So, you think Sega should apologize to fans for not having enough resources, etc. to release the rest of the games? That’s… odd, to say the least.
As for PS3, is it guaranteed to dominate? Of course not. Nothing is ever guaranteed. Is it highly likely that it will be #1 again? Certainly. And how would Sega benefit from going Xbox exclusive? If anything, Sega would benefit most (in comparison) by going Nintendo exclusive. That’s where all of Sega’s games sell the best. Sega’s put out a few high profile titles on the Xbox, none of which sold particularly well. How would going Xbox exclusive be a sound business decision?
I think it was simpler to say “the PS2 is gonna win the next war” than to say “the PS3 is gonna win the next war”.
It’s clear in my eyes at least that Sega’s move patterns have changed since it became software only.
And I think before that Sega always cared a lot about the originality/quality of the game.
I think Sega never really had it’s time to mess around focusing on profit so I think people like you Geoff should give them a break.I mean, you make it sound like Sega has been using this policy for 10 years now.They just started man…
Actually, any hardware developer is infinitely more sensitive to rises and falls in profits. If you don’t do well with hardware, you suffer a lot.
The primary difference between what Sega does now and what Sega did then (as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions) is that previously, as a 1st party publisher, Sega concentrated on getting out a constant stream of content that filled in the gaps. Niche stuff. Stuff that was slightly off beat and would give Sega’s console a distinct flavor, regardless of whether or not that stuff sold (since most of the bottom line was taken care of by licensing payments and whatnot). However, as a third party publisher, Sega now has to concentrate on developing hit games and does not have the freedom to do any more “vanity projects.”
[quote=“Abadd”]So, you think Sega should apologize to fans for not having enough resources, etc. to release the rest of the games? That’s… odd, to say the least.
As for PS3, is it guaranteed to dominate? Of course not. Nothing is ever guaranteed. Is it highly likely that it will be #1 again? Certainly. And how would Sega benefit from going Xbox exclusive? If anything, Sega would benefit most (in comparison) by going Nintendo exclusive. That’s where all of Sega’s games sell the best. Sega’s put out a few high profile titles on the Xbox, none of which sold particularly well. How would going Xbox exclusive be a sound business decision?[/quote]
Well, you know my feelings on the whole SF III debacle well enough already (I just don’t like the idea of Sega forgetting about its fans). Resources weren’t the only factor - Bernard Stolar’s ridiculous anti-RPG stance was mostly to blame. If you want to argue that all of Sega’s decisions during the Saturn era were sound ones, I will be happy to disagree. All I remember about the Saturn is reading about games in my favourite genre that I couldn’t play simply because I wasn’t Japanese. Forgive me if I took that personally.
As one of the larger, more prominent third party developers, I’m eager to see what Sega has planned for the next generation consoles. Make no mistake, I want to see Sega succeed. I want to see Sega become an industry leader again and lead the way with new ideas. What I don’t want to see is Sony continue to monopolise everything. If the Xbox 2 steals a lot more of Sony’s marketshare, will Sega still be inclined to support the PS3 with exclusive games? I always assumed that Sega supported the PS2 because it simply had no other choice (i.e. Sega supported the PS2 purely for financial reasons). Was I wrong? Would Sega actually support Sony (because they’re on such friendly terms) if it had a choice in the matter?
I have nothing against Sega wanting to bring home the money it deserves, especially if it means Sega can use that money to bring more great games to the market. Since when did I not want to see Sega make money? If anything, I just don’t want to see Sega be corrupted by greed.
[quote=“Arcie”]
And what exactly did Sega do to drive away “Team Sonic”?[/quote]
You can read about the history of Camelot here and here.
I have absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion, but I’d just like to mention that I used to fantasize about Sega and Nintendo joining forces all the time back when PS was kicking Saturn’s ass.
If I was the head of Camelot, I would’ve abandoned Sega too if Sega had turned its back on me. I really can’t bring myself to hate Camelot for breaking away from Sega anymore.
Maybe we will see an apology from Sega for its handling of Shining Force III in the credits for the newest Shining Force game. Do you think Sega cares enough about us (the fans it betrayed) to do even that?
As for the Xbox 2, I’m beginning to wonder if Sega Sammy plans to lend a helping hand in destroying Sony by supporting its competition, or if Sega Sammy will remain neutral in the conflict.
What are your thoughts on the subject Goonboy? Will Sega continue to view games purely from a business point of view?[/quote]
Look at it this way Duke, We won’t have to wait this long for a sequel to a popular game anymore. Sega no longer has the power to decide when they want to update a game that was popular with it’s fanbase. As a third party
they will have to create sequel upon sequel of our favourite Sega games.
At the moment Sega needs to know which game will sell to the present consumer. All they have to go on is the games that were popular with the
sega fanbase and systems. Was it a coincidence that we have seen a GBA version of GUARDIAN HEROES? We’ll see old favourites and overdue sequels before the end of next year. Why? Because no matter how many naysayers will say that this game did n’t do that well or whatever half of today’s generation will never have played or heard of the games that sega will be giving them. There is a chance that they would sell. That’s why a PDS
sequel,ETERNAL ARCADIA 2 and even a new GOLDEN AXE will happen because they were popular with Sega fans. So Sega knows that people will buy the game guaranteed. But if it does n’t sell beyond an estimated target
in this current/next gen then THERE won’t be a sequel to(insert title here)
This is why that it’s important that a Sega title you my like that suddenly comes back it’s important to make it a hit.
Will we see any original Sega games not based on a license or sequel?
At the moment i kinda doubt it. Sega is still new to the third party game
and the last two years was about estabilishing themselves and gettting a good rep. This has been successful. They have won over the casual gamer.
I suspect Sega are intrested in doing over Sony. But SegaSammy is not.
They need the ps3 if they ever gonna acheive their dream of being the biggest third party around.
So what. So did Nintendo. So did Sega. They were the kings of their eras and look at them now. Just because Sony has the boogas now does n’t mean they’re not headed for a fall. Sony like Nintendo(Still, haven’t) and Sega before them have n’t learned that when you overthrow the oppressor you don’t become the oppressor yourselves.
No one thougt Atari was headed for such a crash back in 1983. Nobody would have thought that the japanese would end up dominating video game consoles for over 20 years back in 1983. So saying that Sony will have the money so it won’t matter is not a guarantee on them being the top dog in the next couple of years. besides 40% of Sony’s overall profits are attributed to Playstation. If that goes you can’t tell me that it does n’t matter to them. If i was a stock holder in Sony I be a very worried man right now.
[quote=“Goonboy Panzer”]
All they have to go on is the games that were popular with the
sega fanbase and systems.[/quote]
Honestly, though… What else does Sega have? Almost every attempt at a new franchise has failed. And that’s not a Sega-specific problem. Almost every game company suffers from this.
[quote=“Goonboy Panzer”]That’s why a PDS
sequel,ETERNAL ARCADIA 2 and even a new GOLDEN AXE will happen because they were popular with Sega fans.[/quote]
Okay, Golden Axe was popular, but Skies 2? PDS 2? Since when were these big selling games? They appealed to a very small niche. Sure, they were very high quality titles, but I would hardly call them “popular,” seeing as Panzer was almost non-existant in the US and Skies hardly broke 100k units on the DC.
Uh… sorry to rain on your parade, but… they have? Sonic was a success, but that is a given. VF succeeded for the first time, sure, but anything else? Not really. Sega’s been moderately successful on the Gamecube, has had horrible sales on the Xbox, and less than satisfactory sales on the PS2. Where are you getting off saying Sega has “won over the casual gamer”?
If you read the rest of my post, you’d understand why it seems like that. Sega was a first party developer, and unless you’ve got such a HUGE backing of 3rd party developers like Sony does, you need to fill in the gaps in the lineup with your own funky stuff. It was a matter of survival.
This is purely the Japanese way of doing business. Yu Suzuki helped make Sega what it is today, so, just like any other old-school Japanese company would, they catered to his every whim. It’s purely a cultural thing.
And look at the level of creativity/quality in Nintendo titles vs. Sega titles. Each title released goes through a very painful process of gameplay testing and polishing, so only the best gets put out. Sega spits stuff out the door like there’s no tomorrow. Guess who’s doing better?
Hahahaha… This is in comparison to the army of developers who will be putting their best content on the PS3?
The marketplace is a very, very, very different place now than it was back then. Aside from EA, the market was still dominated by Japanese developers. Every day, Japanese developers are becoming more and more irrelevant. Out of the top 10 videogames this year, I think only 2 were Japanese. Besides, when did Konami or Square state that they were “changing their minds”?
As for the comment about Sega holding on for one more year, that was completely out of Sega’s control. Retailers were shrinking retail space for the DC as sales lagged, which discouraged developers even more from producing stuff on the DC. It was a downward spiral that was costing Sega too much money. If Sega had held on for another year, chances are, Sega wouldn’t even be around today.
The negative opinions surrounding the DC first stemmed from the poor planning of Sega’s previous hardware launches, and the general lack of “mainstream” games on Sega consoles. DCs strongest points were sports and hardcore games, but if casual users could get Madden on other consoles, what did it matter if there were hardcore games on the DC? Nobody cared.
Uh… Begged? Proof? Nintendo was the one who pissed off Square originally after the SNES, and I can almost guarantee that it was Nintendo that begged Square. And where did you see that Square was “interested” in Xbox 2? Well, I’m sure most developers are “interested,” but that doesn’t mean squat until they release a game.
And where, exactly, is this coming from? They’re doing great on the PS2.
3 years ago. And look where it’s gotten them. The RE series has suffered lackluster sales since they moved to GC, and now they’re crawling back to the PS2 for RE4. Coincidence? I think not. Capcom knows where its money is.
The first half of this statement is true, but losing market share??? I think not. There may be temporary fluctuations in the overall marketshare, but Sony stays very much in the lead. And eventually, yes, Sony will begin to lose marketshare to the Xbox. However, only because at that point, everyone will own a PS2.
Guh? Increasing growth of Japanese developers for PC???
I say again: ???
I have no idea where you got that from. Aside from FFXI, I don’t know a single Japanese-developed PC game (originally developed for PC, that is… and not even FFXI is).
And besides, third party always decides who is most popular.
I’d just like to point out that Guardian Heroes was developed by Treasure and as far as I know Sega had nothing to do with the GBA release. From the legal notes I’ve seen (the copyright info on the back of the box), Treasure is the only force behind Guardian Heroes Advance. Ubisoft, not Sega, published the game in North America. Sega’s credit only goes towards the original game. Considering Treasure made games for the PS1, Saturn, and N64 I don’t think they can really be used as an example of Sega cashing in on old favorites and too many sequels. (Phantasy Star Online on the other hand, hasn’t even been around that long and has had enough versions to fill all four stomachs of a cow.)
Sega’s made quite a number of my favorite titles over the years, but I know I’ve always been a bit of a niche gamer. I’ll indulge in the occasional mainstream Devil May Cry sort of thing, and I enjoyed Golden Axe back in the day, but lately Sega’s not making any games I like. Since Sega’s no longer first party I don’t expect many of them to come back. I know Skies of Arcadia didn’t break any sales records, nor did PDO, nor did a good many other games I like that aren’t produced by Sega. So it’s quite likely that it’s no longer profitable for Sega to make the kinds games I like. That’s a bit of a pity. I wish Sega could do it, but if it’s not financially feasible, there’s not much else to say. Perhaps if Sega could find the kind of fanbase it needs to support itself as a third party developer, it could afford to indulge in the occasional odd product I can look forward to, but not before then.
Really? I thought there were quite a few. They belong to a genre that tends to get an Adults Only rating. But even so, I’m pretty sure that’s not what Goonboy’s talking about.
Exactly. I don’t know who will win the next system war, but I follow the games. The vast majority of them are third party, so where I find the games I like, that’s where I’ll go.
uhm…
it’s indeed true that freaky , original franchises that bring something new to the game-market usually don’t sell well… i remember cool , stylish games like MDK or Giants:Citizen Kabuto , that were great games , but apparently noone wanted to play them …
However , you can’t just stick to your old , successful franchises(especially if you have so few of them , like sega) … i highly doubt , that sega can survive just by producing hundreds of sonic titles til the end of time… their new franchises were flops , yes , but look at what they did…
you had mainstream games , like their sports-titles… which was a bad idea , given the fact that the market is almost monopolized with EA-Sports and it’s very hard to establish a new series of sports titles… or freaky games like Billy Hatcher… the should try to find the right balance , take a maintream setting and include something that other products don’t have… the new “This is Football”(?)…or whatever it’s called…don’t care…it may be your average soccer-game , but that little feature that allows you to scan in your face will probbably boost the sales…
the right marketing is also important…sega has one of the worst marketing strategies i’ve ever seen… i mean , how can you sale your product if noone knows about it ?
@ abadd : the sega sports titles sold well ,after being sold for lower prices…
if you let a new game enter the market at a lower price, can it still be profitable ?
As for the $20-football-game thing, I actually don’t know whether or not VC made a profit. You’d have to examine what their marketing/development/licensing costs are to know that. It was a gamble, and paid off in terms of sales numbers, but did they shoot themselves in the foot?
Consider this: a bunch of gamers decided to pick up ESPN this year because it was cheap. An impulse buy, even. But, has VC doomed themselves to forever be the $20 football game guys? I’m sure a lot of people enjoyed the game and had fond opinions of it because, well, for $20, it’s a helluva good game. But if the price went back up to $50? I guarantee those same people are just going to say, “Oh well. I guess I can only buy Madden this year.” Did it actually accomplish anything? Only time will tell. In the meantime, if VC isn’t making money off the $20 games, they’re screwed.
And as for Sega marketing… that’s a bit of a catch-22, you see. People always say, “Sega games would sell better if they were marketed!!!” The problem is that marketing takes a lot of money. Money that is really hard to recoup, unless the sales increase is significant. And sales increases are only significant if you have a high quality game to back up the marketing claims. How many high quality Sega games have we seen in the last couple of years? Virtua Fighter 4, Panzer, and… um… Sonic? All of which were advertised thoroughly. What about Otogi, you ask? Do you think the average gamer is going to even care about Otogi? No. No amount of advertising will get Billy-Bob in Kansas to care enough about Heian-period pre-samurai ghost warriors fighting in artistic settings. Not when they can buy Cabelas Deer Hunter for $20.
It’s easy to spend $100,000 on marketing. Or heck, even $1 million. But, it hardly means that the amount of people that would buy the game would increase by a proportional amount. You have to pick your fights, otherwise you spend too much time and resources on things that are doomed from the start.
It was a tongue-in-cheek joke, my friend. I could have very well said “Bakersfield, California.” Just an exaggeration to get my point across. Sorry if it offended.
