Sega Drops Out

Let me state at the outset that Sega and I have something in common; we are both console agnostic. That is I am without prejudice regarding Sega, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Indrema or whatever. In my time I have owned consoles made by Sega, Sony and Nintendo, and will likely buy an XBox from Microsoft.

So it was that when Sega announced that they were dropping out of the hardware business, the news caused me only minor consternation, and not a little relief. The consternation is understandable, and entirely selfish. With the demise of the Dreamcast on the horizon there is little incentive for developers to write for the platform, meaning that the supply of games for it will fade out over the next year or so. Already Soul Reaver 2 has been cancelled despite being nearly complete, and Half-Life appears to be on permanent delay marking, I feel, the beginning of a trend.

On the other hand, there was considerable relief. I have long questioned whether there is room for four consoles on the market place. In fact, I question that there is room for three, and I suspect that this might have something to do with the Dreamcast's failure. The company was simply unable to sell the quantities of their console necessary to create a user base of sufficient size to generate a profit on the software, in a marketplace already dominated by Sony, with Nintendo a distant second. This, preceded by what is generally regarded as the failure of the Sega Saturn, must have placed their finances under serious strain.

So from my perspective, I considered it inevitable that of the Dreamcast, PS2, XBox and GameCube, at least one would have to go. They couldn't all be winners. The big question was, which was the most likely, and that was a question that I couldn't readily answer. The Dreamcast has a magnificent software library, the PS2 launched with a large and varied array of titles, and the GameCube will inevitably have Mario, Zelda, Pokemon and Shigeru Miyamoto. That makes the unknown factor the XBox, but regardless of what one thinks of Microsoft, they surely are not stupid. Microsoft wouldn't enter the market without a solid plan.

Basically, I mentally concluded early on that unless Microsoft manages to orchestrate a monumental disaster, the XBox would be successful, especially in the West, and especially with the large developer base available that are already familiar with the Window's development environment, all of whom aware that there is more money to be made developing for consoles than for PCs.

The XBox should prove to be an even easier platform to port software to than the Dreamcast, and that is a significant point in its favor. Furthermore, I don't think Microsoft needs the Japanese market in order to be successful. PC's and PC software are not the dominant forces there that they are here, and make no mistake, the similarity of the console's design to that of a PC will be a significant factor. Regardless, it appears that some significant Japanese developers are preparing to support the XBox, bolstering the promise of the console.

Microsoft has, courtesy of its relationship with Sega, already had experience in the console market. They now know how to write a console operating system for example. I generally found the stripped-down Windows CE used by Dreamcast developers to be somewhat glitchy, but these problems in retrospect seem to have been overcome. Microsoft should now be in an excellent position to transfer the knowledge gained to developing the stripped-down Windows 2000 OS to be used in its XBox.

Clearly too, Microsoft has been influenced by its experience with the Dreamcast as the controller demonstrates. It is, after all, essentially the Dreamcast controller with an extra joystick and a couple of buttons tacked on. They also know that there is a market for ports of PC software as the plethora of such titles for the Dreamcast demonstrates. Consequently I feel that Microsoft is in an excellent position to make a significant impact on the market, with or without the presence of the Dreamcast...and don't let us forget their marketing department is extremely good as Microsoft's dominant position in the marketplace proves.

The more I think about Sony, the more I am impressed with their PS2. Let's face it; they've taken a huge risk with their latest console. Historically, multi-processing consoles like the Sega Saturn and the Atari Jaguar have been difficult to work with, and not commercially successful. Significantly, both these consoles did produce some stellar titles, and the Jaguar retains a cult following even today. The PS2 has confirmed the difficulty of working in a multi-processing environment, being described as having the worst features of the Sega Saturn and the N64 combined. So Sony threw in backwards compatibility and a DVD playback function.

When the PS2 was released, what was it that arrived on the market? Initially, we got a system that could compete right from the start with the Dreamcast. The large number of titles available at release practically guaranteed that a new buyer could find at least one or two titles that appealed to them. Additionally, PSX owners found that the vast majority of their existing libraries would work with the PS2, and some benefited from enhancements in graphics, loading times and/or performance.

The only detraction from an otherwise hugely successful release was the expectation of certain customers that the games be somehow entirely revolutionary compared with what had gone before. Think about it, though; given brand new hardware, and the limited development schedule necessary in order to make the PS2's release date, it seems unreasonable in for revolutionary content to have developed in time. The best that could be hoped for is actually precisely what we got...an eclectic selection of titles that compared well with the majority of then-available Dreamcast titles.

Even with the notoriously difficult development platform, sufficiently difficult that some developers have switched to the XBox, it has been shown that first generation PS2 titles definitely compete on an equal footing with the existing Dreamcast library...and this is just scratching the surface. What it all means is that initial buyers shouldn't feel that they're buying a white elephant. As time goes on, and given the upcoming Zone of the Enders and Metal Gear: Sons of Liberty not very much time, the true power of the console will start to be unleashed, and software more advanced than anything possible with the Dreamcast will be released.

Both Sony and Microsoft have in common a massive, existing user base. Sony has, what, seventy million PSX's floating around out there? Many of them, based on brand confidence if nothing else will inevitably buy Sony again. Likewise Microsoft, despite what critics like myself might say, has a secure, confident user base numbering in the many millions who are likely to by an XBox for the same reason as Sony customers. Additionally, the familiarity of the XBox technology will also play a part. It's a cut-down PC after all. Of course to what extent Microsoft will play on this to it's existing customers has yet to be seen.

Another thing these two giants have in common is patience. The PSX wasn't an overnight success, and it too cost the same as a PS2 when it was released. Sony was patient, and their patience was rewarded as the user-base grew and grew and grew. Microsoft likewise exhibits a try and if you don't succeed attitude as their dedication and persistence with Windows has demonstrated. Of course they can both afford to be patient, and clearly Sega could not.

Finally, we turn to Nintendo. I find Nintendo to be something of an enigma. The N64 was, for me, a profoundly disappointing console. Unlike the Dreamcast, the software library was disappointing. Games like Mario 64 and Zelda have no attraction for me at all, and I find Shigeru Miyamoto to be greatly overrated. Developers that I respect more, while not exactly legion, come readily to mind. Names like Hideo Kojima, John Carmack, Peter Molyneux and Adrian Barritt to name but a few. Of course, it's all a matter of taste. Clearly my taste doesn't run to Italian plumbers or youthful goody-goodies, but it does run to assassins, carnage, god-complexes and silver balls.

This isn't to say that I don't respect Miyamoto-san, I do. Someone with his record has earned one's respect even if you don't like the product. Certainly I don't understand the appeal this man's games have, and therein lay the answer to why I don't understand Nintendo. It seems to me that without Miyamoto, there might not be a Nintendo, and were he ever to be seduced by Sony, Nintendo would be in hot water.

I don't think it unreasonable to say that Nintendo has the most cult-like following of the Big Four. Rather than rely on a plethora of releases, their N64 has survived on Mario, Zelda and Pokemon. It is true, that some truly excellent games have been released for this console, as Perfect Dark and Goldeneye and Turok attest, but overall I found the library to be disappointing, and not as good as that of the Playstation, and my feelings on this were sufficiently strong that the moment the Dreamcast was released, I gave my N64 to the son of a friend. As a result I missed out on one title...Perfect Dark...but as far as I can tell, that's the only one.

So, I think that Nintendo's GameCube will be to the PS2 and the XBox as the N64 was to the PSX. I don't think it will be as successful as either one, but it will appeal to the Cult of Nintendo. Apart from, and possibly exceeding Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo's biggest appeal is its kiddy-image. Despite efforts to expand their appeal, the GameCube looks like a toy, not a serious console, and so children and Pokemon addicts and along with the huge GameBoy user base will make it all sufficiently profitable for them to continue. The backwards-compatible GameBoy Advance will, I think, assist them with this given Nintendo's stranglehold on the portable market.

If my agnosticism with respect to Nintendo sounds a little strained, then I must confess that it is. I did find the N64 to be a profoundly disappointing console. I think Nintendo made a huge mistake in persisting with the cartridge format instead of going with a CD Rom drive. I notice that even now, they are refusing to go with conventional media, instead settling as usual on a proprietary format, which must surely raise the cost of production.

I must confess, however, that I do find the GameCube technology to be intriguing, and I look forwards to seeing how it performs compared with its competition. Regardless, of the four consoles under discussion I wanted the GameCube to be the one that failed. That's not a rational wish, you notice, because the Dreamcast is clearly the inferior console. Yet the sheer value for money it offered in terms of initial cost, VGA compatibility (via an adapter), Internet connectivity, and the excellent software library endeared me to it above and beyond the bounds of cold logic.

Now that I look at some of my thinking, it seems obvious that the Dreamcast would be the one to lose out in this round of the console wars. That's the problem with writing about such an issue with the benefit of hindsight. Gamers, however, will not lose out. Those who value Sega software will be able to play the games they love so much on other consoles. For those of us who prefer the efforts of third party developers, they will also turn their attention to other platforms, and thus we too will not suffer from a lack of creative effort...which raises an interesting question.

To what extent does the strength of the in-house development teams reflect on the success of a console? In theory, it should play a significant role, as in-house developers should be those most familiar with the hardware they are working on. Traditionally, Sega and Nintendo are regarded as having very strong development teams, and certainly there is a devotion to the results of their efforts that I feel goes above and beyond what is appropriate. Indeed, if there is a Cult of Nintendo, there is certainly a Cult of Sega that genuflects similarly.

However Sony, normally regarded as not being particularly strong with respect to internal development, received massive third party support for the PSX, showing that success need not be, indeed is probably not, dependent upon in-house efforts. Personally speaking, of the titles I own at present for my Dreamcast and PS2, nearly all are third party...with the sole exception of Shenmue. The first title I purchased for my now-retired N64 was Turok, and the first titles for the Dreamcast were Blue Stinger, Soul Calibur and Expendable; all third party. Microsoft also must rely primarily on third party developers, it too not being regarded as particularly strong in the development role...as Windows demonstrates.though particularly with respect to games.

As for Indrema...doomed to failure.

Five years from now of course, all this will be rendered null and void. What will the console market be like then? I think I'll leave that for another article.

Jeremy Pallant - jpallant@yahoo.com