Why didin't SEGA just put a godamn DVD player in it?

[Anonymous No.4421728]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWaFB-sNeBo

[Anonymous No.4421748]

>>4421728
Because they made VIDEO GAMES not movie players.

[Anonymous No.4421751]

>38 second video
>30 seconds are for the intro and outro
Fuck the creator of the video.

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4421771]

So it would be cheaper, which it was by a significant amount. You could buy a Dreamcast AND a DVD player for less than the price of a PS2 but people didn't care.

[Anonymous No.4421806]

>98
>dvd-players
>Sega owning anything about that like Sony, Phillips,etc did
>thinking it was cheap
>in 98

You stupid woman

[Anonymous No.4421816]

>>4421751

Holy crap I thought you were exaggerating. What the hell is wrong with these guys?

[Anonymous No.4421840]

>>4421728
Too big. Buy a normal player. Who buys such a fucking stuff?

[Anonymous No.4421904]

>>4421728
A Dreamcast DVD player would be pointless. You could just buy a PS2 and put a Dreamcast on top of it.

[Anonymous No.4421924]

it would have had make sense in this one

[Anonymous No.4421925]

>>4421728
It would make it cost $300, and $50 of that would have gone to Sony.

[Anonymous No.4421961]

Was the PS2 playing DVDs really tjat big of a selling point? I bought mine in 2001 and already had two standalone players and a PC with a DVD drive. I never knew anyone who actually used their PS2 to play DVDs. Could just be my experience though.

[Anonymous No.4421968]

>>4421961
I used it to play DVDs. Because the games were on DVD.

I don't think the Dreamcast's disk format had anything to do with its demise. People simply were waiting for the PS2. The Playstation was a huge success and people were willing to wait for its sequel.

[Anonymous No.4421971]

>>4421968
As a note, you can play Playstation games on a Playstation 2. You can't play Saturn games on a Dreamcast. Backwards compatibility is something that did actually matter to me.

[Anonymous No.4421990]

>>4421961
A lot of households had the PS2 as their first DVD player.

[Anonymous No.4421991]

>>4421961
DVD players were so expensive outside of the US. The price was almost the same as PS2. Naturally many people bought ps2 as game machine with DVD player. High cost performance.

[Anonymous No.4422008]

>>4421971
Same. I already had quite a few PS1 games that I loved, and sold my PS1 to a friend in order to pay for my PS2.

I did borrow that guy's Dreamcast for a few weeks, and I think I played most of the games that I wanted to, at least. Skies of Arcadia, Code Veronica, House of the Dead 2, Marvel vs Capcom, and I think there was one other I played, but I can't remember what it was. I didn't actually have time to play all the way through Skies of Arcadia, but not long after that, they ended up releasing the GC port of it.

Sega consoles other than the Genesis were actually kind of rare where I live, but when I looked at the games available on the Saturn and Dreamcast, I didn't really feel like I was missing much. Most of the Saturn's worthwhile games never left Japan, and the Dreamcast's library is pretty small, as well. I think Sega made a mistake by being the first one through the gate when the PS2 was right around the corner, but I'm not sure the outcome would have been different if they had waited, either.

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4422025]

>>4421961
Yes. DVD players were hot and there was a real "keeping up with the Joneses" thing happening with buying one at exactly the time the PS2 was announced to have the feature and even though the prices were beginning their free fall by release you still certainly had more money in your two players + dvd drive than a PS2 cost. It was even more significant than the PS3 also playing blu-ray, which was hampered by the slow penetration of HDTVs at the time.

[Anonymous No.4422038]

>>4421961
Ps2 was our family's first DVD player in 2002 my dad even went and bought me the remote control

[Anonymous No.4422047]

>>4422008
Saturn stuff was all over the place where I lived. Only in retrospect do I understand why it just vanished around 1998 or so. I didn't actually have a 5th gen console at all, just PC and my old SNES. So when I got my PS2, it had an existing library of classics I'd never played (though more PS1 games are on PC than you'd think, I'd already played FF7 and the like).

[Anonymous No.4422052]

>>4422038
the absolute MADMAN

[Anonymous No.4422068]

>>4422038
>>4422052
The official PS2 remote is aesthetic.

Unfortunately, since you need to get up anyway to plug in the receiver, you might as well just use a controller to play your movie.

[Anonymous No.4422079]

>>4421816
being a youtuber is about being an e celeb, not creating quality content

[Anonymous No.4422092]

>>4421924
I don't know what that is but I want one

[Anonymous No.4422182]

>>4421816
>>4421751
reminds me of HeavyBassX, but yeah, this is brain dead filling.

[Anonymous No.4422197]

>>4421728
>waa~ how date they make me change 10cent discs
yes, how dare they

[Anonymous No.4422208]

>>4422038
in 2002? pretty damn sure I bought my pioneer dvd player back in 1997... damn you people are slow.
also who wants to watch movies on a noisy console system? seriously, all that fan noise would ruin my movie experiences.

[Anonymous No.4422224]

>>4422208
I didn't know anyone who had a DVD player until after the PS2 came out. They were way too expensive for what they were in the late 90's.

[Anonymous No.4422306]

For what it's worth, the GDR is still not easily stopped in terms of its protections as a proprietary medium.
The only reason its easy to pirate is because of MILCD exploits. GDR is still not flexible so copying 1:1 is still not realistically possible without a GDR Writer and blank GDRs, which are painfully rare and expensive and even if you get them you need the dreamcast devkit and SDK to write them properly, and chances are you're running some costly shit for that.

DVD might have more space but its way easier to pirate that medium. There's still no reliable way to ump a GDR without using the console itself

[Anonymous No.4422349]

>>4422208
I knew literally no one who owned a dvd player before 2000. You probably enjoyed having way fewer releases than vhs for the first few years.

[Anonymous No.4422446]

>>4421961
Pretty much everyone I knew used a ps2 as a DVD player at some point. The thing is, sure a family can have a dvd player in its main TV room but a kid having a dvd player and being able to watch a shitty movie & game while having a sleepover with your bros was a big deal.

[Anonymous No.4422470]

Cost, probably. In 1998 DVD was expensive as fuck.

[Brucewayne5150 No.4422795]

>>4422470
Got my first DVD player in 98 and it was $500. So expensive but not nearly as much as my first laserdisc player cost me.

[Anonymous No.4422949]

>>4421925
And it whould keep sega on the hardware business to this day.

[Anonymous No.4422991]

What are some good sites for DC rips for CDR? Tried iso zone but couldn't find Shenmue for example under 800mbs.

[Anonymous No.4423000]

>>4421771
Total bullshit as usual from the worst trip-fag on here. Here is why, from a cost-only perspective, that the Dreamcast lost and why the PS2 was the best selling console of all time.

PS2 launches in Fall 2000 for $299
It plays PS2 and PS1 games plus it plays DVDs.

People sold their PS1s for $75-100 putting the PS2 price down to $200-225
Most people didn't own a DVD player yet, they hadn't saturated the market by a long shot and the PS2 was not only one of the cheaper DVD players, it also was a damn good one.

This is why PS2 sold like fucking crazy and why Dreamcast lost. No backwards compatibility and no DVD playback, plus Sega's shit track record, killed it.

[Anonymous No.4423005]

>>4421904
As god intended.

[Anonymous No.4423007]

>>4421728
How would that have helped?

[Batowl No.4423008]

Posting the sonic tv head thingy

[Anonymous No.4423017]

>>4423007
Because one of the major contributing factors is that the PlayStation 2 not only played games, but could play DVDs as well; which was a format that quickly surpassed VHS in the consumer market.

If the Dreamcast would have had a DVD player and SEGA were able to bring back 3rd party support after they pissed them off with the Saturn, they still might have been in the console race.

[Anonymous No.4423025]

>>4423007
>How would having 4.7 GB available for developers on a single disc instead of 1 GB?
Gee, you fucking tell me. That said OP is a retard if he thinks DVD drives were as cheap and good quality when the Dreamcast was designed/produced as they were when the PS2 was designed/produced. Honestly the Dreamcast was just launched a tad too early for it’s own good.

[Anonymous No.4423029]

>>4423005
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.4423078]

>>4423025
To be fair, the GD format was also conceived as a anti-piracy measure.

[Anonymous No.4423115]

Why didn't Sega just release the fucking Neptune?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl7U9GjEXSc

[Anonymous No.4423207]

Sony lost so much money on the PS2 in the beginning.

Imagine if the had put a HDD in it like they were going to.

[Anonymous No.4423293]

>>4422949
Not him but wew lad are you beyond retarded or what.

So, Sega already had some major issues brewing in the 90's. After all the bad PR they got from the 32X module, and the peripheral-a-rama they had adding on online support via a modem, the Sega CD, the Karaoke add on, and all that jazz, the Saturn ended up being a flop in the USA. Not to mention the fact that Sega was hemorrhaging money from the deal that went south with Voodoo when they released info about them producing the GPU for the Dreamcast before Sega had and Sega broke the deal to the tune of "gobs of cash".
What with the Dreamcast coming out in 1998 in Japan, 1999 in the USA, a DVD player wouldn't have helped it's longevity by much, they were already in the grave. It would have been quite a price-hike at that time, and it probably would have doomed them faster. I get that it doubled as a CD player, but that's because most games already had redbook audio for anything CD based and it was pretty simple to add that functionality.
I didn't mind paying the $200 price tag upon release, especially because I was looking forward to Sega's latest installment of gaming pleasure at the time. But here's the thing, DVD players in 1997 were over $1000. Not to mention they weren't the most reliable tech at the time. True, in 2000, the prices went down to $100, but lets face some facts here. The Dreamcast was released in 1998 at it's earliest release date. True, November, but this is a time frame I'm giving you here.
So in 1998, we hadn't found a DVD player that was below $300 unless you were shopping used, which half the time were already broken. (Coming from North Carolina) Sega would have had to raise the price dramatically to give us DVD players in that even when it got released in the USA, and what with the price dropping, they'd never make their money back on what they had to spend on CD/DVD drives at the time.

[Anonymous No.4423445]

>>4421728
they thought video cd was a better bet i guess.

[Anonymous No.4423450]

I wish SEGA made a new console, maybe a better switch it would be great

[Anonymous No.4423480]

>>4423293
here guys another idiot, that can see the future!
Why the fuck, you are not on wall street already!
sharing your business wisdom!

[Anonymous No.4423491]

>>4423293

That's actually pretty interesting input. Makes sense. As much of a Sega fagboy I tend to be, I've disagreed with almost all of their business decisions.

[Anonymous No.4423502]

>>4423207

That might have hurt profits in the long run because of ease of piracy, too.

[Anonymous No.4423507]

>>4423480
Nice attack on my character instead of arguing the subject matter.

>>4423491
Yeah, I was a huge Sega Fanboy then, too. I still like them, they're my favorite company still for the Master System and stand alone Genesis, but the Dreamcast was absolutely wonderful. Sad to see them bow out of the console market, especially seeing as everything has been amazingly downhill for Sega ever since, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4423519]

>>4423293

Not him but none of that matters.

Just the fact that Sega got 11 million sales in a year and a half (compare that to the GCN's 20 million in 5 years) shows that their marketing and ability to deliver was good enough for most customers. Delaying the launch to 99 (and have a worldwide release for crying out loud) and including DVD would have been a smart move.

The only other major failure of the Dreamcast was that it was missing some third party games, but maybe interest in "DVD player customers" could have alleviated that.

[Anonymous No.4423521]

>>4423519
I already addressed that, actually.
It wasn't until 2000 that DVD players were cheap enough that everyone could have them. Even in 1999 you'd have had at least a $200 price hike. Like I said, I'm fine paying the $200 it was instead of the $400 it would have been at that time to get added DVD capability.

[Anonymous No.4423541]

>>4423521
>Even in 1999 you'd have had at least a $200 price hike.

Making your own custom drive is expensive and that's what the Dreamcast has. Just axe that and put a 2x DVD drive in.

The Dreamcast in general was way too cost oriented. Their strategy was the leverage their arcade business for ports to make up for any shortcomings from their in-house games and third party games, but third party developers don't want large discrepancies in power between consoles. EA swearing off the Dreamcast was a big loss, and part of that reason was because Sega didn't put a 3dfx GPU in the Dreamcast like they originally told EA they were planning to do.

If you're going to cut that many corners, do something impress customers -somehow-.

[Anonymous No.4423549]

>>4423541
DC, even if it had waited until late 1999 for a $200 price hike, still had a few issues for DVD tech, but to talk about that, I'm going to go into actual business to give you the picture.

Sony and Phillips were the 2 leading companies making DVD players at the time. Sega didn't make DVD anything at the time. Seeing as the tech was fairly new and not all that reliable in 1997, even in 1998, they were still extremely expensive.
When you buy anything new, even straight from the manufacturer, there's an amount you pay on top of the actual price of the product so that the manufacturer makes a profit and can continue making said product you, and presumably others, will want to buy. I know this sounds condescending, but bare with me.
There's absolutely no way in hell Sony or Phillips would make a partnership with Sega to give them the DVD readers at a price where the manufacturer broke even. Absolutely not happening. It's not good business sense. And in 1998, the prices were already dropping and were showing no sign of stabilizing. Sega would have had to pay not only for the readers, but the price added on top of it so Sony or Phillips would make a profit, and then with the price going down on DVD already, they would lose money on launch, even if they tried to convince people that it really had to cost "that much more" because it could read DVDs.

Making their own custom drive is costly, but not nearly as costly as DVD was at the time.
But even then GD-R, while not as amazing as DVD was, still happened to be a way to get higher capacity on a technology that was already being outperformed. Not to mention GD-ROM, while not put out elsewhere, was really just a modified CD-ROM. It wouldn't be nearly that much higher in price, especially coming from Yamaha, who happened to be the king of decently priced consumer-grade electronics.

[Anonymous No.4423556]

>>4421924
holy shit i want a crazy taxi orb

[Anonymous No.4423578]

>>4423549

Sony and Philips didn't have any sort of monopoly on DVD drives in the beginning. That's pretty ignorant, starting a medium requires many cooperating companies in several different countries. Many companies were making or interested in making DVD drives in 97, including Fujitsu, Pioneer, and JVC.

Also, Sony and Philips don't "own" the DVD. Sony, Philips, Toshiba, Panasonic, JVC, and others in the DVD forum do, and all of them were making drives out of the gate. Many more were releasing drives by the end of 98. A worldwide 99 release with a DVD drive would have been reasonable.

The only real restriction introduced by a DVD drive is licensing fees, including the mpeg-2 fee needed for DVD movie playback. A DVD drive would be more expensive, but not $200 more. Producing your own drive and then manufacturing proprietary, essentially in-house technology is expensive.

[Anonymous No.4423586]

>>4423578
You're missing the point and debating semantics. Sony and Phillips were the 2 leading companies, not the only ones. At least quote me first.
And second, you're still missing the time period element. DVD was still super expensive even in 1998. You weren't finding a cheap and decent DVD player at that time for less than $400. Not even in 1999 were you able to find a decent DVD player for less than $200. The price would be included in the markup on the dreamcast.

[Anonymous No.4423593]

>>4422038
My only DVD player was the Xbox for years

[Anonymous No.4423615]

Sony and Fillips were the leading companies on CD format, not DVD one. In DVD format war Sony got beaten by Toshiba and Toshiba was the leading company of DVD. Actually the world's first DVD player was made by Toshiba.

[Anonymous No.4423618]

>>4423586

I'm not arguing semantics I'm pointing out that you're overestimating how much these things cost. There were a lot of companies to work with, especially by 99. A DVD player is a lot more expensive than a DVD drive, which is all we're talking about. The rest of the Dreamcast can already handle decoding and video output, that doesn't increase the cost of the system in the slightest.

You're just paying for a new diode, processing for the optical array, and new licensing fees. That was expensive, but not $400 expensive.

You're also forgetting that consoles aren't sold at a profit, DVD players are. This was one of the reasons the PS2 was only $300. Sega would also be aware that DVD drives would drop in price very soon, in fact the Dreamcast would have been one of the causes of this just like the PS2 was if the DC had adopted the technology.

[Anonymous No.4423632]

>>4423618
That's all fine well and good, but you're underestimating real prices of the time.
And seeing as the DC was released in '98, not '99, after prices had already come down quite a ways, you're still missing the market problems. You aren't acknowledging how much Sega would have had to pay for any DVD tray assembly, diode, any of it. That price that Sega would have to pay for the readers would show up in the price of the console itself. In 1998, when the Dreamcast was being assembled in the factory, wherever that factory was, you had to have the unit you want to put in the console itself.
They cost a pretty penny. Sega would have lost money with price dropping and how much they would have had to pay just to get the units to put in the DC. If you see something is dropping in price and shows no sign of stabilizing, you're not going to put that in your unit immediately because you know you'll lose money. You may think the parts themselves were less than $100 at the time, but they weren't. Anything related to DVD cost an arm and a leg until late '99. Even if they had waited, they still would have suffered from the price drops that happened shortly after launch for DC.

Unforunately, no company thinks the way you do. No company is willing to take a hit on a product's returns if they don't have to. The GD-ROM, was quite a bit cheaper with the partnership Sega and Yamaha already had, not to mention GD-ROM didn't have nearly the issues that DVD did. It wasn't that huge an improvement, but it was enough to make something work. Yeah, it failed in the long run because once DVD became more accessible in the following years, GD-ROM got left behind because it didn't have the same capacity, but it was more the right step at the time.

[Anonymous No.4424112]

>>4423618
Yes, good post.

[Anonymous No.4424482]

>>4423618
Consoles weren't always sold at a loss. The Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Master System, Genesis, DreamCast, N64, etc were all sold at $200 on launch. Do you really think all of those consoles, no matter what was in them, were worth $200?

[Anonymous No.4424632]

>>4421728
Because DVD players were expensive and Sony and Microsoft could afford to take a larger loss. Fuck capitalism.

[Anonymous No.4424674]

>>4421728
because it was 1998 and they didn't want the console to cost £400

[Anonymous No.4424691]

>>4421748
fpbp, as usual

There was a similar discussion on /v/ this morning. It was Sony that brainwashed people into thinking that a video game console needs to be a bloated mess of hardware and software and multimedia. Granted, maybe at a certain point it was beneficial, but those days have passed. Now, with the rise of Smart TVs and streaming, there is no need for a game console to be anything but a game console again.

[Anonymous No.4424736]

>>4423000
>Worst tripfag
>Not Faggot Sevenleaf

W E W L A D
E
W

L
A
D

Are you already unbanned after spamming all those Gramps thread yesterday?

[Anonymous No.4425559]

>it's another fat sounding american reads from wikipedia video
No thanks.

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4425583]

>>4423000
I like how most of what you're saying is literally what I always say with the argument that DVD players were more expensive than the chart on the topic I already had posted here >>4422025 then adding in a very generous amount that people were supposedly unloading their PS1s for at a time when that's what literally everyone was doing and flooding the market. I bought my PS1 in '96 for $90. You could buy a brand new PSOne for $99 in 2000.

[Anonymous No.4425590]

>>4421961
You are sort of right. I got my PS2 in 2002 and we had a PC with a DVD drive and one DVD player for the downstairs TV. We did not have a DVD player for the upstairs TV, and so it was still a welcome addition. By 2004 though DVD players were dirt cheap and included as free gifts for signing up for a credit card or magazine subscription. So the PS2 having a DVD player is only responsible for its early success, which only explains maybe 30 million units. The other 100 million was for other reasons.

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4425594]

>>4425590
That initial installed base is pivotal but truly the PS2 went on to have an incredible library. So enormous and varied. Right up there with the NES.

[Anonymous No.4425596]

>>4425594
>high quality default
>16 kb artifact as fuck tiny jpg

Dude.

[Anonymous No.4425604]

>>4423207
>Imagine if the had put a HDD in it like they were going to.

Like Microsoft did a year later? They seemed to do alright.

[Anonymous No.4425616]

>>4421991
This. I remember a DVD player costing well over £200 and with a PS2, you got a DVD player AND a games console.

[Anonymous No.4425618]

>>4421728
If you are going to increase the launch price of the DC it would be better to do so via increase it's graphical capabilities instead of adding a DVD drive. Better to wait to add a DVD drive as an add-on later in the 2000s rather than biting the bullet in the 90s.

>>4424632
Yes, fuck the economic system that gave us video games in the first place. Well said my fellow redditor!

[Anonymous No.4425620]

>>4421728
Price

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4425627]

>>4425596
I was illustrating the game's content, it's what I'm playing right now. Finished the manga over Thanksgiving. Not a wholetel lot of captures of the game, Japanese exclusive

[Anonymous No.4426019]

>>4423541
GD-ROM wasn't that custom, it's mostly the standard CD format just packed physically tighter, there's no major hardware changes needed on the drive.

There were a few PC CD-ROM drives that could read GD-ROM directly, http://stc.hacking-cult.org/gd-rom_stuff/second_drive_compat_list.html

[Anonymous No.4427456]

>>4421816
it'll turn into a dystopian future where there is no quality content, only art that grabs attention
so think a commercial for a local car dealership except its supposed to be entertainment

[Anonymous No.4427480]

>>4425604

The Xbox was much more expensive to make than the PS2.

Anon, the xbox division didn't make money for years, and the whole endeavour (remember, as a whole) hasn't been very profitable. Microsoft's strategy is to sell the thing at razor thin profit margins to try to buy marketshare. Microsoft's shareholders have advocated selling the xbox division off but Microsoft disagrees because it gives Microsoft some kind of connection to young people. They're not even justifying it to their owners through profit, just brand image.

[Anonymous No.4427524]

>>4423005
I unironically have a Dreamcast stacked on top of a fat PS2 in my living room, and I've never seen this image before.

It must be instinctual.

[Anonymous No.4427529]

Fact of the matter is that SEGA couldn't compete because it couldn't do shit like this
>>4427480
And sell its product for no profit.

The Dreamcast was well received and sold quite well, but Sega wasn't in the position to continue in the console business.

[Anonymous No.4427691]

>>4421961
I used to get blue screens when I tried to play DVD's on mine half the DVD's I had didn't work.

[Anonymous No.4427703]

>>4425604
The only fucking game that actually needed an HD drive was Morrowind.

[Anonymous No.4429124]

>>4421728
Why does everyone always say that the exclusion of a DVD function killed the Dreamcast? Sure it lended a helping hand, but it was actually the stigma left over from the Saturn that killed it. People still felt sore over that botched launch and it's lack of sales. Not to mention stores like KB Toys didn't allow Sega back in until like 2009. Not having stores dedicated to kids and toys to sell your merch doesn't help either.

[Anonymous No.4429156]

>>4422349
nah, enjoyed a number of films like ghost in the shell and saving private ryan pumping through my 5.1 home theater system. tho for the life of me, i cannot remember what my first handful of dvds were. also my pioneer 3 disc carousel dvd player was something like 300-400 bucks. think it was 300, with list price of 400. fucking brutal. but worth every penny. that son of a bitch was absolutely indestructible.

[Anonymous No.4429169]

>>4423025
>Honestly the Dreamcast was just launched a tad too early for it’s own good.
No, the problem was Sony literally killed it with marketing hype. They had everyone believing PS2 was more powerful, in every way conceivable, only to ship the damned thing with too little VRAM to deliver on all of that hype.

[Anonymous No.4429171]

>>4425594
The PS2 library is one of the worst in history.

[Anonymous No.4429316]

>>4429171
best library of its gen

[Anonymous No.4429430]

>>4421728
Fuck your lame you tube channel

[Anonymous No.4429509]

>>4421816
>this more than anything. I'm 25 and holy shit the world has gone to hell

[Anonymous No.4429529]

>>4423115
THE SEGA NEPTUNE IS HERE?

[Anonymous No.4429539]

>>4423000
>People sold their PS1s for $75-100 putting the PS2 price down to $200-225
I love how you assume that everyone sold their PS1, and how you use selling something means PS2 was cheaper.
Like, fuck it, when PS2 came out I sold all of my consoles, so basically PS2 was free?
I know you'll talk about BC, but remember that not all PS1 games are compatible and the early PS1 models have better audio output.

[Anonymous No.4429580]

>>4423000
>Sega's shit track record, killed it.

People forget about this. I knew quite a few people who loved my Dreamcast but didn't want to buy one for themselves because of Sega's bad track record.

[Anonymous No.4429613]

>>4429539
That kind of logic pisses me off so much. I have a friend who always keeps me up to date on games he buys and insists on leading with “lol it was $30 new” despite him having to trade in at least two games he bought new earlier in the year to get it.

On the other hand the other poster has a point thanks to the PS2’s built-in backwards compatibility, something of a rarity beyond most Nintendo handhelds. At the time the average consumer would have no reason not to trade-in an old console and put the money towards a new one that could play (most of) the same games and more while doing the same with a Saturn for a Dreamcast would leave you either deprived of games or a console to play them on.

I’m not saying it’s the main reason the PS2 demolished the Dreamcast, but it is worth mentioning.

[Anonymous No.4429681]

>>4421961
Holy shit yes. I'm pretty sure that's one of the only reasons my parents agreed to help me buy one. When I told them it could play DVDs and they compared prices of other DVD players at the time, it was a no brainer.

[Anonymous No.4429683]

>>4429124
Just how bad did that Saturn do? Was it because of its lack of 3D titles compared to the N64 and Playstation?

[Anonymous No.4429692]

>>4421728
The new Dreamcast DVD playing console for 899 US Dollars, that'd sell in 1998 right guys?

[Anonymous No.4429696]

>>4421961
It was the cheapest DVD player if you also liked video games.

I chose PS2 over the Gamecube because of that.

[Anonymous No.4429776]

At that time Sega was suffering from huge deficits. And the Dreamcast was a tool to receive a loan from banks. Banks lent money to Sega for production and marketing costs of the Dreamcast and Sega got the last chance to continue the hardware business. And the Dreamcast got beaten by ps2 and they walked away from the hardware business.

[Anonymous No.4429795]

>>4429683
Cheap 3d performance, lacking third parties, poor marketing with 32x, no sonic on launch.