/vr/ - Retro Games

>>11031604
I'm not really talking about these kinds of posts and the overall discussion of the board, though I do agree with you, I just think that "retro" as we know it ends on Dreamcast, and that's all really.

>>10805747
PS2 came out in 2000, backwards compatible to the console that essentially killed SEGA before, the PS1, and also worked as a cheap DVD player at a time those were expensive. If you had a PS1, there was no reason not to get a PS2, no reason to get any newer console besides the PS2, we're talking about over 100 million people here, so it was going to kill the Dreamcast no matter what.

I'd say releasing early was the only chance SEGA really had, having a console that looks better if compared to PS1 and N64, with a ton of superb IPs, and a head start? It was the only way to go.

>>10738986
It doesn't matter, in both scenarios SEGA would still have left the market because the 32 and the Saturn fucked them up just that much, it was not possible to recover from it, not with Sony in the market, dominating the way they were, at least.

It's a shame, because the Dreamcast was stellar.

>>10717596
I think Dreamcast was the last home console to feel "retro" and GBA was the last handheld, but while PS2, Game Cube, XBOX, DS and PSP aren't so bad, they feel too close in direction to what a current video game looks like, Dreamcast was to most the last console where arcade ports were seen as a selling point, so it feels like the end of an era, in this case the "retro" era, I just worked.

>>10686419
If a console sells less than its predecessors and/or its competitors, people often regard it as the console being a "failure" for the most part, it's a matter of popularity, not if it has a good library, controller, aesthetic, etc... I mean, Saturn failed, Dreamcast failed... it doesn't stop them from still having a lot of fans that regard them well, but by all intents and purposes, they still failed in sales.

What went right?