4 ms·

> Sega had plenty of great games. Not the ones kids wanted most.

by slothtrop 3y ago

db48x 3y ago
Which means it was really just advertising, not games.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Optics, price point, word of mouth. Coming from the SNES as a kid, I only wanted the N64 and that's what I got. Very quickly the PSX got popular and games were stocked everywhere. No one talked about the Saturn. I did get to play it when it was new (the Saturn), and the catalog I encountered was shitty FMV games and a shmup. I was not enamored. The Dreamcast though, I remember being very attractive. The demos of Sonic Adventure looked absolutely astounding to me. I was late hopping on to that gen of consoles (parents strapped for cash), and still given the choice I went for the PS2, because it had the more attractive catalog and a DVD player. Years went by and I borrowed a GC to play Prime, an XBOX to play Ninja Gaiden and Halo, but I was not that motivated to try the DC.
  - 1980phipsi 3y ago
    I played Soul Caliber on a friend's DC. There was also a great tennis game.
- paulcole 3y ago
  Not to be flippant, but so what? I'd rather be the creator of the worst thing that people want to buy than the best thing that nobody's ever heard of.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    Very few autuers agree with you. They make blockbuster movies to finance the goodwill and pocketbooks of the films they want to make. This is why the critically "best" movies every year always go under the radar with relatively few ticket sales. This is all to say, your opinion clearly isn't the universal one.
  - db48x 3y ago
    That’s not really what I was getting at (although it is generally true, and it is the original meaning of the phrase “the customer is always right”). My point was that advertising steers people’s opinions all the time. Better advertising would have ensured that the kids wanted the games that Sega would actually have. Although I will also say that they must have known that a lot of kids would already want another Sonic game, so not having one at launch was a mistake. No need to steer people’s opinions if they are already in a convenient place.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  This is a bad take. Sega actually had incredible advertising campaigns in the 90s. That iconic "SEGA!" yell was addictive and memeable. Advertising/marketing was never a problem for Sega. Sega also had tons of mindshare. They fumbled the ball and Sony ran with it for a touchdown. End of story.
mathgeek 3y ago
As a lifelong fan of turn-based JRPG titles, this rings true. The Saturn (and the SegaCD before it) had some great titles there, but the PS1 had a while lot more to choose from, while the N64 was very light. By the time the PS2 and DC rolled around, “what the kids want” was clearly moving away from what I wanted. Every indie or retro title in the genre was and is a gift since.
- nsxwolf 3y ago
  If you were into the 2D fighting games from the late 90s arcade scene, the Saturn was your system.
  - mathgeek 3y ago
    Very true! I was more into the early-to-mid 90s fighters (MK, SF2) but the Saturn had a solid lineup there as well.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  While the turn-based aspect had definitely become more niche by the time of the PS2, JRPGs were still abounding on it and (lesser so, but still) the DreamCast. It wasn't until PS3 that they started to wane; and now they're all but dead (outside of Japan).
hparadiz 3y ago
The first two years for PS1 was insane. A true outlier. Tekken, Rayman, Road Rash, Twisted Metal Even random racing games were for the first time rendered in 3D so it was really mind blowing going from sprites to that. The opening line up is god tier by modern standards https://www.giantbomb.com/playstation/3045-22/forums/all-ps1-games-in-order-1995-round-up-1907206/ https://www.giantbomb.com/playstation/3045-22/forums/all-ps1...
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  Yeah I don't think a console has come close since, and this always makes launches feel very lackluster to me.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    The PS5 is a good example, it was announced over a year before it came out and I'm confident first-party developers could already work on games for the platform, but... exclusives were lackluster at best, and for the first year or two it was pretty much all cross-platform titles. Probably for the best since production couldn't keep up with demand, so the PS5 was a slow burner that didn't yet need exclusives to sell the console. But a better launch lineup would've been nice.
    - hbn 3y ago
      PS4 wasn't too different. Many people held off on getting one until Bloodborne came out 16 months later. I think Microsoft is the one in a really weird position ever since they started releasing PC versions of basically all their platform exclusives. Not that I'm complaining, but they've pretty much made it so there's zero reason for PC gamers to buy an Xbox, whereas there's still reasons to buy a Switch or PlayStation for the exclusives.
      - lukas099 3y ago
        I wonder if Microsoft does this because gaming has been one of the biggest differentiators for their OS. That's an advantage that is rapidly fading and they want to hold onto it as long as possible.
Tiktaalik 3y ago
lol why is this being downvoted? This is the truth. Like I have a Saturn and love it, but I bought it in Japan to play shmups, which are not a popular genre or sales darling. Was the mainstream market interested in shmups or JRPGs (neither of which Sega of America brought over?) no. The kids wanted Mario 64, Mario Kart and [insert your favourite big 3D tentpole game from the Playstation side]. Sega had the misfortune of 1) being excellent at making a sort of arcade style game that was waning in popularity and 2) making a type of hardware that was excellent for 2D games that were becoming less popular. The result is that they had a system that had lots of good games on paper, but which weren't the trendy rising stars the market was looking for. If they'd made a 3D Sonic game near launch to keep the pace up after folks were done with Virtua Fighter maybe things would have been different, but that didn't happen.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  That's how I remember it. When I tried someone's console, they had on hand: FMV games (which were terrible), and shmups. I was not sold.
- baanlox 3y ago
  I was a gamer from Atari 2600 to Saturn. My experience was exactly that once I was bored with Virtua Fighter it felt like nothing good was coming out for it. Even Virtua Fighter while fun didn't stay that fun for very long. I know I had just got it at New Years 1995/96. It was $399, $790 adjusted for inflation. It is really one of the worst purchases of my life in terms of the excitement of coming home with it to not playing it a few months after. I had no other games but Virtua Fighter for it and it pretty much ruined my interest in gaming.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  > Was the mainstream market interested in shmups or JRPGs (neither of which Sega of America brought over?) no. One of the best selling games of that generation was a JRPG (FF7), and it was most definitely a popular genre. Interest in it didn't begin waning until the next generation. > The kids wanted Mario 64, Mario Kart and [insert your favourite big 3D tentpole game from the Playstation side]. There were hundreds of "tent-pole 3D" games released for the N64 and PS1; yet people only remember a dozen or so. By your previous logic on JRPGs (which, again, were very popular in the "32-bit era"), this is not a mainstream..."genre". Your memory of the whole era feels super anachronistic. The Saturn didn't fail because of it's games, it failed because it didn't have enough of them (by chasing third party developers away) and (as you touched on), the majority of the best ones never left Japan.
GuB-42 3y ago
Why the downvotes? It definitely was a huge reason. The Dreamcast had great games, most people agree with that. Most notoriously arcade games. But they were all somewhat niche, and Sega struggled to get the big licences necessary to achieve popular success. In particular: no EA, no Square-Enix, and way behind Nintendo when it comes to first party titles.

> Sega had plenty of great games. Not the ones kids wanted most.

db48x 3y ago

Which means it was really just advertising, not games.

slothtrop 3y ago
Optics, price point, word of mouth. Coming from the SNES as a kid, I only wanted the N64 and that's what I got. Very quickly the PSX got popular and games were stocked everywhere. No one talked about the Saturn. I did get to play it when it was new (the Saturn), and the catalog I encountered was shitty FMV games and a shmup. I was not enamored. The Dreamcast though, I remember being very attractive. The demos of Sonic Adventure looked absolutely astounding to me. I was late hopping on to that gen of consoles (parents strapped for cash), and still given the choice I went for the PS2, because it had the more attractive catalog and a DVD player. Years went by and I borrowed a GC to play Prime, an XBOX to play Ninja Gaiden and Halo, but I was not that motivated to try the DC.
- 1980phipsi 3y ago
  I played Soul Caliber on a friend's DC. There was also a great tennis game.
paulcole 3y ago
Not to be flippant, but so what? I'd rather be the creator of the worst thing that people want to buy than the best thing that nobody's ever heard of.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  Very few autuers agree with you. They make blockbuster movies to finance the goodwill and pocketbooks of the films they want to make. This is why the critically "best" movies every year always go under the radar with relatively few ticket sales. This is all to say, your opinion clearly isn't the universal one.
- db48x 3y ago
  That’s not really what I was getting at (although it is generally true, and it is the original meaning of the phrase “the customer is always right”). My point was that advertising steers people’s opinions all the time. Better advertising would have ensured that the kids wanted the games that Sega would actually have. Although I will also say that they must have known that a lot of kids would already want another Sonic game, so not having one at launch was a mistake. No need to steer people’s opinions if they are already in a convenient place.
chrisco255 3y ago
This is a bad take. Sega actually had incredible advertising campaigns in the 90s. That iconic "SEGA!" yell was addictive and memeable. Advertising/marketing was never a problem for Sega. Sega also had tons of mindshare. They fumbled the ball and Sony ran with it for a touchdown. End of story.

mathgeek 3y ago

As a lifelong fan of turn-based JRPG titles, this rings true. The Saturn (and the SegaCD before it) had some great titles there, but the PS1 had a while lot more to choose from, while the N64 was very light. By the time the PS2 and DC rolled around, “what the kids want” was clearly moving away from what I wanted. Every indie or retro title in the genre was and is a gift since.

nsxwolf 3y ago
If you were into the 2D fighting games from the late 90s arcade scene, the Saturn was your system.
- mathgeek 3y ago
  Very true! I was more into the early-to-mid 90s fighters (MK, SF2) but the Saturn had a solid lineup there as well.
deaddodo 3y ago
While the turn-based aspect had definitely become more niche by the time of the PS2, JRPGs were still abounding on it and (lesser so, but still) the DreamCast. It wasn't until PS3 that they started to wane; and now they're all but dead (outside of Japan).

hparadiz 3y ago

The first two years for PS1 was insane. A true outlier. Tekken, Rayman, Road Rash, Twisted Metal Even random racing games were for the first time rendered in 3D so it was really mind blowing going from sprites to that. The opening line up is god tier by modern standards https://www.giantbomb.com/playstation/3045-22/forums/all-ps1-games-in-order-1995-round-up-1907206/ https://www.giantbomb.com/playstation/3045-22/forums/all-ps1...

micromacrofoot 3y ago
Yeah I don't think a console has come close since, and this always makes launches feel very lackluster to me.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  The PS5 is a good example, it was announced over a year before it came out and I'm confident first-party developers could already work on games for the platform, but... exclusives were lackluster at best, and for the first year or two it was pretty much all cross-platform titles. Probably for the best since production couldn't keep up with demand, so the PS5 was a slow burner that didn't yet need exclusives to sell the console. But a better launch lineup would've been nice.
  - hbn 3y ago
    PS4 wasn't too different. Many people held off on getting one until Bloodborne came out 16 months later. I think Microsoft is the one in a really weird position ever since they started releasing PC versions of basically all their platform exclusives. Not that I'm complaining, but they've pretty much made it so there's zero reason for PC gamers to buy an Xbox, whereas there's still reasons to buy a Switch or PlayStation for the exclusives.
    - lukas099 3y ago
      I wonder if Microsoft does this because gaming has been one of the biggest differentiators for their OS. That's an advantage that is rapidly fading and they want to hold onto it as long as possible.

Tiktaalik 3y ago

lol why is this being downvoted? This is the truth. Like I have a Saturn and love it, but I bought it in Japan to play shmups, which are not a popular genre or sales darling. Was the mainstream market interested in shmups or JRPGs (neither of which Sega of America brought over?) no. The kids wanted Mario 64, Mario Kart and [insert your favourite big 3D tentpole game from the Playstation side]. Sega had the misfortune of 1) being excellent at making a sort of arcade style game that was waning in popularity and 2) making a type of hardware that was excellent for 2D games that were becoming less popular. The result is that they had a system that had lots of good games on paper, but which weren't the trendy rising stars the market was looking for. If they'd made a 3D Sonic game near launch to keep the pace up after folks were done with Virtua Fighter maybe things would have been different, but that didn't happen.

slothtrop 3y ago
That's how I remember it. When I tried someone's console, they had on hand: FMV games (which were terrible), and shmups. I was not sold.
baanlox 3y ago
I was a gamer from Atari 2600 to Saturn. My experience was exactly that once I was bored with Virtua Fighter it felt like nothing good was coming out for it. Even Virtua Fighter while fun didn't stay that fun for very long. I know I had just got it at New Years 1995/96. It was $399, $790 adjusted for inflation. It is really one of the worst purchases of my life in terms of the excitement of coming home with it to not playing it a few months after. I had no other games but Virtua Fighter for it and it pretty much ruined my interest in gaming.
deaddodo 3y ago
> Was the mainstream market interested in shmups or JRPGs (neither of which Sega of America brought over?) no. One of the best selling games of that generation was a JRPG (FF7), and it was most definitely a popular genre. Interest in it didn't begin waning until the next generation. > The kids wanted Mario 64, Mario Kart and [insert your favourite big 3D tentpole game from the Playstation side]. There were hundreds of "tent-pole 3D" games released for the N64 and PS1; yet people only remember a dozen or so. By your previous logic on JRPGs (which, again, were very popular in the "32-bit era"), this is not a mainstream..."genre". Your memory of the whole era feels super anachronistic. The Saturn didn't fail because of it's games, it failed because it didn't have enough of them (by chasing third party developers away) and (as you touched on), the majority of the best ones never left Japan.

GuB-42 3y ago

Why the downvotes? It definitely was a huge reason. The Dreamcast had great games, most people agree with that. Most notoriously arcade games. But they were all somewhat niche, and Sega struggled to get the big licences necessary to achieve popular success. In particular: no EA, no Square-Enix, and way behind Nintendo when it comes to first party titles.