7 ms·

This is largely incorrect. The Saturn was entirely a Sega of Japan design. There's an interview (https://mdshock.com/2020/06/16/hideki-sato-discussing-the-sega-

by ndiddy 3y ago

This is largely incorrect. The Saturn was entirely a Sega of Japan design. There's an interview (https://mdshock.com/2020/06/16/hideki-sato-discussing-the-sega-saturn/ https://mdshock.com/2020/06/16/hideki-sato-discussing-the-se...) with the Saturn hardware designer that gives some perspective into why he chose to make the hardware the way he did. Basically, he knew that 3D was the future from the response the PSX was getting, but besides AM2 (the team at Sega that did 3D arcade games like Virtua Fighter, Daytona USA, etc), all of Sega's internal expertise was on traditional 2D sprite-based games. Because of this, he felt the best compromise was to make a console that excelled at 2D games and was workable at 3D games. I think his biggest mistake was that he underestimated how quickly the industry would switch to mainly focusing on 3D. The actual result of Sega's infighting was far more stupid IMO. Sega of America wanted a more conservative design than the Saturn using a Motorola 68020 (successor to the 68000 in the Genesis) which would have lower performance, but developers would be more familiar with the hardware. After they lost this fight, they deemed the Saturn impossible to sell in the US due to its high price. SOA then designed the 32X, a $200 add-on to the Genesis that used the same SH2 processors as the Saturn but drew graphics entirely in software and overlayed them on top of the Genesis graphics. The initial plan was that the Saturn would remain exclusively in Japan for 2-3 years while the 32X would sell overseas. Sega of America spent a ton of money trying to build interest for the 32X and focused their internal development exclusively on the 32X. However, both developers and the media were completely uninterested in it compared to the Saturn. After it became evident that the 32X wouldn't hold the market, Sega of America rushed the Saturn to market to draw attention away from the 32X, but had to rely exclusively on Japanese titles (many of which didn't fit the American market) because they'd spent the past year developing 32X titles (the 32X had more cancelled games than released ones). All of this ended up confusing and pissing off developers and consumers.

Ghaleon 3y ago
The 32X initially sold well, and media coverage was much stronger than the 3DO/Jag/CDi. But SEGA abandoned support for it REALLY quickly. I had a 32X at launch and was excited, but almost all the games sucked. Shadow Squadron is like the only legitimate non-port, original game that's pretty good lol and it came out when the system was about dead. I think consumers were def skeptical of the 32X despite the marketing, and that was the main thing, in addition to an unimpressive library. Magazine coverage was decent but Gamepro in particular was very negative toward it. Like, Chaotix sucks but the music is amazing, and Gamepro not only trashed the game but gave even the music low marks because "no 32X audio is apparent" lol.
masklinn 3y ago
So that is the background for the 32X. Thanks. I was on team N and I was always confused by the weird accessories of the Genesis, and the 32X’s timing always was one of the most confusing bits, but I’d never actually looked into it.
- MBCook 3y ago
  I generally was too. There were some fun games on the 32X, but I bought it at fire sale prices after it failed. Unfortunately the combination of the 32X mistake plus the rushed Saturn launch just annoyed all partners, retail and development. It’s likely a big reason the Dreamcast did so poorly. It was a nice system but Sega was already on their back foot, not many people trusted them, and piracy was way too easy. Their partner in MS wasn’t helpful. And then the PS2 was coming…
  - SpecialistK 3y ago
    The DC was doing well, but the bank account was already overdrawn. Piracy wasn't a big factor, since very very few people had broadband and CD-R drives in 2000. The attach rate was reportedly better than average. And the MS thing was just the availability of middleware that a few games used.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      As the console continued on, if we assume it lived a full five years or something, piracy would have gotten worse as more and more CD burners became commonplace. Didn’t they have to pay MS a small license fee for each unit? I’m assuming that was a drag too. Not one that killed it, but just another little kick.
      - SpecialistK 3y ago
        The MilCD exploit was already patched in the last hardware revisions (VA2) so I imagine it would be a bit like the Switch (IIRC) where early models are vulnerable to exploits and more desirable on the second-hand market. I'm not sure what the agreement with Microsoft was, but it was probably on a per-game basis if the developers wanted to use Windows CE.
phire 3y ago
Now that's a good interview. > I think his biggest mistake was that he underestimated how quickly the industry would switch to mainly focusing on 3D. I think his mistake was a bit more subtle than that. Because he didn't have any experience in 3D or anyone to ask for help, he didn't know which features were important and which features could be ignored. And he ended up missing roughly two important features that would have bought the Saturn upto the standard of "workable 3D". The quads weren't even that big of a problem. Even if the industry did standardise on triangles for 3D hardware, a lot of the artist pipelines sick with quads as much as possible. The first missing feature is texture mapping. Basically the ability to pass in uv coordinates for each vertex (or even just a single uv offset and some slopes for the whole quad). The lack of texture mapping made it very hard to export or convert 3D models from other consoles. Instead, artists had to create new models where each quad always maps to an 8x8 texel quad of pixels. The second missing feature is alpha blending, or semitransparent quads. The Saturn did support half-transparency, but it only worked for non-distorted sprites, and you really want more options than just 50% or 100%. With those two features, I think the Saturn would have been a workable 3D console. Still not as good as the playstation, but probably good enough for Sega to stand its ground until the Dreamcast launched.
- mmaniac 3y ago
  > The quads weren't even that big of a problem. Even if the industry did standardise on triangles for 3D hardware, a lot of the artist pipelines sick with quads as much as possible. > The first missing feature is texture mapping. Basically the ability to pass in uv coordinates for each vertex. These two situations are fundamentally related. Most 3D rasterizers including the Playstation use inverse texture mapping, iterating over framebuffer pixels to find texels to sample. The Saturn uses forward texture mapping, iterating over the texels and drawing them to their corresponding framebuffer pixels. The choice to use forward mapping has some key design consequences. It isn't practical to implement UV mapping using forward mapping, and quads are also become a more natural primitive to use. > The second missing feature is alpha blending, or semitransparent quads. The Saturn did support half-transparency, but it only worked for non-distorted sprites, and you really want more options than just 50% or 100%. I don't consider this to be a significant problem. The checkerboard mesh feature provides a workable pseudo-half-transparent effect, especially with the blurry analog video signals used at the time. Side note but forward mapping is also the reason why half-transparency does not work for distorted sprites. Forward mapping means that the same pixel may be overdrawn. If a half-transparent pixel is blended twice, the result is a corrupt pixel. VDP2 can also provide half-transparent effects in various circumstances - this video provides a comprehensive look at various methods which were used to deliver this effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OchOV_WDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OchOV_WDg
luma 3y ago
I bought the Saturn on the US launch day and never clearly understood why, for the first maybe 6 months, there were only a handful of titles available. Interesting back story!
5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
> Sega of America rushed the Saturn to market interesting. i always thought this was an order from SOJ.
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  It was. Kalinske tried to push back, but for some reason after all of his success at SoA, SoJ kept undercutting him in the mid 90s with the 32X and early Saturn launch.
spxneo 3y ago
This is why I love HN. Busting esoteric misconceptions with detailed knowledge of industry and history. It makes sense why developers hated the Saturn and PSX came out on top. Developer experience is king!
VelesDude 3y ago
While this is an entirely "in retrospect this would have been the best plan!". The youtube channel Video games esoterica had an interesting idea on an alternatives path Sega could have taken. Namely, lean in hard on 32X for about a year or two to try and slow demand for Ps1 with cheaper hardware. Release the Neptune (Genesis with inbuilt 32x). They then take up Panasonics deal and use the M2 platform to be the Saturn. Release that in 1997 with specs far beyond Ps1/N64. Neat idea but this is all just fantasy stuff at this point.
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  Thanks for the YT recommendation. Sega alt-history is something I've spent more than a few hours thinking about. It's hard to really nail down without knowing about chip prices in the day, but my thinking was to wait on the Sega CD until 92 or 93, include a DSP or two for basic 3D operations (like the Sega Virtua Processor in Virtua Racing) and market the CD as allowing for cheaper, bigger games instead of FMV garbage. Then release the Saturn in 95 as an upgraded version of the same architecture akin to the SMD/Gen being based on the SMS. Add a newer CPU (SH-3 or PowerPC 603), use an upgraded SMD's graphics chip for 2D (like VDP2 on the Saturn), the 68K for audio, and whatever 3D silicon Sega had developed (probably still quads) If this was financially / technically possible, it would have staved off Sega's fear about the SMD/Gen falling behind the SNES in 92-95, allowed backwards compatibility, and been less jank to develop for.
hnlmorg 3y ago
It also didn’t help that Sony poached a lot of studios with exclusivity deals. The fact that the Saturn was harder to develop for, had a smaller market share and Sony were paying studios to release on the PlayStation, it’s no wonder Sony won the console wars that generation.
- VelesDude 3y ago
  Sony through their choices also landed on a bit of luck. They where cheaper than the Saturn, had a machine that was much easier to work with and where charging developers a lot less in royalties. Also helped that they where out before N64 and with the cost of cartridges.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    I get that you’re saying but I wouldn’t describe that as luck. Their choices weren’t made randomly and are what lead to their success.
eek2121 3y ago
I think it is funny that both were wrong. 2D games are still very much being developed and released today, and many outsell 3D games, even AAA 3D games. People beat Sega up back then, and also now, but I do not think their hardware was that bad. The pricing was a huge issue. If I were them, I would have NOT released the 32X as a standalone, NOT released the Saturn, and instead focus on a fusion of the two into a standalone cartridge based system. For everything people criticized the Saturn for, the cartridges made it work. The N64 showed off the advantage of using a cartridge over a CD based system. If I were going to release a non-portable gaming system today, I'd build one around cartridges that are PCIE 5.0 x4 based and design it so that a) you can quickly shut off the system and replace the game rather than digging through ads/clunky ui/launcher. b) access and latency times are fast c) the hardware is potentially extendable in many different ways. However, I actually liked the 32x and it's games. Maybe that is because I got the 32x on clearance at walmart for $10 and the games for $1-$2 each, or maybe it was because many of the games were fun and were a genuine upgrade over my 16 bit systems. I don't think the Saturn was bad, but it was overpriced for the time and definitely rushed. I DO think this rush to make consoles require an internet connection has left a sizable hole in the market, a hole that nintendo is only half filling. Offline gaming is a thing, and just because a console CAN be connected to the internet, doesn't mean it should be. I've been fantasizing about making one in the future. Something that is kind of like the old Steam Machine, but with the aspects I have mentioned. Maybe one day I will. For me it won't be about success, but rather about building something cool. Anyways, I'm rambling. Have a great night.
- 5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
  they should have focused on supporting the genesis and the saturn for as long as possible. sega was a dysfunctional business reacting to fickle changes in the market (32x was a response to the Atari Jaguar lol). probably as they didn't have the strong cash reserves of a nintendo, sony or microsoft. but ultimately i think they were an arcade business and the transition from arcade to home killed them. the same as snk/neo geo.

by ndiddy 3y ago

Ghaleon 3y ago

The 32X initially sold well, and media coverage was much stronger than the 3DO/Jag/CDi. But SEGA abandoned support for it REALLY quickly. I had a 32X at launch and was excited, but almost all the games sucked. Shadow Squadron is like the only legitimate non-port, original game that's pretty good lol and it came out when the system was about dead. I think consumers were def skeptical of the 32X despite the marketing, and that was the main thing, in addition to an unimpressive library. Magazine coverage was decent but Gamepro in particular was very negative toward it. Like, Chaotix sucks but the music is amazing, and Gamepro not only trashed the game but gave even the music low marks because "no 32X audio is apparent" lol.

masklinn 3y ago

So that is the background for the 32X. Thanks. I was on team N and I was always confused by the weird accessories of the Genesis, and the 32X’s timing always was one of the most confusing bits, but I’d never actually looked into it.

MBCook 3y ago
I generally was too. There were some fun games on the 32X, but I bought it at fire sale prices after it failed. Unfortunately the combination of the 32X mistake plus the rushed Saturn launch just annoyed all partners, retail and development. It’s likely a big reason the Dreamcast did so poorly. It was a nice system but Sega was already on their back foot, not many people trusted them, and piracy was way too easy. Their partner in MS wasn’t helpful. And then the PS2 was coming…
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  The DC was doing well, but the bank account was already overdrawn. Piracy wasn't a big factor, since very very few people had broadband and CD-R drives in 2000. The attach rate was reportedly better than average. And the MS thing was just the availability of middleware that a few games used.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    As the console continued on, if we assume it lived a full five years or something, piracy would have gotten worse as more and more CD burners became commonplace. Didn’t they have to pay MS a small license fee for each unit? I’m assuming that was a drag too. Not one that killed it, but just another little kick.
    - SpecialistK 3y ago
      The MilCD exploit was already patched in the last hardware revisions (VA2) so I imagine it would be a bit like the Switch (IIRC) where early models are vulnerable to exploits and more desirable on the second-hand market. I'm not sure what the agreement with Microsoft was, but it was probably on a per-game basis if the developers wanted to use Windows CE.

phire 3y ago

Now that's a good interview. > I think his biggest mistake was that he underestimated how quickly the industry would switch to mainly focusing on 3D. I think his mistake was a bit more subtle than that. Because he didn't have any experience in 3D or anyone to ask for help, he didn't know which features were important and which features could be ignored. And he ended up missing roughly two important features that would have bought the Saturn upto the standard of "workable 3D". The quads weren't even that big of a problem. Even if the industry did standardise on triangles for 3D hardware, a lot of the artist pipelines sick with quads as much as possible. The first missing feature is texture mapping. Basically the ability to pass in uv coordinates for each vertex (or even just a single uv offset and some slopes for the whole quad). The lack of texture mapping made it very hard to export or convert 3D models from other consoles. Instead, artists had to create new models where each quad always maps to an 8x8 texel quad of pixels. The second missing feature is alpha blending, or semitransparent quads. The Saturn did support half-transparency, but it only worked for non-distorted sprites, and you really want more options than just 50% or 100%. With those two features, I think the Saturn would have been a workable 3D console. Still not as good as the playstation, but probably good enough for Sega to stand its ground until the Dreamcast launched.

mmaniac 3y ago
> The quads weren't even that big of a problem. Even if the industry did standardise on triangles for 3D hardware, a lot of the artist pipelines sick with quads as much as possible. > The first missing feature is texture mapping. Basically the ability to pass in uv coordinates for each vertex. These two situations are fundamentally related. Most 3D rasterizers including the Playstation use inverse texture mapping, iterating over framebuffer pixels to find texels to sample. The Saturn uses forward texture mapping, iterating over the texels and drawing them to their corresponding framebuffer pixels. The choice to use forward mapping has some key design consequences. It isn't practical to implement UV mapping using forward mapping, and quads are also become a more natural primitive to use. > The second missing feature is alpha blending, or semitransparent quads. The Saturn did support half-transparency, but it only worked for non-distorted sprites, and you really want more options than just 50% or 100%. I don't consider this to be a significant problem. The checkerboard mesh feature provides a workable pseudo-half-transparent effect, especially with the blurry analog video signals used at the time. Side note but forward mapping is also the reason why half-transparency does not work for distorted sprites. Forward mapping means that the same pixel may be overdrawn. If a half-transparent pixel is blended twice, the result is a corrupt pixel. VDP2 can also provide half-transparent effects in various circumstances - this video provides a comprehensive look at various methods which were used to deliver this effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OchOV_WDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OchOV_WDg

luma 3y ago

I bought the Saturn on the US launch day and never clearly understood why, for the first maybe 6 months, there were only a handful of titles available. Interesting back story!

5350-uiop-1130 3y ago

> Sega of America rushed the Saturn to market interesting. i always thought this was an order from SOJ.

SpecialistK 3y ago
It was. Kalinske tried to push back, but for some reason after all of his success at SoA, SoJ kept undercutting him in the mid 90s with the 32X and early Saturn launch.

spxneo 3y ago

This is why I love HN. Busting esoteric misconceptions with detailed knowledge of industry and history. It makes sense why developers hated the Saturn and PSX came out on top. Developer experience is king!

VelesDude 3y ago

While this is an entirely "in retrospect this would have been the best plan!". The youtube channel Video games esoterica had an interesting idea on an alternatives path Sega could have taken. Namely, lean in hard on 32X for about a year or two to try and slow demand for Ps1 with cheaper hardware. Release the Neptune (Genesis with inbuilt 32x). They then take up Panasonics deal and use the M2 platform to be the Saturn. Release that in 1997 with specs far beyond Ps1/N64. Neat idea but this is all just fantasy stuff at this point.

SpecialistK 3y ago
Thanks for the YT recommendation. Sega alt-history is something I've spent more than a few hours thinking about. It's hard to really nail down without knowing about chip prices in the day, but my thinking was to wait on the Sega CD until 92 or 93, include a DSP or two for basic 3D operations (like the Sega Virtua Processor in Virtua Racing) and market the CD as allowing for cheaper, bigger games instead of FMV garbage. Then release the Saturn in 95 as an upgraded version of the same architecture akin to the SMD/Gen being based on the SMS. Add a newer CPU (SH-3 or PowerPC 603), use an upgraded SMD's graphics chip for 2D (like VDP2 on the Saturn), the 68K for audio, and whatever 3D silicon Sega had developed (probably still quads) If this was financially / technically possible, it would have staved off Sega's fear about the SMD/Gen falling behind the SNES in 92-95, allowed backwards compatibility, and been less jank to develop for.

hnlmorg 3y ago

It also didn’t help that Sony poached a lot of studios with exclusivity deals. The fact that the Saturn was harder to develop for, had a smaller market share and Sony were paying studios to release on the PlayStation, it’s no wonder Sony won the console wars that generation.

VelesDude 3y ago
Sony through their choices also landed on a bit of luck. They where cheaper than the Saturn, had a machine that was much easier to work with and where charging developers a lot less in royalties. Also helped that they where out before N64 and with the cost of cartridges.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  I get that you’re saying but I wouldn’t describe that as luck. Their choices weren’t made randomly and are what lead to their success.

eek2121 3y ago

I think it is funny that both were wrong. 2D games are still very much being developed and released today, and many outsell 3D games, even AAA 3D games. People beat Sega up back then, and also now, but I do not think their hardware was that bad. The pricing was a huge issue. If I were them, I would have NOT released the 32X as a standalone, NOT released the Saturn, and instead focus on a fusion of the two into a standalone cartridge based system. For everything people criticized the Saturn for, the cartridges made it work. The N64 showed off the advantage of using a cartridge over a CD based system. If I were going to release a non-portable gaming system today, I'd build one around cartridges that are PCIE 5.0 x4 based and design it so that a) you can quickly shut off the system and replace the game rather than digging through ads/clunky ui/launcher. b) access and latency times are fast c) the hardware is potentially extendable in many different ways. However, I actually liked the 32x and it's games. Maybe that is because I got the 32x on clearance at walmart for $10 and the games for $1-$2 each, or maybe it was because many of the games were fun and were a genuine upgrade over my 16 bit systems. I don't think the Saturn was bad, but it was overpriced for the time and definitely rushed. I DO think this rush to make consoles require an internet connection has left a sizable hole in the market, a hole that nintendo is only half filling. Offline gaming is a thing, and just because a console CAN be connected to the internet, doesn't mean it should be. I've been fantasizing about making one in the future. Something that is kind of like the old Steam Machine, but with the aspects I have mentioned. Maybe one day I will. For me it won't be about success, but rather about building something cool. Anyways, I'm rambling. Have a great night.

5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
they should have focused on supporting the genesis and the saturn for as long as possible. sega was a dysfunctional business reacting to fickle changes in the market (32x was a response to the Atari Jaguar lol). probably as they didn't have the strong cash reserves of a nintendo, sony or microsoft. but ultimately i think they were an arcade business and the transition from arcade to home killed them. the same as snk/neo geo.