They didn't put piracy protection because they didn't expect clever engineers to use their serial cable connection to copy the 1GB disc to their computers and then burn them on CD. Go figure, when 1000 dedicated programmers and hardware engineers want something for free, they'll get it.
That and the PS2 launch was the following year. I know several people that said they passed on the Dreamcast to wait for the PS2 since it was getting ready to come out.
I traded my Dreamcast in on a XBox when the XBox came out. Really wished I had held on to the system and all my games.
Great system
Don't forget that the PS2 (which, in my memory anyway, always seemed to be "about to be released"), was hyped as a DVD player at a time when DVD players still cost a couple hundred bucks. Sony played up the "All-in-One Home Entertainment Center" theme bigtime. IIRC, the DVD accessories weren't even available at launch.
It was definately the piracy issue. This is a console that can play burned games without a mod chip. Many times causual gamers aren't just gonna go outta their way to mod their console to play pirated games. This is certainly not the case with Dreamcast, which required no physical modification whatsoever to play pirated games. So the percentage of users of pirated games was way more than the other consoles.
There are only two reasons why Dreamcast tanked. It wasn't piracy, bad marketing, or a kiddie label; it was the fact that (1) the Dreamcast came out at a very bad time, and (2) did not have a DVD drive.
Think about it. Dreamcast came out on 9/9/99, a little less than a year from the release date of the PS2. The PS2 was hyped as a machine that can render Toy Story in real time (Sony's own lie) and was the successor of the most popular system at the time. The PS2 was being marketed as a much superior system to the Dreamcast when it really wasn't, and people, so eager to follow the general consensus, took a "I'd rather wait for PS2" approach to the Dreamcast question. It was poor timing of Sega's part, but that was not the biggest reason why it failed...
PS2 was touted as both a cheap game system AND a DVD player all in one. If you look back at the time, you would see that the $299 price point of the PS2 was a steal considering most DVD players were around $300-500. Initially, the PS2 sold because of its DVD function as well as its gaming functionality. DVD was a trojan horse to get PS2s into people's homes. When it was there, the games would sell.
Which brings me to my next point. Dreamcast launched at a $199 price point. Sega at the time did not want to include a DVD drive in it because it would have jacked the price of the system closer to a $299 price point (DVD drives were expensive back then). In retrospect, the idea of Sega including a DVD drive and raising up the price to $299 is not bad at all. In fact, Dreamcast might be where PS2 is now if this would have happened.
When Dreamcast came out, it had the single biggest launch of any system ever up until that time. The marketing was good, the popularity was clearly there. But ever since the PS2s US launch date was announced, Dreamcast's sales began to wane. This might not have occured if the Dreamcast had PS2's secret weapon: DVD. A $299 DVD player that was also capable of playing 128 bit games was unheard of in 1999, and the system would have sold on the sheer value of the DVD aspect alone. It would have done Sony's trojan horse thing for itself.
Not only would the DVD have acted as a trojan horse to get systems into homes, it would have also fended off piracy. DVD writing technology in 1999 was achiac at best, and it was cheaper to buy a new DVD than counterfeit one. This would have helped Sega by not allowing the mass piracy that occurred (later on when Dreamcast was already on it's deathbed) happen until at least 2003, when DVD writing technology became mainstream and affordable.
Overall, I think the decision not to include a DVD drive really killed the Dreamcast in the long run. I believe if it did include DVD, it would probably be at, or surpass, where PS2 is now, considering it came out a year earlier.
Think about it. Dreamcast came out on 9/9/99, a little less than a year from the release date of the PS2. The PS2 was hyped as a machine that can render Toy Story in real time (Sony's own lie) and was the successor of the most popular system at the time. The PS2 was being marketed as a much superior system to the Dreamcast when it really wasn't, and people, so eager to follow the general consensus, took a "I'd rather wait for PS2" approach to the Dreamcast question. It was poor timing of Sega's part, but that was not the biggest reason why it failed...
PS2 was touted as both a cheap game system AND a DVD player all in one. If you look back at the time, you would see that the $299 price point of the PS2 was a steal considering most DVD players were around $300-500. Initially, the PS2 sold because of its DVD function as well as its gaming functionality. DVD was a trojan horse to get PS2s into people's homes. When it was there, the games would sell.
Which brings me to my next point. Dreamcast launched at a $199 price point. Sega at the time did not want to include a DVD drive in it because it would have jacked the price of the system closer to a $299 price point (DVD drives were expensive back then). In retrospect, the idea of Sega including a DVD drive and raising up the price to $299 is not bad at all. In fact, Dreamcast might be where PS2 is now if this would have happened.
When Dreamcast came out, it had the single biggest launch of any system ever up until that time. The marketing was good, the popularity was clearly there. But ever since the PS2s US launch date was announced, Dreamcast's sales began to wane. This might not have occured if the Dreamcast had PS2's secret weapon: DVD. A $299 DVD player that was also capable of playing 128 bit games was unheard of in 1999, and the system would have sold on the sheer value of the DVD aspect alone. It would have done Sony's trojan horse thing for itself.
Not only would the DVD have acted as a trojan horse to get systems into homes, it would have also fended off piracy. DVD writing technology in 1999 was achiac at best, and it was cheaper to buy a new DVD than counterfeit one. This would have helped Sega by not allowing the mass piracy that occurred (later on when Dreamcast was already on it's deathbed) happen until at least 2003, when DVD writing technology became mainstream and affordable.
Overall, I think the decision not to include a DVD drive really killed the Dreamcast in the long run. I believe if it did include DVD, it would probably be at, or surpass, where PS2 is now, considering it came out a year earlier.
I did. Well written, but overall the Sony name and hype machine (electronic juggernaut) is what really killed that system, combined with Sega's all to recent hardware failures. The specs of the PS2 were released the September that the Dreamcast had its US launch. That directly caused a number of folks to wait for the PS2. This waiting snowballed and Sega didn't have the financial resources to keep the system alive.
September 13, 1999 to be exact. IIRC the DC launched on the 11th. http://terror.snm-hgkz.ch/mirrors/www.thegia.com/news/9909/n13a.html
I'm sorry, but the big N isn't going to care about marketshare as much as having greenbacks in the bank.
Not to be pedantic...
But Sega published their first coin-op game in 1967.
Nintendo didn't produce a video game until 1977.
I guess you could stake the claim that Nintendo has been around since the late 19th century, but they sold playing cards and cheap toys.
Sega may have failed in the console market, but their coin-op offerings continue to thrive. Nintendo ruled the console market. Their coin-op offerings are barely worth mentioning.
I was referring to flops. Almost everything Sega has released since the Genesis has flopped. Badly. Sega CD, Saturn, Dreamcast. Heck, the 32x flopped nearly as badly as the Virtual Boy.
sega fvcked themselves by taking too long to get online. everyone was all hyped about online play with a console, and we got what, chu chu rocket the first year? if they would have truly been online since day one, like they said, the DC wouldve had a lot better chance.
I was only contesting your statement that "Nintendo is the oldest video game company still alive by far..."
Sega is older, and Sega is quite still alive and making video games and pachinko machines, even though they got out of the console business.
Okay, that's where we are differing in opinion. To me, Sega of today is like Atari of today. They're not really the same company anymore.
The difference between Sega and Atari is that Atari really did die out and was recently resurrected, but in name only.
Sega didn't die out. Their original market was coin-op, their bread and butter was always coin-op, and they finally realized they couldn't hack it in the console segment, so they went back to mostly coin-op. Sega is the same company it's always been. It didn't die out at all.
It's just like Nintendo dropping out of the coin-op market in the mid-80s. They just couldn't hack it while Sega was churning out quarter-eating monsters. So they gave up on that segment, but they are hardly "dead." Nintendo was always mostly focused on consoles. Same company it's always been. It didn't die out at all.
Like I said before, this is getting pretty pedantic, but Sega is older, and they are still doing what they have been doing since the 1960s. I just think it's a false statement to declare that Nintendo is the elder statesman here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter