The Demise of Sega as a Console Producer: Good or Bad for Gaming?

[The Doctor]

As we all know, Sega closed its doors as a console producer in 2001, by discontinuing the Dreamcast as it supposedly could not compete with the Playstation 2. I've often wondered what caused this, as the Dreamcast was a great little system that was way ahead of its time. However, why it happened is not the subject I want to discuss here.
I want to talk about if it was good or bad for gaming overall that it happened.

I've thought long and hard about this, and I've decided that ultimately it was bad for gaming.
My number one reason for deciding this boils down to one word: Competition. Without Sega, we only have three main powers in the console race: Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony. Sony and Microsoft are more or less the same, with Nintendo being the only one to try anything different With less competition, people don't try as hard. It's just like with wrestling, albeit to a lesser extent.

Another thing: There are fewer console exclusives. Since Sega now makes games for all consoles (nd so do other companies) there are less reasons to choose one console over the other, at least with the 360 and PS3. The main differences now are graphics, and even they don't show much difference. There are very few "killer apps" anymore. Sega was good at making killer apps and hyping themselves up. For example, take "Blast Processing". Blast Processing was a made-up phrase used to basically mean "Sonic goes fast and there are lots of rings on the screen". And it worked. Millions of people bought Genesis/Megadrives, just to play Sonic over Mario.

That no longer happens. Now, console commercials are all about the console's extra features, rather than the games they can run. And that is bad for gaming.

Without competition, first-party companies don't feel the pressure to make more games, and make better games. They give it to third-party developers who do either wonderfully or terribly. Don't get me wrong, third-party games are a necessity on any console, but Sega was great at making good first-party games that shifted consoles.

In conclusion, Sega's cessation of producing consoles was bad. There is less competition, and less innovation.

What do you think?

 

[Dave]

I have to disagree with you completely. Sega were dying as they bowed out of the race for supremacy in the console market. They were making huge losses against the PlayStation 2 and just could not survive in the industry. Now, with them going down the tubes at a fast rate, Sega had to make the correct decision about what to do with it's future and that correct decision was to bow out of making consoles. Think about it like this, if Sega had continues to try and make ends meet by continuing with the development of consoles, they probably would not be around in any context right now. Things like Sonic would be non-existent and people would be looking back at Sega asking what went wrong. They did what any business in the same situation would have done and decided to downsize their ambitions.

Now, with that in mind, why would the demise of Sega as a console maker not be a good thing for gaming. They were going to disappear forever if they had not decided to change their aspirations and people would be talking about them with fond memories rather than in the present tense. I for one, like having Sega still being around. I know that they have failed to produce a properly good game in a while but I am sure that they will find something and continue to exist.

The argument about the consoles being limited because Sega dropped out is ridiculous. Let me put it to you this way, if I may. If Sega could not keep up with the development of the PlayStation 2, how is it expected to keep up with Microsoft and Sony as they pressed ahead with races against each other to have the superior console? They would have failed and failed badly, probably causing them to drop off the face of gaming forever, if you ask me.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Sega Dreamcast had way better games than PS2. It was the DVD player inside the PS2 that out beat the Dreamcast. Other than that, the Dreamcast had way better games. And their controllers had screens in them that had animations whenever you won. It was loads of fun.

Im sorry but Sega leaving the Console Producing was a terrible move. I wish they'd merge with Microsoft and help them out. I'd love to have Sonic as an exclusive.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Sega Dreamcast had way better games than PS2. It was the DVD player inside the PS2 that out beat the Dreamcast.

actually if memory serves me and I had a dreamcast... it could play your burned games with just a simple boot disk. I'd never had to purchase a game when I knew how to burn a game with the boot disk. I believe that is what started the downfall of the dreamcast. nobody was buying games for it due to everybody being able to play burned games.

 

[ABMorales787]

The bad move was releasing the Dreamcast too early. A scouting of the competition on field would've kept them onboard. Sega leaving the hardware aspect was not a bad move for them, but bad for the rest of the business. The Dreamcast was revolutionary, but ahead of its time. It was the first to feature online gaming, it had some of the most awesome games of its time. Games like Soul Calbur, Shenmue, Marvel vs Capcom 1 and 2, Sonic Adventure 1 and 2, Unreal Tournament. The list is endless. But there lied the mistake. The card were all played. Before the other next-gen consoles were even completed. The console's great atributes were shown, but so were the flaws. Whatever it lacked Sony and Nintendo bettered. By the time the PS2 and Gamecube were out they already had whatever tool was needed to upstage the Dreamcast. Not to mention that the Dreamcast played all of its best cards before its competition was even out. That's why it failed and Sega pulled out. At least in my opinion.


Sega brought versatility to the gaming landscape. They always offered something to oppose the competition. Like Doc said, nowadays games are rarely console exclusive. The difference is all in the cost and features of the console. Even the games themselves lack originality. So yes, I think it was a bad move for the gaming industry for Sega to drop from hardware gaming production.

 

[Lee]

I personally think it's not made much of a difference; Since then we've really only had a handful of games by them which have been any good. Now if Sega were to have stuck with consoles after the Dreamcast I think things would be different.

You have to bear in mind that with the GC and N64, Nintendo sales were also flagging, yet they took a risk to develop the Wii and the DS...and it paid off, big style. Sega were usually at the forefront of innovation with gaming but they did bow out without giving it a chance.

But on the flipside: The Master System, Saturn and Dreamcast flopped. That was three out of four consoles, that to me says you should cut your losses.

 

[Tastycles]

I think it was a good thing to be honest. From their point of view they've gone from making losses on shit consoles to sharing a piece of the substantial Wii pie with their Sonic crossovers. From a gaming point of view Microsoft basically replaced them, with the Xbox coming out around the same time as the demise of the Dreamcast. The Saturn is probably the worst pound-for-pound consoe I've ever played on, and I never played on the Dreamcast, but for the most part they were quite second rate.

The Game Gear was light years ahead of the Game Boy, but it never really caught on, which was a crying shame, but apart from that I always found their consoles to be inferior. They'd have gone bust by now if they hadn't, so its probably good that they did stop.