Just out of personal curiosity, I was wondering what kind of interest we would have here in a Dreamcast II of sorts. I know Sega is TOTALLY not interested in getting back in the hardware business so this is NOT going to happen but anyways. Lets say, to get the jump back into things, Sega decided to with off the shelf tech so minimize R&D and have something easy to program for (unlike the Saturn *sigh*). At least to me, the first choice would be AMD (yeah, here me out on this). First of all, AMD can offer a complete package (CPU, Mobo, GPU) and more than likely would do it on the cheap (they need $$$). The ATI side of things has console experience with the original XBOX (which is very similar to what I'm thinking here) and the gamecube/wii. Lets say they pair a Phenom 9550 with a 4870/4850. This would clearly place the box a full generation ahead of the current crop computationally but still maintain some degree of affordability. There would be more then enough processing power here to provide backwards computability with the Dreamcast (as well other previous consoles in an online store much akin to the virtual console) and perhaps be outsourced partially (contact the Chakcast or nullDC devs and offer them positions). Running a linux derived OS with opengl as the primary API would certainly keep devs happy as well. Lets say the box ships with a 750GB hdd for use with digitally distributed games (to get around the pricey royalties needed for BD-rom) but a plain DVD drive is a must as well. With the controller itself being the only piece needing some R&D, perhaps a modern spin the DC controller could work. Lets throw on a 2nd analog stick and maybe bumper buttons on the sholders, but the VMU would be the piece with the most significant upgrade. While not really a storage unit anymore, maybe a compact touch screen built into the controller (or even detachable with bluetooth) could make for a neat little twist. If this could hit at a price point between the XB360 and PS3 would you be interested?
Would you buy it?
- Thread starter nismotigerwvu
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
No, we have too many contenders as is making exclusivity deals with developers that shaft people who own the other console.
not reading big block of text... something about dreamcast 2. I would definitely consider it but they already had a DC 2 in the works in the form of a mod chip you add on to the DC for extra power.
Sega and capcom made some of the best games on that system. The whole system was pure arcade style bliss but without the DVD player, it quickly lost to the ps2 because at the time everyone in Japan was getting into DVD and the ps2 was the cheapest way to get a dvd player.
I should add that the DC is still pumping out tons of sweet games from independent developers or as low budget side projects and is a very easy console to program on.
Did ATI make graphics for the old xbox? I don't think so... just the GC/Wii. And I doubt any console will come with 750gb hdd and be in the same price range as a 360/ps3.
Did ATI make graphics for the old xbox? I don't think so... just the GC/Wii. And I doubt any console will come with 750gb hdd and be in the same price range as a 360/ps3.
RandomFool
Diamond Member
No, I never liked the dreamcast controller although a few of the games were fun. Sega doesn't have the ability to put out good first party games on the system and anything else would end up being a port.
Also I only read about 33% of what you wrote.
Also I only read about 33% of what you wrote.
man.. the DC had dozens of great games... which include...
Soul Calibur
NFL 2k series
RE: Code: Veronica
Rayman2
Jet grind radio
Virtua Tennis
DOA2
Skies of Arcadia
Crazy Taxi
Phantasy Star online
Shenmue/II
Grandia 2
Metropolis street racer
UFC
Power Stone 2
Sonic Adventure
Daytona USA
San Francisco rush 2049
RE3
Sega GT
Hydro Thunder
Virtual On
House of the Dead games
Demolition racer
Gauntlet legends
Sword of the Berserk
18 wheeler
2d fighters:
CVS
Last Blade
SFA3
JoJo's Bizarre Adventure
SF3
MVC
MVC2
Darkstalkers
etc...
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,039
- 32,529
- 146
No. I get the warm fuzzys when I think about all the fun we had with my genesis, but Schad nailed a great reason to be opposed to the idea.
Wall of text crits for 20 damage!
But, honestly, your entire idea reveals that you have no clue about the console industry. You are, essentially, proposing an updated Xbox with DC emulation software. Microsoft took a bath on the original Xbox, and showed the entire industry that a console based on commodity PC hardware is a pretty bad idea. Plus, it sounds slow and expensive. So, no, not buying.
But, honestly, your entire idea reveals that you have no clue about the console industry. You are, essentially, proposing an updated Xbox with DC emulation software. Microsoft took a bath on the original Xbox, and showed the entire industry that a console based on commodity PC hardware is a pretty bad idea. Plus, it sounds slow and expensive. So, no, not buying.
Does the world really need more shitty new-age Sonic the Hedgehog games that bad?
No, I wouldn't buy it and it would be a total failure. from what you are saying, the damn thing would already be in the area of $500... and to say you should go almost strictly with downloaded games is a mistake in itself as you are now REQUIRING people to have a hi-speed internet connection.
This rules out lots of people from even buying it. (The people who won't pay for internet because they don't use a computer regularly, people in more rural places where hi-speed still isn't available, people who don't trust digital distribution and insist on a physical copy)
Maybe you should realize that this idea pretty much stinks because the target audience you had in mind is YOU and what YOU would want.
The ONLY way a fourth console could make a dent in this market is by being drastically cheaper and having cheaper games.
No, I wouldn't buy it and it would be a total failure. from what you are saying, the damn thing would already be in the area of $500... and to say you should go almost strictly with downloaded games is a mistake in itself as you are now REQUIRING people to have a hi-speed internet connection.
This rules out lots of people from even buying it. (The people who won't pay for internet because they don't use a computer regularly, people in more rural places where hi-speed still isn't available, people who don't trust digital distribution and insist on a physical copy)
Maybe you should realize that this idea pretty much stinks because the target audience you had in mind is YOU and what YOU would want.
The ONLY way a fourth console could make a dent in this market is by being drastically cheaper and having cheaper games.
The only reason MS got hosed on the commodity hardware on the first xbox was that they didn't pretty much didn't read the fine print on the nVidia contract. They ended up paying a flat rate for the chipset/gpu despite it going through cost reductions (and nVidia riding the gravy train there after). In terms of power and ease of development, the xbox was a roaring success.
Boobs McGee
Senior member
- Feb 6, 2006
- 405
- 0
- 76
The DC was a great system and I still have my original that I bust out to play Bass and Marine fishing w/ the fishing controller. There were some other great games too like the Power Stone series and MvsC2.
You suggest ATI for the original Xbox, but I thought that was an Nvidia graphics chip. The 360 has the ATI derivitive correct?
You suggest ATI for the original Xbox, but I thought that was an Nvidia graphics chip. The 360 has the ATI derivitive correct?
That sentence came out kinda wrong from how I was thinking. The AMD side had experience with the first xbox in that they were the candidate for the cpu until just before launch really, getting outbid by intel. The ATI side has experince in the xbox 360, gamecube and the wii (and to some extent the N64, as the guys who designed it at SGI broke off to make artX, which got bought up by ATI. Not sure if these guys are still around though). There, clearer.
So, wow, if it was just a quick contract revision, why didn't they do that the second time around? Heck, why not the first? Microsoft's lawyers read the "fine print", believe me. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, as if this was some sort of EULA slipped into a PC game that they just clicked through.
General purpose computer hardware is not a cost effective way to put together a console. It has capabilities that aren't needed, doesn't have some that are, and doesn't usually ramp down as fast in cost. It is, however, a FAST way to design one, which is possibly why they went down that route for the first and last time.
And, I should add, having DC backwards-compatibility is almost totally worthless at this point - no one sells the games in stores, new or used. And there are certainly NOT "tons of sweet games" coming out for the DC these days. There are a few relatively unremarkable shooters, and that's it. Remove those rose-colored glasses!
No, my desire to buy a console has nothing to do with any of the points you mentioned except the cost. All I care about are what games are on it, what other entertainment features it has, the cost, and how much fun I have using it. I could care less what kind of hardware or OS it uses to accomplish all of the above as long as it works. That kind of stuff only matters to the console company itself when it comes to how it effects their profits in terms of costs...not sales. The consumer doesn't care.
A bunch of those titles have moved to the 360/PS3, so no DC II needed.
I'm already going to have a gaming PC, PS2, PS3 Jasper 360 and maybe a wii, so I don't need yet another console to stuff into my living room.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
It is not a bad idea, would the 360 have the RROD issue if Microsoft used (near) off the shelf proven PC hardware in it? They got screwed over by nVidia on prices due to their contract last time around (xbox 1). It would be FAR easier to port between systems if they all used x86 CPUs and GPUs using OpenGL with sound chips using OpenAL. But console makers do not want portability, they want the least manufacturing cost possible and still have competitive power and more importantly, they want exclusivity... the exclusivity that hurts the guy who owns "the other" console
Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
And your post stinks becuase it is what you think and you just stink in general.
lol... no, it's not what I think, it's the truth. Don't cry like a 12 year old because I shot down the idea as not reasonable.
Just face that a niche market game console would never work.
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
It is not a bad idea, would the 360 have the RROD issue if Microsoft used (near) off the shelf proven PC hardware in it? They got screwed over by nVidia on prices due to their contract last time around (xbox 1). It would be FAR easier to port between systems if they all used x86 CPUs and GPUs using OpenGL or Direct3D. But console makers do not want portability, they want the least manufacturing cost possible and still have competitive power and more importantly, they want exclusivity... the exclusivity that hurts the guy who owns "the other" console
Doesn't the 360 have mostly modified PC hardware in it? Are you saying that the RRoD is from them not using stable PC components but opting to use modified proprietary hardware?
I suppose if every console was like a PC operating at similar specs with no exclusivity, there would be no competitive edge. The only purpose of buying one console over another would be reliability and ergonomics.
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: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter