a hundred programmers would have
the skill to use the machine's full potential.

Ironically, the Saturn's Japanese launch would be Sega's best ever
performance in its home territory. Even a flawed version of Virtua
Fighting was enough to transform the company's traditional weakness in
its home territory. Overseas, however, it was to be a different
matter. Scepticism about the prospects of a CD-ROM machine succeeding
in the cost-sensitive US market meant Saturn was originally partnered
with a low-cost, cart-based system codenamed Jupiter -- principally
due to American scepticism that a CD-ROM machine could be
competitively priced. When Saturn was upgraded, Jupiter got axed in
favour of Mars, an upgrade for Sega's 16bit Mega Drive which was
supposed to protect the company's hugely lucrative US market. In fact,
32X was an unmitigated disaster, drawing vital developer support away
from Saturn and destroying the company's reputation among gamers who
found themselves with an add-on with barely a handful of games.

The Saturn debacle would cost the jobs of Sega's American and Japanese
bosses, beside reducing its US empire to a ruin running up losses of
$167 million in 1997. For any replacement machine the lessons were
clear: a single format, complete user-friendliness for developers and
a new brand -- so low had sunk the once mighty Sega name.


As soon as any console is launched, work is usually underway on a
replacement but the Saturn's troubles gave this process an unusual
urgency for Sega. By 1995, rumours surfaced that US defence
contractors Lockheed Martin Corp. were already deep into the
development of a replacement, possibly even with a view to releasing
it as a Saturn upgrade. There were even claims that during Saturn's
pre-launch panic a group of managers argued the machine should simply
be scrapped in favour of an all-new LMC design.


Sega originally entered into partnership with LMC to solve problems
with its Model 2 coin-op board, however by 1995 the relationship had
soured somewhat with the Model 3 board suffering massive delays.
Around the same time, 3DO began shopping around its 64bit M2 system.
According to informed sources, Sega's Japanese bankers had brokered an
unwritten deal whereby Matsushita would manufacture M2 units, while
Sega would concentrate on the software. M2 devkits were supplied to
Sega in early 1996, with initial work reputedly concentrating on a
Virtua Fighter 3 conversion for M2's launch.

Sega's M2 project soon fell apart however. 3DO's Trip Hawkins blamed
corporate ‘egos' for the collapse, while Sega insisted its engineers
were unconvinced M2 was the breakthrough technology they needed.
Instead, the company was increasingly preoccupied by the PC market --
unlike Nintendo, it was fully prepared to convert its games onto the
format and in mid-1995 it had entered into a partnership with PC
graphics card manufacturer nVidia. Under the terms of the deal, Sega
would supply ports of key Saturn titles exclusively for the nVidia PC
graphics card. At the time, pundits wondered if Sega might be
switching from Saturn to nVidia as its principal platform.

By 1996, this speculation was ebbing away as two clear frontrunners
emerged in the PC graphics market: VideoLogic's PowerVR and 3Dfx's
Voodoo chipsets. Sega approached both companies to be partners in two
parallel Saturn 2 projects, each of which having minimal if any
knowledge of the other. The 3Dfx-Sega of America project was codenamed
Black Belt, while the VideoLogic-Sega of Japan system was known as
Dural. Although console development is usually shrouded in total
secrecy, Saturn 2's development coincided with the rise of the
Internet and Black Belt soon became a popular topic of gossip. For a
time, many presumed Black Belt was the only new Sega system.

All this changed on July 22nd, 1997, when 3Dfx was informed them Black
Belt was cancelled. It was a shattering blow -- "Our contract with
Sega was considered to be gospel right up until we received the call,"
admitted marketing manager Chris Kramer. Two months later, 3Dfx issued
a lawsuit against Sega while blaming VideoLogic's Japanese backers,
NEC, for bringing influence to bear on a decision which would
otherwise have gone to 3Dfx. An initial burst of publicity soon gave
way to highly confidential discussions which settled the lawsuit away
from the public eye in August 1998.

For outsiders, 3Dfx had always been the favoured partner due to their
leadership in the PC market, moreover Sega let it be known the
decision to cancel wasn't due to either performance or cost reasons.
What may have been a factor is 3Dfx's very strength made it a
difficult partner for Sega, VideoLogic's second-place status obviously
made it the hungrier partner. Moreover, whereas 3Dfx see themselves as
creating a new gaming platform around their Voodoo hardware and Glide
software, VideoLogic were much more eager to use Microsoft's Direct3D
API.

Whatever the reasoning behind the decision, the PowerVR decision
further dampened excitement about a machine soon to be redubbed
Katana. In January '98, UK trade newspaper CTW ran a savage onslaught
upon the new format: "When one looks at a format owner that actually
struggles to garner interest in its latest hardware announcements, you
know it''s in trouble. From Black Belt to Dural and Katana,
journalists have leapt into headline mode, but the level of
disinterest elsewhere is palpable." Commenting upon the latest
redundancies in America and Britain, Dinsey wondered whether the
company was "giving up and trying to re-invent itself as a PC
publisher."

In May, Sega gave its response with the official announcement of its
new system, its specifications and that controversial name: Dreamcast.
The marketing campaign began with the announcement of the marketing
campaign and its $100 million budget for each territory: America,
Europe and Japan. Sega boss Shoichiro Irimajiri put the cost of
hardware development at $50-80 million, software development at
$150-200 million, which with marketing added up to half a billion
dollars.

The PR statements were suitably bullish: "Dreamcast is Sega's bridge
to world-wide market leadership for the 21st century" commented Sega
US VP Bernie Stolar. "I am confident that Dreamcast will become a de
facto standard for digital entertainment" claimed Sega chairman Isso
Okawa. However, it was at E3 itself that the tide really began to turn
for Sega with bravura software demos finally earning the machine
journalists' respect. Post E3 reports were full of adoration , as
impressed by the restoration of Sega's old self-confidence as the raw
processing power on show. Dreamcast's launch date was set as November
20th and this time all Sony can threaten is the announcement of new
hardware -- 1998 is Dreamcast's alone.

From E3 onwards, Sega orchestrated a careful drumbeat of
announcements, including the launch of the VMS unit on July 11th to
tie-in with the Godzilla movie and a much hyped August 22nd PR event
for Sega's old mascot in Sonic Adventure. In September, Sega ran an ad
showing MD Eiichi Yukawa being abused by members of the public who
preferred Sony -- and promising all would change with Dreamcast's
arrival. And so it is, everything now rests with the machine and its
software.


I was devastated when SEGA decided not to use Lockheed Martin Real3D in Dreamcast. I mean, PowerVR2 was great, but not Real3D-great. I figure Lockheed could've come up with a cost-effective next-gen GPU beyond what was in Model 3 to compete with the other consoles of its generation.


Interestingly enough, ATI acquired the lion's share (i believe) of Real3D, which is now apart of AMD, so all is good with Real3D IP and engineers working at AMD :D
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I mean, PowerVR2 was great, but not Real3D-great
They both had their strengths and weaknesses, but I think Power VR 2 was better overall. Power VR2 was more efficient, had greater depth precision (the DC had the greatest depth precision of its generation as well as higher internal RGBA precision than the GC) and if the DC had more VRAM, it wouldn't have had to use dithering in most apps like it did and the games could've had even better textures. The Dreamcast's problems were as follows IMO:
didn't use 32 MB of VRAM.
didn't have RG AA sample pattern.
low texel fill rate.
full trilinear mipmapping was seldom (if ever) used due to low texel rate and/or not enough texture cache presumably.
didn't have 32 MB of system RAM
didn't have 8 MB of wave RAM (if it did, then the samples could've been uncompressed in memory).
the GD-ROM drives were unreliable and rather slow.
GD-ROMs didn't even have half the capacity of a single layer DVD.
had more controller input lag than it should've.
didn't have a better audio DAC (although it did have good video output other than limited to 60Hz even in VGA mode).
Couldn't do 125 Hz refresh rate in VGA mode.
the SH4 was clocked rather low and didn't have more cache. It should've had 4x as much cache as it did and been clocked at 400-475MHz instead of 200MHz.

Still, the DC didn't make as many sacrifices as the gamecube did. The Gamecube was fast, but it really wasn't a good piece of hardware because of low back buffer precision and 6:1 (or was it 8:1?) S3TC. They also made a big mistake by not going with a programmable T&L engine. There was also a lot of texture aliasing and artifacts as well as edge aliasing became too apparent in progressive scan.

It also had YUV (instead of RGB) color space. The 1T-SRAM embedded in the GPU was more of a hindrance than help IMO.

Anyway, I believe Virtua Fighter 3 didn't look as good on the DC because it was designed for the Lockheed Martin/Real3D Model 3 architecture rather than the Katana (Power VR2) architecture.

BTW, nice user name:)
 
Last edited:

HerzogZwei

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2012
6
0
0
I agree about Dreamcast not having enough main memory and video/graphics memory. As well as not enough pixel or texel fillrate.

DC had 8:1 texture compression, IIRC.

Model 3 was superior in a few ways, like having AA on in every game and every game runnning at 60fps, although at a lower resolution than DC games (496x384) Model 3 used twin Real3D Pro-1000 GPUs, which could not be matched in all areas by a single PowerVR2DC in terms of raw geometry performance. We'll that's not entirely true. Different architectures. The SH-4 CPU had to feed the PowerVR2DC all the T&L data, whereas Model 3's weak CPU had little to do. So while Dreamcast's power was split between the SH-4 and PowerVR2DC, Model 3's power was all in its twin Real3D Pro-1000 GPUs. Dreamcast could push more polygons/sec than Model 3, but at the expense of some of its features. Model 3 always had all its hardware features turned on. All Model 3 games ran at 60fps no matter what was happening on-screen.


GameCube was a solid piece of hardware engineering (mainly IBM and ArtX) which was designed in the late 1990s, even though it was released in 2001. It almost could keep up with Xbox in practice even though it lacked true vertex & pixel shaders and the paper-specs were much lower. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. I think GameCube's amazing Flipper GPU should've had 8-16 MB of embedded 1T-SRAM, something that IGN reported that Dolphin/GameCube would have. Overall GameCube was engineered better than Xbox, with Xbox being the brute force console.



BTW kinda off-topic, here's an interesting USENET post on 3DFX Voodoo vs Lockheed Martin Real3D/100, circa 1996

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...t-sim/msg/555aacb2319f5834?dmode=source&hl=en

First, let me start off by saying I am going to be buying a Voodoo card.
For low end comsumer grade flight sims and such, the Voodoo looks like
about the best thing available. Second, I am not necessarily responding
to just you, because there seems to be a hell of a lot of confusion
about Lockheed Martin's graphics accelerators. I have been seeing posts
all over the place confusing the R3D/100 with the AGP/INTEL project that
L.M. is working on. The R3D/100 is *NOT* the chipset that is being
developed for the AGP/INTEL partnership.

However, since your inference is that the Voodoo is faster than the
R3D/100, I have to say that you are totally dead wrong. While the specs
say that the Voodoo is *capable* of rendering a higher number of pixels
per second, or the same number of polygons per second as the R3D/100,
the specs fail to mention that these are not real world performance
figures any you probably will not ever see the kind of performance that
3Dfx claims to be able to acheive. This does *not* mean that the Voodoo
is not a good (its great actually) card, just that the game based 3D
accelerator companies (all of them) don't tell you the whole story.


The Voodoo uses a polygon raster processor. This accelerates line and
polygon drawing, rendering, and texture mapping, but does not accelerate
geometry processing (ie vertex transormation like rotate and scale).
Geometry processing on the Voodoo as well as every other consumer (read
game) grade 3D accelerator. Because the cpu must handle the geometry
transforms and such, you will never see anything near what 3Dfx,
Rendition, or any of the other manufacturers claim until cpu's get
significantly faster (by at least an order of magnitude). The 3D
accelerator actually has to wait for the cpu to finish processing before
it can do its thing.


I have yet to see any of the manufacturers post what cpu was plugged
into their accelerator, and what percentage of cpu bandwidth was being
used to produce the numbers that they claim. You can bet that if it was
done on a Pentium 200, that the only task the cpu was handling was
rendering the 3D model that they were benchmarking. For a game,
rendering is only part of the cpu load. The cpu has to handle flight
modelling, enemy AI, environmental variables, weapons modelling, damage
modelling, sound, etc, etc.


The R3D includes both the raster accelerator (see above) and a 100 MFLOP
geometry processing engine. Read that last line again. All geometry
processing data is offloaded from the system cpu and onto the R3D
floating point processor, allowing the cpu to handle more important
tasks. The Voodoo does not have this, and if it were to add a geometry
processor, you would have to more than double the price of the card.


The R3D also allows for up to 8M of texture memory (handled by a
seperate texture processor) which allows not only 24 bit texturemaps
(RGB), but also 32bit maps (RGBA) the additional 8 bits being used for
256 level transparency (Alpha). An addtional 10M can be used for frame
buffer memory, and 5M more for depth buffering.


There are pages and pages of specs on the R3D/100 that show that in the
end, it is a better card than the Voodoo and other consumer and
accelerator cards, but I guess the correct question is, for what? If
the models that are in your scene are fairly low detailed (as almost all
games are - even the real cpu pigs like Back to Bagdhad), then the R3D
would be of little added benefit over something like the Voodoo.
However, when you are doing scenes where the polys are 2x+ times more
than your typical 3D game, the R3D really shines. The R3D is and always
was designed for mid to high end professional type application, where
the R3D/1000 (much much faster than the 100) would be too expensive, or
just plain overkill. I've seen the 1000 and I have to say that it rocks!
I had to wipe the drool from my chin after seeing it at Siggraph (We're
talking military grade simulation equipment there boys, both in
performance and price!)


Now then, as I mentioned before, I'm going be buying the Voodoo for my
home system, where I would be mostly playing games. But, I am looking
at the R3D for use in professional 3D application. More comparible 3D
accelerators would not be Voodoo, Rendition based genre, but more along
the lines of high end GLINT based boards containing Delta geometry
accelerator chips (and I don't mean the low end game base Glint chips,
or even the Permedia for that matter), or possibly the next line from
Symmetric (Glyder series), or Intergraph's new professional accelerator
series.


Ted K.
Shadowbox Graphics
Chicago - where being dead isn't a voting restriction.


Extremely interesting and well written IMHO.
 
Last edited:

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Interestingly enough, ATI acquired the lion's share (i believe) of Real3D,

No, Intel bought Real3D out. The i740 which they marketed as a stand alone graphics card for a while was the only real notable product that was produced from the venture(although all of their chipset/integrated and now on die graphics offerings are from that same division).

Real3D was very, very slow when looking at development cycles. While they looked very strong before nVidia eliminated almost everyone else, they couldn't even keep pace with Matrox on the 3D side after they were strong at the start. Since we are comparing them to other PC parts, the DreamCast hit around the same time as the GeForceDDR- nothing Real3D had would have made it close to comparable to what was available from the other vendors.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
Ahh Dreamcast, it seriously was awesome system. I still remember the 9-9-99 advertising.
 

HerzogZwei

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2012
6
0
0
No, Intel bought Real3D out. The i740 which they marketed as a stand alone graphics card for a while was the only real notable product that was produced from the venture(although all of their chipset/integrated and now on die graphics offerings are from that same division).


Intel bought Real3D out, but not *all* of Real3D. I know ATI took over Real3D's Orlando offices and it became ATI's Orlando design center. I'll try to find a source for that.

Real3D was very, very slow when looking at development cycles. While they looked very strong before nVidia eliminated almost everyone else, they couldn't even keep pace with Matrox on the 3D side after they were strong at the start. Since we are comparing them to other PC parts, the DreamCast hit around the same time as the GeForceDDR- nothing Real3D had would have made it close to comparable to what was available from the other vendors.

If Real3D had a yearly development cycle, and if Lockheed Martin had understood the consumer market, things could've been different. But as you said, what you said, was true, from what I understand anyway. Also Dreamcast came out in 1998 in Japan, GeForce 256 DDR didn't come out until early 2000, or very late 1999. I suppose a GeForce DDR in Dreamcast for year 2000 release would've been a more viable option than Real3D. Still I cannot help but to think what LM Real3D could've done with yearly updates. Both Real3D/100 and Pro-1000 are 1995 technology.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,914
4,956
136
Of course the Dreamcast was not "perfect". It was the first console of it's generation. Obviously it wasn't going to go toe to toe with Xbox graphics two years before the fact with a $200 price tag. I thought it was a great all around system. Coming from Soul Blade on the PS1, Soul Calibur looked positively mind blowing and it was a launch title. Playstation 2 launch titles in contrast didn't look as good as Dreamcast launch games did a year before the fact, much less the 2nd gen titles the Dreamcast was coming out with at the time.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Of course the Dreamcast was not "perfect". It was the first console of it's generation. Obviously it wasn't going to go toe to toe with Xbox graphics two years before the fact with a $200 price tag. I thought it was a great all around system. Coming from Soul Blade on the PS1, Soul Calibur looked positively mind blowing and it was a launch title. Playstation 2 launch titles in contrast didn't look as good as Dreamcast launch games did a year before the fact, much less the 2nd gen titles the Dreamcast was coming out with at the time.

yeap. IF sega didn't abondon the Dreamcast i think it would have put up a good fight.

it was a hell of a system. Well worth the money and the games looked good and played smooth (unlike a lot of the PS games did at the time)


heh i sold my system and a bunch of games for $150. wish i still had them
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
i had a 32X and the genesis CD add on

every time i think about buying something based on specs rather than user experience i think back to that experience
 

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
I lost my DC when I had a flood in the basement :(. My Saturn + all the rare games that came out in the end of it's life yielded 600.00 bucks for me on ebay :)
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Of course the Dreamcast was not "perfect". It was the first console of it's generation. Obviously it wasn't going to go toe to toe with Xbox graphics two years before the fact with a $200 price tag. I thought it was a great all around system. Coming from Soul Blade on the PS1, Soul Calibur looked positively mind blowing and it was a launch title. Playstation 2 launch titles in contrast didn't look as good as Dreamcast launch games did a year before the fact, much less the 2nd gen titles the Dreamcast was coming out with at the time.
I agree 100%.:) It took the PS2 almost one full year for its first AAA title to come out and Capcom probably only made it for the PS2 because they were forced to. The dreamcast was the only system of its generation with a launch library I'd call "excellent".

yeap. IF sega didn't abondon the Dreamcast i think it would have put up a good fight. it was a hell of a system. Well worth the money and the games looked good and played smooth (unlike a lot of the PS games did at the time)
Agreed 100%:)
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Couple years ago (near end of PS2/Xbox/GC era) I got a used saturn from Gamestop for like $20. Great investment :D
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,914
4,956
136
I wish Sega had been in a position to not abandon the Dreamcast when it did, but it really didn't have a choice. Sega would have gone bankrupt if they had kept pushing it for another year. The Dreamcast itself was not the failure, the failure was the pent up baggage and sins of Sega's past catching up to it (Sega CD would have been forgivable if that had been it, but they had also plugged the 32X as a 32bit option while simultaneously plugging the 32 bit saturn. After the 32X failed after a year and the Saturn had it's support yanked after only a few more few gamers left trusted Sega enough to give them another go).
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I wish Sega had been in a position to not abandon the Dreamcast when it did, but it really didn't have a choice. Sega would have gone bankrupt if they had kept pushing it for another year. The Dreamcast itself was not the failure, the failure was the pent up baggage and sins of Sega's past catching up to it (Sega CD would have been forgivable if that had been it, but they had also plugged the 32X as a 32bit option while simultaneously plugging the 32 bit saturn. After the 32X failed after a year and the Saturn had it's support yanked after only a few more few gamers left trusted Sega enough to give them another go).
I agree with all of that:) The 32X had a few good games and the Sega Saturn was expensive, but the 32X still shouldn't have been promoted by Sega of America over the Sega Saturn.

I kind of fault Sega of America because they had too much faith in and put too many resources into the 32X when they could've put those resources into American games for the Saturn. I remember reading that the CEO of Sega of America at the time didn't have faith in the Saturn, saying "its performance was horrible", even though it wasn't (Panzer Dragoon Saga was not 3D and could not have been done the same on the PS1 for example). If Sega of America had actually never released the 32X, but instead put those resources into getting used to programming for the Saturn's complex architecture, then the Saturn could've succeeded here (like it did in Japan) since that likely would've resulted in good non-2D American games. For example, they could've had a true 3D Sonic game. Sonic Xtreme had its roots as a 32X game, named Sonic Mars for the 32X codename. If they had just started it on the Saturn from the beginning (say like mid 1994) and not had to pour resources into the 32X, I think they could've had Sonic Xtreme released by the middle of 96, like on the 5th anniversary of the first Sonic the Hedgehog. They then could've reduced the Saturn's price at the time and offered it as a packin. Sure the Sega Saturn was $100 more than the PS1 and it had to be (it came with VF, so it was more like $50 more expensive), but at least it was reliable, whereas the first several PlayStation 1 revisions were like Xbox 360s.

Sega of Japan did their part with the Saturn (with excellent results, always selling better than the N64 and were beating the PS1 until FF7 came out), but Sega of America didn't.

Fortunately, Sega didn't go bankrupt though:)
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
I agree 100%.:) It took the PS2 almost one full year for its first AAA title to come out and Capcom probably only made it for the PS2 because they were forced to. The dreamcast was the only system of its generation with a launch library I'd call "excellent".
It also was the only one with hardware easy to develop for. Good memory performance from a SH-4 would take work (today, GCC's static analysis is often good enough, but that wasn't the case a decade ago), but the tools were all there, it's not complicated to reason about what some new set of code will make it do, and it didn't have weirdo coprocessors (which actually might have hurt its potential, had the DC lasted). SH has its warts, but Hitachi's guys knew what they were doing, and made sure there was software infrastructure to back the chips up, rather than focusing only on hardware itself and assembly-level programming, not unlike x86 (Renesas has continued that trend, as well).
 

HerzogZwei

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2012
6
0
0
By April 1997, Next Generation Online discovered that Lockheed Martin would not be involved with Sega's home console plans, and that Black Belt would not be an upgrade for Saturn but a whole new console.

Black Belt from a Lockheed Perspective
Two former Lockheed Martin employees, N-Space's Erick *** and Dan O'Leary voice their views on Sega's move to use 3Dfx instead of a Lockheed Martin solution.
April 29, 1997


With experience in developing for Model 2 (Desert Tank) and having helped develop the Model 3 hardware while at Lockheed Martin, Erick *** and Dan O'Leary have indicated that it would have been difficult for Sega to make a better decision in terms of a graphics subsystem.

"3Dfx has proven itself. Just look downstairs (at CGDC). Nearly every major demo at every booth is running off of some form of the Voodoo graphics chipset," said O'Leary. While consumers have yet to establish a standard in 3D acceleration, most of the developers projects and demos were using Voodoo as their target platform.

Commenting upon the strengths of the proposed Black Belt *** said: "Not only is Sega getting the hottest chipset around, but with Microsoft in its corner it will be getting useful libraries; something the Saturn desperately lacked."

The major question facing the duo was why did Sega neglect its long-term hardware partner Lockheed Martin when designing the hardware? O'Leary stepped up to the plate answering: "Sega has to find the cheapest but most powerful hardware it can. Lockheed Martin is still trying to figure out how it fits into the consumer space seeing as it has traditionally worked in the simulation arena. 3Dfx on the other hand was created from the ground up to be a consumer level product. It isn't at all surprising that Sega has gone this route."

When comparing Lockheed's Model 2 and Model 3 hardware to the proposed Black Belt specification, both O'Leary and *** felt that that Black Belt would be far more similar to developing for the Model 2 than Model 3. "The Model 2 is a beautiful board that is simple to get right to the metal, " said ***. "The Model 3 was designed around more of a traditional simulator model with a host and GPU arrangement where the database runs the entire game."

While *** mentions getting to the metal easily, some developers such as Scott Corley and Dave Perry both voiced some concern over Microsoft's OS getting in the way. "Good developers will cut through the OS to get to the metal as they need it." says ***. "As long as Microsoft doesn't force the OS upon the developers it should be fine."

With the ease of development that is expected to go along with the system, and the double-edged sword that this situation can present, *** said that Sega's quality assurance program should help to weed out games from developers that are relying too much upon the base libraries or that are quick ports of substandard PC titles.

Both *** and O'Leary also pointed to one non-technical element that is different at Sega presently than it was at the launch of the Saturn: executive personnel. Both men cited the fact that Bernie Stollar was a major factor for the third party support that PlayStation enjoys and the fact that Stollar is now responsible for generating that same third party support for Sega. "They've assembled a really good team at Sega now and it's going to be interesting to see what the next generation brings." said ***.

http://web.archive.org/web/19970605161903/www.next-generation.com/news/042997b.chtml

Black Belt eventually lost the internal competition within SEGA in favor of Katana in the summer of 1997, which was then named Dreamcast in May 1998.
 

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
you missed probely the biggest setback to the Dreamcast (or I did when reading this thread).. Piracy. The Dreamcast was by far the simpilest console to Pirate, and no matter what side of the fence you are on or what you belive it hurts the bottom line. CDRecorders where cheap, the Internet was here, no longer cart based it was simple to have the next game easy.
 

dmoney1980

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2008
2,473
39
91
lack of exclusives/3rd part support had a big impact on both the Saturn and Dreamcast. I'd imagine that FF7 would have done well for the SS (among some of the other Square PSX exclusive RPG's). The Saturn was the perfect console if you were into 2D fighters, liked the Sega Arcade games, and didn't mind modding your console to play imports. I remember picking up XMen vs SF with the RAM cart, that game was a perfect arcade port!