Shoot Out: DC vs PS2 Games (Launch - 2000)

[Haoshiro]

This thread is an offshoot of another thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=193649&page=3). I didn't want to send it so far off subject so my response has found a new home here.

This is a comparison of Dreamcast and PlayStation2 games, both the Launch Titles as well as all games by the End of 2000.

It has been said the Dreamcast failed because of Games, specifically. While there are many reasons the DC failed, Games is not one of them. This comparison intends to prove that and spark healthy discussion on the topic from fans of both systems.

NOTE: With the exception of the launch titles, the lists are not comprehensive. There were so many games out by end of 2000 (especially for DC) that I removed a bunch from the list. Most 2D fighters were cut, as were games that reviewed poorly.

PS2 Launch Titles (10/26/2000)

Armored Core 2
Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore
Dynasty Warriors 2
ESPN Winter X Games Snowboarding
Eternal Ring
Evergrace
FantaVision*
Gungriffon Blaze
Kessen
Madden NFL 2001
Midnight Club: Street Racing
MotoGP
NHL 2001
Orphen: Scion of Sorcery
Q-Ball: Billiards Master
Ready 2 Rumble Boxing: Round 2
Ridge Racer V
Silent Scope
Smuggler's Run
SSX
Street Fighter EX3
Summoner
Swing Away Golf
Tekken Tag Tournament
TimeSplitters
Unreal Tournament
Wild Wild Racing
X-Squad


* 1 First Part Title

PS2 by End of 2000 (Excluding above lists)

Sky Odyssey
FIFA 2001: Major League Soccer
Theme Park Roller Coaster


DC Launch Titles (09/09/1999)

AeroWings
AirForce Delta
Blue Stinger*
Expendable
Flag to Flag*
House of the Dead 2*
Hydro Thunder
Monaco Grand Prix
Mortal Kombat Gold
NFL 2K*
NFL Blitz 2000
Pen Pen Tri-Icelon
Power Stone
Ready 2 Rumble Boxing
Sonic Adventure*
Soul Calibur
TNN Motorsports Hardcore Heat
Tokyo Xtreme Racer
Trickstyle


* 5 First-Party Launch Titles

DC by PS2 Launch (10/26/2000)

Armada
Chu Chu Rocket
Crazy Taxi
Dead or Alive 2
F1 World Grand Prix
Ferrari F355 Challenge
Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver
Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes
Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes
MDK2
Mr. Driller
NBA 2K
NBA Showtime: NBA on NBC
NFL 2K1
NHL 2K
Power Stone 2
Quake III: Arena
Railroad Tycoon II
Rayman 2: The Great Escape
Re-Volt
Resident Evil - CODE: Veronica
Samba De Amigo
San Francisco Rush 2049
Seaman
Sega Bass Fishing
Sega GT
Sega Rally 2: Sega Rally Championship
Shadow Man
Space Channel 5
Test Drive V-Rally
Tokyo Xtreme Racer 2
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater
Toy Commander
Ultimate Fighting Championship
Vigilante 8: Second Offense
Virtua Fighter 3tb
Virtua Tennis
Wild Metal


DC by End of 2000 (Excluding above lists)

Cannon Spike
Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX
Grandia II
Guilty Gear X
Gunbird 2
Jet Grind Radio
Napple Tale: Arsia in Daydream
NBA 2K1
Red Dog
Shenmue
Skies of Arcadia
Starlancer
Test Drive Le Mans
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2
Vanishing Point


Summary Totals:

PS2 Launch Titles: 28
PS2 Games by End of 2000: 31
DC Launch Titles: 19
DC Games by PS2 Launch: 57
DC Games by End of 2000: 72


My observations:
This really reminds me why I had such huge amounts of fun on the Dreamcast. It had a great library of games just by end of 2000 alone. It also had a lot of arcade style games that made the experience seem unique, at least to me.

What people liked is subject to opinion, that is true. But I think it is pretty clear that comparing the games on both systems out by 2000 really shows Dreamcast had the strongest lineup. You'll also see a lot of games listed that did eventually go to PS2, but they hit first on DC.

I bolded the games that are stand-outs in my opinion; does anyone think PS2 had the games DC did when it came out? Did the libraries even compete?

Again, we are just talking games here, not comparing the hardware.

People will definitely debate Madden 2K1 vs NFL 2K/2K1 and this really comes down to preference. 'I recall the debates on review sites and it pretty much end as: If you're used to Madden and that is what you know how to play, it will be hard to play NFL2K1 because it plays/controls so different. However, in the end if you take out the familiarity, NFL2K1 is an all around better game in most areas.'

Tekken vs Soul Calibur - Both great games in my opinion but you, again, have to learn how to really play SC. There is some great counter/deflection moves and the more you play the more, I think, you see that the balance of both games is pretty equal. Kudos to Namco for two great fighters (IMHO).

SSX vs Trickstyle - I'd have to say SSX wins, though I never got a lot of play time in. It was definitely easier to pick up and play, Trickstyle really took [me] some time to get used to and between my friends and I, I almost always lost!

All the other games for DC on the list though... more impressive then I remembered. :)

[raggedjimmi]

All I remember was the PS2 having too many of these "serious" games, where the DC had some fishing game, Crazy Taxi and Sonic. I remember playing those at a mates house and it was bloody awesome. Way after the PS2 launch my mate picked one up, with a few multiplayer and competitive single player games. Nowhere near as fun.
I picked a DC up about 2 years ago. It's sitting in my wardrobe, waiting till I buy an s-video cable for it. Have 3 regular controllers, 1 arcade stick (awesomes), a plethora of games including Rival Schools (YEA!) and SF2/3 something. Just cannot fault the DC. On a consumer level, or to me at least, it pushed all my buttons. Pity it died :(

[srobert]

Power Stone was so amazing on the Dreamcast… and chaotic. A Fighting game, up to 4 players, no split-screen, power-ups, weapons, huge+mobile+destructible environments, colorful characters, simple controls, etc…

I'd love to see a new version on the next gen consoles. I loved Fokker (Falcon)

[supremedesigner]

Yeah!

Hydro Thunder was a BLAST!!! Except 2 players (bad choppy frames!) :mad:

I was soo impressed about Shenmue! Same thing to Chu-Chu rocket but I LOVE PSO (Phanasty Star Online) the most!! The best game I've ever played on DC!! It was sooo much fun than PS2! :D

[Haoshiro]

I'm with you on Power Stone... why did they never make a Power Stone 3 on PS2/GCN/Xbox? Come on Capcom, that game was great.

I loved Shenmue as well, especially for the time it came out it was amazing. Someone has said that it sucked (beaches?) and they understood why Shenmue 2 bombed on Xbox. Well that is very off base. Yes it is a love/hate game, but the reason Shenmue 2 failed is because it did not come to Dreamcast in the USA. I knew many people that would have bought it, but they were happy with their DC and were not going to buy an Xbox. I think overall it was just dumb to release a sequel to a game like Shenmue on a platform where the original did not exist.

Shenmue was to be a very connected trilogy, you need to play the first to properly enjoy the second... Really 1/2/3 were planned to be a single game, so that is telling right there.

Outrigger... anyone play that? It was a good multiplayer shooter (FPS/TPS). Also... Quake 3 Arena, online, with DC Keyboard+Mouse, very cool...

[MacRumorUser]

Powerstone is being converted to the PSP

[srobert]

Powerstone is being converted to the PSP

Could be interesting if they put a strong accent on the Multiplayer element. PSP is the only current-gen console I don't already own. (Not enough games that fit my tastes). This could be one. I'll wait for the reviews. Q4 2006? :( Some of the backgrounds in the screenshots look poorly detailed. Was it like this on the Dreamcast?

[raggedjimmi]

Power Stone was great! Held its own until Smash Bros Melee arrived.

Thing is, 99% of my DC games were in Japanese but were really simple to learn. I picked up bits from some old Japanese GB games from many, many years ago so I know "New Game" "Multiplayer" etc.
I remember another game like Power Stone on the PS1, except you were robotic insects. In the demo we have you could be one of 3 critters. Similar gameplay. Probably never see it ever again too.

[XNine]

Well, Armored Core 2 was a great game, as was DOA 2, Street Fighter EX 3, and RidgeRacer V. Though, this is a pretty one sided arguement. A console that was out over a YEAR before the PS 2 SHOULD have more games. Given that PS 2 had 31 games in 2 months is impressive.

Let's not forget the later titles like MGS 2/3, ZOE 1/2, Onimusha, Twisted Metal Black, and many others.

I owned a Dreamcast for 3 days. Bought it used, sold it after kicking Powerstone's ass and not being impressed with much else.

I wish there were more sequals to Rival Schools available for the PS 2. I loved that game on the original PSX.

[raggedjimmi]

Aye I always secretly wanted a Rival Schools sequel to hit the current Japanese consoles. It's madness is unparalleled.

[beachesandmusic]

This is a comparison of Dreamcast and PlayStation2 games, both the Launch Titles as well as all games by the End of 2000.

So you're comparing the second year of Dreamcast (remember, it was launched in 1998 in Japan) to not even a year's worth of life for the PS2? How is that fair? Why don't we compare two years worth of life with the PS2 then?

It has been said the Dreamcast failed because of Games, specifically. While there are many reasons the DC failed, Games is not one of them. This comparison intends to prove that and spark healthy discussion on the topic from fans of both systems.

The Dreamcast DID fail because of the games. I'll go into what games were bad later, but you can see here http://vision.pcvsconsole.com/?article=13 that at the end of 2004, the Dreamcast only had one million selling game. While 8 of the top 10 Xbox games were million sellers or more.

as were games that reviewed poorly.

Reviews don't mean anything. If they did, then Shenmue should be regarded as a mediocre game by all. But they don't. Reviews are written by people on the payroll of ad revenue. Ad's are purchased and paid for by who? The game companies. You write a review that gets more people to your site, or magazine, and you get more advertising money. Reviewers lost their credibility when they gave Zelda: Ocarina of Time a perfect score.

I bolded the games that are stand-outs in my opinion; does anyone think PS2 had the games DC did when it came out? Did the libraries even compete?

Considering you're comparing a system that had been available for 2 years in most parts of the world to another system that had only been out a number of months in most parts of the world, it's no surprise that the Dreamcast had MORE games. If you want to compare the first two years of life of the PS2 to the two years of life that the Dreamcast had, then you'd have to factor in Grand Theft Auto 3, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Gran Turismo 3, Ratchet and Clank, Final Fantasy X, MGS 2, SOCOM, and quite a few other games.

Gran Turismo 3 alone went on to sell more games than ALL of the games on that list I linked to, COMBINED.

It's probably safe to say that Gran Turismo 3 and Grand Theft Auto 3, all available within the first year of the PS2's life, went on to sell more than all Dreamcast games combined.

Furthermore, if you look at that list, the games that DID sell well ended up being on other consoles, except the first Shenmue, Sega Bass Fishing, and the sports titles, which later ended up being on multiple consoles. None of the games that are so highly regarded among the fans, except Shenmue, made it to the top seller list. A clear sign that the Dreamcast failed because of the lack of good games.

People will definitely debate Madden 2K1 vs NFL 2K/2K1 and this really comes down to preference. 'I recall the debates on review sites and it pretty much end as: If you're used to Madden and that is what you know how to play, it will be hard to play NFL2K1 because it plays/controls so different. However, in the end if you take out the familiarity, NFL2K1 is an all around better game in most areas.'

I played the NFL 2k series every year until the last. NFL 2K5 was the first of the series that was actually worth buying. It finally played good, despite terrible bugs, and it was finally fun to play.

Tekken vs Soul Calibur - Both great games in my opinion but you, again, have to learn how to really play SC. There is some great counter/deflection moves and the more you play the more, I think, you see that the balance of both games is pretty equal. Kudos to Namco for two great fighters (IMHO).

Soul Calibur is also highly overrated. As I said in my other post, it's only so highly regarded because it's a Dreamcast game. Look what happened when Soul Calibur 2 came out. Everyone was so hyped up, thanks to the few Dreamcast fanboys who loved the game and overhyped it throughout the years. Then SC2 came out and everyone saw that the game really wasn't that good. Even though it was better than the original, it just wasn't as "great" as it was said to be. Tekken is definitely better. Both games are button mashers, but a match between two skilled players in Tekken is a lot more fun than Soul Calibur.

I loved Shenmue as well, especially for the time it came out it was amazing. Someone has said that it sucked (beaches?) and they understood why Shenmue 2 bombed on Xbox. Well that is very off base. Yes it is a love/hate game, but the reason Shenmue 2 failed is because it did not come to Dreamcast in the USA. I knew many people that would have bought it, but they were happy with their DC and were not going to buy an Xbox.

That's completely false. Crazy Taxi was released to the PS2 and look how well it sold. The Xbox not being the "original platform" had nothing to do with Shenmue's failure. IF that were the case, then many sequels over the generations would have failed after moving to new platforms. Shenmue 2 failed because it was a boring game. The first game was boring and the second game as just as boring. Shenmue is one of the few games I can honestly say is worse than FFX. FFX beat it in every way, and it was a first generation game, compared to Shenmue being a 2nd generation game.

Shenmue 2, Jet Set Radio, and many other Sega games have sold poorly on the systems they were released because they were just bad games. It's as simple as that.

[raggedjimmi]

...Reviewers lost their credibility when they gave Zelda: Ocarina of Time a perfect score...

Maybe the reviewers really liked it? I'd rate it as my fave game of all time. I'm sure many others would too.

Mate, you're just starting off here and you're already sounding like a bit... I won't say but you make everything sound like nobody has an opinion. That reviewers lost credibility because they absolutely loved a game? That nobody played DC games?

[XNine]

Maybe the reviewers really liked it? I'd rate it as my fave game of all time. I'm sure many others would too.

Mate, you're just starting off here and you're already sounding like a bit... I won't say but you make everything sound like nobody has an opinion. That reviewers lost credibility because they absolutely loved a game? That nobody played DC games?


Sorry, but he's right. Reviewers get paid to say what they say. If the don't get paid well, then they won't review well.

And he's right again that This comparison is completely unfair. A realist after my own heart, it seems.

[Haoshiro]

So you're comparing the second year of Dreamcast (remember, it was launched in 1998 in Japan) to not even a year's worth of life for the PS2? How is that fair? Why don't we compare two years worth of life with the PS2 then?

Correct, and there is a reason for my comparison. I am comparing both systems offerings for a time period. This is comparing what the Dreamcast had by the time the PS2 came out.

PS2 sold like mad; does anyone deny that? I don't. The lists show that, despite having far less good games, the PS2 sold. It was successful in spite of the quality and quantity of games; and in turn it's success brought it even more games.

You are quick to toss out that any Dreamcast user is a "fanboy" yet you repeatedly use blatant fanboy terminology in your posts; such as claiming something is or isn't good or bad based solely on your own opinions yet stating it as a general fact, rather then simply the opinions they are.

The Dreamcast DID fail because of the games. I'll go into what games were bad later, but you can see here http://vision.pcvsconsole.com/?article=13 that at the end of 2004, the Dreamcast only had one million selling game. While 8 of the top 10 Xbox games were million sellers or more.

What? This is some confused logic if I've seen any. First you say my comparison lists are flawed then you present numbers that compare a system that had been dead for two years to one that was still active?

And look at these numbers you listed:
Dreamcast = 4 Million (4.5 Million North America)
Xbox = 12 Million (13.2 Million North America)

The Xbox had 3 times more hardware sales! This means more users! This means more software sales! So obviously there is going to be more "million sellers", there were millions more users!

This is the same thing with PS2 that you must be failing to factor. PS2 has more users then even the Xbox has (speaking strictly USA, even), so this obviously is going to equate to more "blockbuster" titles.

Sales though, mean little to me. I love a little game called Beyond Good & Evil, great game. But it bombed in retail. Many many titles are like this. It doesn't matter how good they are if they don't get the marketing they need. Shelf space in retail outlets is limited, they cater to the well known and publicized brands. As a long time PC gamer I have found many games that bested the "big names" in < $5 bins. Popularity is such a horrible thing to base quality on, you do realize this... right?

Reviews don't mean anything. If they did, then Shenmue should be regarded as a mediocre game by all. But they don't. Reviews are written by people on the payroll of ad revenue. Ad's are purchased and paid for by who? The game companies. You write a review that gets more people to your site, or magazine, and you get more advertising money. Reviewers lost their credibility when they gave Zelda: Ocarina of Time a perfect score.

Now you're really starting to make yourself sound like a troll. Sure, I'm sure that plenty of reviewers have gotten "paid off" but saying every review out their is corrupted by ad agencies is just silly. Besides, I'm sure plenty (if not most) of those million sellers you acclaim did indeed get great reviews. Popularity is almost a worse gauge then reviews, but you seem to love that stat.

I have been a game collector for a long time. Owning systems from the Odyssey2, 2600, SMS and SNES to the PSX, DC, GCN, and Xbox with many in between. I've played more games then is healthy and if there is one thing I know it's that many gamers opinions of a game is purely subjective to their tastes. Ocarina of Time ranks high on my Top 10 of all time. This has nothing to do with hype either. I've played through it many times. Heck, when I first bought it and my N64 my entire family watched me play for seven hours straight. These are people that aren't gamers and it entertained them simply to watch. Oh, and wasn't it Popular and a Million seller? Doesn't that mean it's good based on your measurements?

Considering you're comparing a system that had been available for 2 years in most parts of the world to another system that had only been out a number of months in most parts of the world, it's no surprise that the Dreamcast had MORE games. If you want to compare the first two years of life of the PS2 to the two years of life that the Dreamcast had, then you'd have to factor in Grand Theft Auto 3, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Gran Turismo 3, Ratchet and Clank, Final Fantasy X, MGS 2, SOCOM, and quite a few other games.

Those games did finally come; but the fact remains that PS2 had a huge install base before that happened. The system was already a success, again, in spite of the games being there or not.

Gran Turismo 3 alone went on to sell more games than ALL of the games on that list I linked to, COMBINED.

It's probably safe to say that Gran Turismo 3 and Grand Theft Auto 3, all available within the first year of the PS2's life, went on to sell more than all Dreamcast games combined.

Sales again? PS2 had a much larger install base. Larger install base = more game sales. They could be good games, they could be bad games, regardless of that if there are more systems in homes there will be more sales.

Furthermore, if you look at that list, the games that DID sell well ended up being on other consoles, except the first Shenmue, Sega Bass Fishing, and the sports titles, which later ended up being on multiple consoles. None of the games that are so highly regarded among the fans, except Shenmue, made it to the top seller list. A clear sign that the Dreamcast failed because of the lack of good games.

It seems pretty obvious that your clear signs are muddled in misunderstandings of your data. Things such as Sales, based on bad comparisons that include such things as a system such as the PS2 that did well from the start, before hardly any noteworthy games even existed for it. (Selling on eBay for $600-$1200 around launch time).

<snip (general opinions not worth discussing)>

That's completely false. Crazy Taxi was released to the PS2 and look how well it sold. The Xbox not being the "original platform" had nothing to do with Shenmue's failure. IF that were the case, then many sequels over the generations would have failed after moving to new platforms. Shenmue 2 failed because it was a boring game. The first game was boring and the second game as just as boring. Shenmue is one of the few games I can honestly say is worse than FFX. FFX beat it in every way, and it was a first generation game, compared to Shenmue being a 2nd generation game.

More opinion based on your preferences (unless you haven't actually played through them, in which case even preferences doesn't seem to be needed to make such claims).

You completely missed the point on Shenmue 2 and this shows you didn't play it, although that was obvious already. Shenmue was intended to be a single game. The scope was way to large though, so they cut the game into three pieces. These pieces weren't so much sequels as they were continuations of the same game. All three were, together, a single cohesive game. Shenmue 2, the middle section, was released alone on the Xbox. That is like taking a game like FFX and cutting the middle out and putting it on another system. That doesn't even make sense, and it was a ridiculous decision. It's not like a sequel like Gran Turismo 3 that was it's own game. Shenmue 2 was the middle of one game, that had been cut into 3 pieces.

Shenmue 2, Jet Set Radio, and many other Sega games have sold poorly on the systems they were released because they were just bad games. It's as simple as that.

Have you heard of market saturation? Flooding a market with something causes things to get drowned. This is why may companies plan releases of titles so the sales of one doesn't kill the other. Many of the DC games that came to PS2 were not only year old ports, but they were also hitting shelves that were saturated in tons of PS2 games. This has killed many good games and made worse games be successful because of marketing bringing them to the surface.

There is another huge issue you have completely overlooked that affected the DC very very badly: Piracy. My guess you have no idea how prolific Dreamcast piracy was. It was bad and became very popular very fast. It was easy to do once it was figured out... you didn't even need a mod chip, and later, not even a boot loader. Piracy on DC went crazy, and the sales drop was very noticable.

[Haoshiro]

Oh, and some sales for you (http://www.shinforce.com/dreamcast/SalesRecord.htm)... since you like those.

An extra comment too, just as you say reviewers are paid for good reviews, so are companies paid to avoid the competition. Square for example, EA anyone? No... surely Sony wouldn't pay companies to be exclusive, surely the companies had only solid facts as to why their products would sell better on system "X"; it had nothing to do with money being dumped at them for exclusivity! ;)

[DougTheImpaler]

Software sales on the DC really kinda...well...in Victor Ireland's words (president of the late Working Designs)..."sucked". People weren't buying more than 2 or 3 games on the DC, and that's part of why SEGA was still struggling two years removed from the Saturn (which didn't live long enough to see solid sales of its best games, like Panzer Dragoon Saga, Magic Knight Rayearth, Dragon Force, and Shining Force III, for example) and it's why by the time I'd had my Dreamcast all of two weeks, the price had been dropped from $199 to $99 and SEGA was getting out of the hardware biz.

I was an extraordinary SEGA fanboi growing up, having a SG-1000, Master System, Genesis/CD/32x, and Saturn as my only consoles until I got a PSX in 1998. I loved the systems and the games and it's painful to relive the Dreamcast, because it's such a great system - even today. Last weekend, my wife's brothers and I were playing Unreal Tournament 3-way on the system. I still think Soul Calibur was the best game in the series. Sigh.

[raggedjimmi]

Sorry, but he's right. Reviewers get paid to say what they say. If the don't get paid well, then they won't review well.

And he's right again that This comparison is completely unfair. A realist after my own heart, it seems.

I don't get this, I know a few professional review writers. alright not on the internet but for newspapers. And I'm pretty sure the industry don't pay them. They're on the newspapers payroll as far as I'm aware. I don't think there's any conspiracy telling reviewers what to say. Ocarina of Time was said by many reviewers to be the best game of all time, echoed by millions of players. Smugglers Run was bashed by reviewers, also echoed by the players. So I don't get what this conspiracy is. We're not seeing 100% games left right and bloomin centre are we?

[Haoshiro]

Plus it's fairly easy to tell if the reviewer actually played through the game or is giving praise/etc without merit.

And while Reviews definitely influence Sales (therefore making Sales figures even less reliable, right?), many people read reviews after they have already bought a game. They may not have had a chance to play it yet and are at work wanting to find out more about the game, or they may have finished the game and want other people's opinion of there new favorite game.

I myself have bought handfuls of "bargain bin" titles and went home and looked them up for reviews. Scores can be argued with but often the actual review article is detailed enough to tell if the person is marketing or has actually played the game and have an opinion.

I would venture to say that most review sites avoid accepting bribes from companies as much as possible... if the fact they were getting paid for good reviews got out, they would be ruined.

[Jovian9]

No facts here, strictly opinion from someone who used to own both:
-I absolutely loved the DC. It was hard to part with. The only reason I got rid of it was to help fund the iMac G4 when they were first released. The games were awesome. So much fun.
-I did not like and still do not like the PS2. To me it was an inferior system compared to the Xbox, DC, and GC. I hate the controllers. I GAVE mine away to my nephews b/c I never played it.

[turbopants]

I was out of the video game scene when these two consoles came out, but by the time the Dreamcast was discontinued, I had a great time stocking up on great $10 titles. The DC quickly became a favorite, as I got hooked on Jet Grind Radio, Virtua Tennis, and Sega Marine Fishing. Still love the system.

[raggedjimmi]

I'm sorry, you're all wrong. the DC didn't sell at all and nobody bought the games. those who bought games are liars. Those who liked the games are liars because reviewers didn't like them.

:rolleyes:

[Haoshiro]

Dang it! You're right... if only I had known sooner I could have avoid being deceived into thinking I did own the system AND had fun playing the games! Gah! How could I have been so blind!? :eek:

Thank you jimmi... you have... enlightened me!

:cool:

[XNine]

The point isn't whether either console had good games, the point is that this comparison is completely biased as it gives the Dreamcast more credibility simply because of the amount of games on the console at the end of 2000, which had nearly two years of life on the PS2 when it launched.

Now, if you want to compare number of games at launch PERIOD, and not giving Dreamcast a rediculous advantage, then I'd say the PS 2 wins, hands down.

[beachesandmusic]

Mate, you're just starting off here and you're already sounding like a bit... I won't say but you make everything sound like nobody has an opinion.

I know, I'm sounding like a fanboy. But honestly, I don't care. I know how the internet works. If you go against what the handful of outspoken fanboys think, then YOU are the fanboy. I honestly don't care if a small number of people don't like me because I speak the truth.

The funny thing is, if I came here and kept quiet until I wasn't a "newbie" and had a higher ranked custom title, this argument wouldn't happen because then I would be a "respected poster." But since I'm a newbie, I get flamed for being a fanboy.

Maybe the reviewers really liked it? I'd rate it as my fave game of all time. I'm sure many others would too.

I like Zelda: OoT, but theres no denying that the game is not the best game of all time, but merely the most overrated game of all time.

I am comparing both systems offerings for a time period. This is comparing what the Dreamcast had by the time the PS2 came out.

But you're comparing two years of life of one console, to mere months of another. If you want a fair comparison, you have to compare the first two years of life of the PS2 as well.

You are quick to toss out that any Dreamcast user is a "fanboy" yet you repeatedly use blatant fanboy terminology in your posts; such as claiming something is or isn't good or bad based solely on your own opinions yet stating it as a general fact, rather then simply the opinions they are.

Hey, I posted a link to sales to prove that the games I said are bad did sell bad. You can't argue with sales, buddy. If a game is good, it will sell.

You, on the other hand, insist on comparing two years worth of Dreamcast sales to months worth of PS2 sales. For you, it's perfectly okay to compare 10 million consoles sold (worldwide) and years worth of software library build up to something that has only been available for a couple of months.

What? This is some confused logic if I've seen any. First you say my comparison lists are flawed then you present numbers that compare a system that had been dead for two years to one that was still active?

And look at these numbers you listed:
Dreamcast = 4 Million (4.5 Million North America)
Xbox = 12 Million (13.2 Million North America)

The Xbox had 3 times more hardware sales! This means more users! This means more software sales! So obviously there is going to be more "million sellers", there were millions more users!

See? You're talking about "confused logic", but for you it's perfectly fine for the Dreamcast to have years under it's belt and a built-up software library, but it's not okay for anyother console. Whenever I've pointed out that other system's games had sold more, you use the "they have more users" argument. But you're perfectly fine comparing the Dreamcast, with two years of history, to the PS2 which had months. MONTHS. Can we stop being hypocrites now?

If the Dreamcast was SOO good, as you say it was, then these hardware number sales would be completely different. Not to mention, with 4 million systems available in the US, it HAD the potential for many more million sellers. But you know what? The games weren't good. By the time Gran Turismo 3 was released, the PS2 had over 10 million sold worldwide. But that game still managed to sell enough, at that time, where almost 1 in 2, maybe 3, people had it. That's what a good game does. IT SELLS. Regardless of how many people do or don't have the system. Look at Super Mario 64 too. For the first years of N64s life, Super Mario 64 sold almost 1 copy for every system sold. Good games sell. There's no confused logic there. It's just how life works.

This is the same thing with PS2 that you must be failing to factor. PS2 has more users then even the Xbox has (speaking strictly USA, even), so this obviously is going to equate to more "blockbuster" titles

Again, it's perfectly okay for you to compare a system with two years of history to one that only has only been available in the entire world for a matter of months? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Sales though, mean little to me. I love a little game called Beyond Good & Evil, great game. But it bombed in retail. Many many titles are like this. It doesn't matter how good they are if they don't get the marketing they need. Shelf space in retail outlets is limited, they cater to the well known and publicized brands. As a long time PC gamer I have found many games that bested the "big names" in < $5 bins. Popularity is such a horrible thing to base quality on, you do realize this... right?

This argument may have worked in the past, but that's simply not the case anymore. Beyond Good & Evil is also an overrated game. It failed on multiple levels.

But you know what? We live in an age where almost everyone has some sort of internet access. Any person who is mildly interested in videogames at least has an old computer and a NetZero connection. Anybody, even before the time of the Dreamcast, can get online in some way and read information about games. Even if they don't have huge advertising budgets, which is hard to believe that would make a difference because I honestly see very few videogame ads on network TV and most cable channels, a person can get online and go to a place like gamefaqs.com or even one of the huge ad-sponsored sites like Gamespot and read about all the games they could ever want. Word of mouth has more of an affect on media than anything else. Look at all of these big budget movies that failed. They had millions of dollars in advertising budgets, but they failed. Why? Because people went to them, they were terrible, and they told their friends.

People can't use this advertising thing anymore. Not in the internet age. Even a moderately old system makes it ridiculously easy to get online and find out any information you want. If a game is good, it will sell. It's that simple.

Now you're really starting to make yourself sound like a troll.

:rolleyes: Whatever. See? This is how the internet works. If you don't go with the few outspoken fanboys, you get called names.

Sure, I'm sure that plenty of reviewers have gotten "paid off" but saying every review out their is corrupted by ad agencies is just silly.

No, it's not silly. Ads pay reviewers paychecks. Game companies buy the ads. It's as simple as putting 2 and 2 together and getting 4.

Besides, I'm sure plenty (if not most) of those million sellers you acclaim did indeed get great reviews. Popularity is almost a worse gauge then reviews, but you seem to love that stat.

So a game can only be good if it does terrible? I guess that means ET for the 2600 was the best game of all time! Look, you're not making any sense. A game becomes popular due to word of mouth. No amount of advertising is going to make a bad game sell good. Word of mouth does. Good reviews didn't make Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, San Andreas, or GT3 sell over 13 million copies. The quality of the game did that.

Ocarina of Time ranks high on my Top 10 of all time. This has nothing to do with hype either.

That definitely has to do with hype, because OoT wasn't a very good game. I remember someone being totally taken in by OoT's "Greatness". Then after they beat it they couldn't stand the game, or the people who liked it. That was quite funny.

[beachesandmusic]

Heck, when I first bought it and my N64 my entire family watched me play for seven hours straight. These are people that aren't gamers and it entertained them simply to watch. Oh, and wasn't it Popular and a Million seller? Doesn't that mean it's good based on your measurements?

Did your family have much of a choice? Seems to me like you played it on the "main TV" in the house and they didn't have much of a choice! hahaha. Zelda 64 sold well, mainly because the N64 was having a huge drought of games. How many other games did the N64 have in 1998? You had such classics as South Park and Yoshi's Story released that year. Nintendo64 gamers had nothing else to play. I was one of the first people in my city to get a Nintendo64 in October. By the summer of 1997, I had given up on the platform because the games were few and far between, and it was pretty obvious that Nintendo had lost touch with their consumers. One of my non-gaming friends described Zelda 64 as Mario 64, but with a sword.

I know I'll get ripped on for telling the truth about Zelda, but hey, that's how it is. Zelda: Ocarina of Time was not a very good game. It was good, however, it is entirely overrated. Everything about it was overrated. The style of gameplay, the story, even the graphics. I don't understand how a game that has you walking and doing nothing for 90% of the game can be so highly rated. When you do come across an enemy, you simply press Z and slash away until it dies. Overall, the game was considerably easier than even the Game Boy version. You say you played it for 7 hours straight.. that should have taken you almost to the end of the game in one sitting.

The game didn't do anything new either. Auto-targetting, the day/night system, just about everything Zelda did had already been done before. The only "new" thing was the auto-jump, and that was just stupid.

For the record, the Water Temple was NOT difficult. It was just as easy as any other "dungeon" in the game.

Those games did finally come; but the fact remains that PS2 had a huge install base before that happened. The system was already a success, again, in spite of the games being there or not.

That still doesn't make sense. For you, it's perfectly okay to compare two years worth of history to just a few months. If you want the comparison to be fair, then you HAVE to compre the first two years of the PS2 as well.

Sales again? PS2 had a much larger install base. Larger install base = more game sales. They could be good games, they could be bad games, regardless of that if there are more systems in homes there will be more sales.

Sales prove that the system and the games were good. If they weren't, then they wouldn't have sold. Proof: Dreamcast, Saturn, and to an extent, the N64.

Things such as Sales, based on bad comparisons that include such things as a system such as the PS2 that did well from the start, before hardly any noteworthy games even existed for it. (Selling on eBay for $600-$1200 around launch time).

More "noteworthy" games were available for the PS2 at launch than the Dreamcast. The PS2 would have failed if it had not had good games. Many people bought the PS2 knowing that Gran Turismo and GTA were on the horizon. How many times do I have to say this? The PS2 sold because of the games. The Dreamcast DIDN'T sell because of the games.

<snip (general opinions not worth discussing)>

Translation: "snip everything that pretty much shows I'm wrong".

You completely missed the point on Shenmue 2 and this shows you didn't play it, although that was obvious already. Shenmue was intended to be a single game. The scope was way to large though, so they cut the game into three pieces. These pieces weren't so much sequels as they were continuations of the same game.All three were, together, a single cohesive game.

These are just fanboy excuses. It doesn't matter if it was "meant to be one game", which makes no sense either. GTA: San Andreas has roughly 80 hours worth of gameplay in it. Any of the Final Fantasy games could be played for over 100 hours. So why does Shenmue have to be broken up? Sounds more like an excuse from Sega, and Dreamcast fans, for Shenmue being so boring. "It'll get better! We promise! It was just so big that we had to split it up!" Right :rolleyes: If San Andreas, which sold well over 13 million copies, can be over 80 hours, then Shenmue could be released as one game.

That is like taking a game like FFX and cutting the middle out and putting it on another system. That doesn't even make sense, and it was a ridiculous decision. It's not like a sequel like Gran Turismo 3 that was it's own game. Shenmue 2 was the middle of one game, that had been cut into 3 pieces.

You're right, it doesn't make sense. It was just an excuse by Sega for the game being so terrible. Their way of saying "we promise it will get better". But it didn't, did it? Shenmue 2 is no more part of a single game as R&C 2 is part of a single game broken into pieces.

Have you heard of market saturation? Flooding a market with something causes things to get drowned. This is why may companies plan releases of titles so the sales of one doesn't kill the other. Many of the DC games that came to PS2 were not only year old ports, but they were also hitting shelves that were saturated in tons of PS2 games. This has killed many good games and made worse games be successful because of marketing bringing them to the surface.

Oh BS. Many GOOD games have been released among other GOOD games and they have sold JUST fine. Ratchet and Clank went on to sell millions, despite being released within days of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Infact, SOCOM, GTA, and R&C all came out in a very short period of time and they all sold very well. When it comes to games and DVDs, theres no such thing as market saturation. What's good sells. Look at MP3 players. There's literally hundreds of models to choose from. But the good ones all sell just fine.

You can't use this "market saturation" or "advertising" argument in this day and age. As I said before, it's very easy for anyone and their brother to get online and find out all of the information they could ever want. If there is something they want, or something they might like, it's very easy for them to get online and read about it. Their friends can find outa bout it and spread the word, theres hundreds of forums for them to visit and see what people are saying. In the year 2006, it's virtually impossible for a good game to not sell well. If a game is good, it will sell. It's that simple. The games Sega made during that time were not good and did not sell. The good games, like Crazy Taxi, did sell. It's that simple.

There is another huge issue you have completely overlooked that affected the DC very very badly: Piracy.My guess you have no idea how prolific Dreamcast piracy was. It was bad and became very popular very fast. It was easy to do once it was figured out... you didn't even need a mod chip, and later, not even a boot loader. Piracy on DC went crazy, and the sales drop was very noticable.

Oh puh-leeze. Give me a break here. This is just another excuse. Piracy did not kill the Dreamcast. In 1999, and 2000, very few people had CD burners. Most people didn't have broadband connections either. Someone with a CD burner and a highspeed line in 1999 and 2000 was a very rare person. Technology has changed a lot and fast in the last few years, but I think you seem to forget just what it was like in 1999 and 2000. Most people would not have had the hardware, software, or even the knowledge to pirate a Dreamcast game then. This is just another excuse for the Dreamcast failing.

Going by this logic, the DVD industry and PS2 game sales should not exist in the way they do today. Even the Xbox and GameCube. Most PCs and Macs are sold with a DVD burner these days. You can get high quality discs for as little as 40 cents a disc. If piracy was truly such a problem, DVD sales would drop significantly. With the Xbox, people can pay just a little bit of money to have their system modded with a modchip and huge HDD. The PS2 and GameCube don't need modchips either, and 8cm DVD-Rs (for the GameCube) are easily available. If everyone was a dirty little pirate, like you say, then the PS2, GC, Xbox, and DVD sales would all be suffering. Face it, the Dreamcast failed because it was a bad system with bad games.

Oh, and some sales for you... since you like those.

Oh, the Dreamcast beat the N64. That's real good :rolleyes: If I'm not mistaken, the PS2 came out and pretty much stomped all of those little records.

An extra comment too, just as you say reviewers are paid for good reviews, so are companies paid to avoid the competition. Square for example, EA anyone? No... surely Sony wouldn't pay companies to be exclusive, surely the companies had only solid facts as to why their products would sell better on system "X"; it had nothing to do with money being dumped at them for exclusivity!

rofl oh. my. god. And you're saying I act like a troll? Sony never had any part in Square's finances until the Final Fantasy movie bombed, and Sony bailed them out by buying stock. But Sony did not become a controlling power in the company, which resulted in Final Fantasy games, including FF6, beiing released for the GBA and GC, as well as FF11 possibly being ported for the 360. Seriously man, if anyone here is the true fanboy now, it is definitely you.

[beachesandmusic]

EA clearly stated that they chose not to support the Dreamcast because the Saturn was such a failure. Why would EA need Sony to pay them to be exclusive? Makes absolutely no sense. Even then, EA was the biggest publisher in the world. Anything Sony could "offer" them would be pocket change to them.

No offense, and I'm not flaming you here, but if you honestly think that kind of thing happened, then you need to step back from the keyboard and get a breath of fresh air.

I don't get this, I know a few professional review writers. alright not on the internet but for newspapers.And I'm pretty sure the industry don't pay them. They're on the newspapers payroll as far as I'm aware.

And where do you think newspapers get their cash from? It's not from subscribers. Subscriber's barely cover the delivery of their own copies. It's from advertisers.


Ocarina of Time was said by many reviewers to be the best game of all time, echoed by millions of players.

Millions of N64 owning players ;) 90% of the people who say Zelda was so good owned only an N64. Thankfully, I had a Playstation as well, so I wasn't suffering from an almost two year drought of good games and Zelda didn't seem like the best game ever to me.

Smugglers Run was bashed by reviewers, also echoed by the players. So I don't get what this conspiracy is. We're not seeing 100% games left right and bloomin centre are we?

Smugglers Run sold well enough to spawn a sequel and a port to the GameCube. Smuggler's Run actually scored an 8.0 at the almighty gamespot.com, so I don't see where you're getting this "bashed by reviewers" thing from. It spawned a sequel and a port, which is more than you can say for a lot of Dreamcast exclusive games.

And while Reviews definitely influence Sales (therefore making Sales figures even less reliable, right?), many people read reviews after they have already bought a game. They may not have had a chance to play it yet and are at work wanting to find out more about the game, or they may have finished the game and want other people's opinion of there new favorite game.

People read reviews AFTER they bought the game? What century are you living in? This isn't the age of magazing game reviews anymore. You don't have to wait until the game has been available 3 months for a review anymore. A person can find out all they want about the game now, before even leaving the house. They can get up and read about the game while still in their pajamas with bed hair if they want. That's just how the world is now. This kind of argument doesn't fly anymore.

And if someone buys a game based on a review, then they deserve whatever bad game they purchase. This is why we have rental stores.

I myself have bought handfuls of "bargain bin" titles and went home and looked them up for reviews.

That's your fault.

I would venture to say that most review sites avoid accepting bribes from companies as much as possible... if the fact they were getting paid for good reviews got out, they would be ruined.

Oh please, here we go again. Look, nobody said anything about BRIBES. But it's OBVIOUS how it works. Websites rely on ads for revenue. Game companies, making games that the website reviews, buy ads on said website. If game website attracts more readers, it can charge more/receive more ad revenue. So what does the game site do? They review games in a manner that will draw more people to the website and drive up ad revenue. It's that simple.

Look at all of the publications that give positive reviews to Bose products. Look how much Bose advertises with them. You don't see any Bose ads in magazines that have given Bose negative reviews, do you? Exactly. So how are videogame reviewers somehow immune to this? They're NOT. They're just as "evil". They want their paycheck. These companies are FOR profit. They're not out to help you make smart purchases, they're out to help the person who can make their wallet fatter.

The point isn't whether either console had good games, the point is that this comparison is completely biased as it gives the Dreamcast more credibility simply because of the amount of games on the console at the end of 2000, which had nearly two years of life on the PS2 when it launched.

Now, if you want to compare number of games at launch PERIOD, and not giving Dreamcast a rediculous advantage, then I'd say the PS 2 wins, hands down.

Thank you! Some common sense :D

[Haoshiro]

Let's step off the console war train for a moment and not have our discourse tied simply to one piece of hardware or the other...

Honestly I carry on this discussion simply because your responses really humor me; many chuckles could have been counted during your recent montage.

First up is you replying to several sections with "you're comparing two years against a couple months!" which would work fine, if the sections you were replying to had anything to do with that! Most of them, however, did not. :D

Now how long you are around a forum definitely does matter; but it doesn't mkae your opinions any more or less wrong. What makes a person look like a "troll" is when someone just pops up to cause trouble. Now I can definitely be accused of being long winded, but when you post long drawn out posts that directly and precisely counter many topics that the majority will disagree with - and do nothing else - then the image of "trolling" no longer has merely to do with how long you've been a forum member, but the majority of content in your posts; serving no purpose BUT to cause disagreement.

What I don't understand is how you quote sales figures as evidence one moment and then the next they aren't valid anymore. "If a game is good, it will sell." you say, then a mention of a game that sold well (which I'm guessing you loosely assocaiate with >$1M), that throws off any of your statements, and suddenly it doesn't seem to mean much. And in complete contradiction to your own statements you then bring up the million-selling bomb of E.T. It sold well, so it must be good... right?

What is the explanation of that? A different time period? Wrong era? It was in fact good?? If it wasn't good, but sold well... why is it impossible for the reverse to be true? Good games that sell badly?

Do you think even half of the 7 Tomb Raider games were good? Didn't they sell well? The Tomb Raider movie did well enough to make a sequel (and I hear a third)... did you think they were good? Fanbase possibly impacting success? But that can't effect other poor/bad games selling well?

Half-Life 2 for PC was a blockbuster, sold fantastic, still selling. They port to Xbox and the sales bombed? Did it suck? Other console FPS games like Halo did great... what gives?

My quote regarding people reading reviews after purchasing the games came, IIRC, directly from IGN Weekly. If it weren't for that I would simply think me and several friends were the only gamers that did that (freaks).

Overall my basic point, which you probably understood and just disagreed with, was that despite having equal or lesser quality content that was available on DC at the time, PS2 sold FAR better.

I assume, then, that after you looked at the lists you concluded that those few (well selling) games on the PS2 in its first few months, outmatched that of what was available on the DC?

That, or customers bought the PS2 not because it had better quality then the DC by end of 2000, but because they knew games in development and pending release were coming and be good/great/better... no?

But how does that work? PS2 sells like mad at it's release and breaks records all the way up until (and beyond) there blockbuster games come out, right? And it was because of the blockbuster games that people bought the PS2 for in anticpation, right? But how did they know they would actually be good!? They had never played them!

Sure, they turned out good... but the mere fact that the PS2 sold so well before they arrived, to me, is an indication that somehow it wasn't purely good games that made it successful... (since it was a success before most of the content started arriving.)

But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Care to explain how it all works?

[beachesandmusic]

Honestly I carry on this discussion simply because your responses really humor me; many chuckles could have been counted during your recent montage.

Ah, this is the part of the debate where the fanboy knows that he has pretty much been outgunned. Now he'll start the "not directly replying to such a ridiculous post" part of the debate and say how "funny" the post was and things like that.

First up is you replying to several sections

Not my fault theres a text limit :rolleyes:

First up is you replying to several sections with "you're comparing two years against a couple months!" which would work fine, if the sections you were replying to had anything to do with that! Most of them, however, did not.

I'm not the only one who pointed out that argument was flawed and you WERE giving an unfair advantage to the Dreamcast. You were directly comparing two years worth of games to months. Your entire argument was basically "it's okay for the Dreamcast to be this way, but it's not okay for the PS2 to be the same way." All you could reply with was "that's because the PS2 had a huge install base!" Well, no kidding! Did you ever stop to think why? Probably because the games were better!

Anyhow, no matter how you try to twist your words around now, I wasn't the only one to point out that your argument was very unfair to the PS2 and very one sided. Not to mention very hypocritical and biased.

Basically, your argument was as ridiculous as someone comparing Windows Vista to Mac OS 9 and trying to say that Vista is a more modern operating system. That is just how ridiculous your argument is, and the logic you used to justify what you said.

Now how long you are around a forum definitely does matter; but it doesn't mkae your opinions any more or less wrong.

Are you new to this forum thing? Post count, registration date, custom titles are all part of what determines your reputation on a forum. If you have a high post count and registered a couple of years ago, unless you've proven yourself to be a troll, you're basically "high up" in the forum food chain.

counter many topics that the majority will disagree with

The majority? Who? You and a couple of other Dreamcast fans? If I were to go to a general gaming board and say "DREAMCAST SUCKS!" I would probably have only 2 or 3 Dreamcast fanboys calling me a troll, while the rest of the board would either agree with me.

Theres literally 10 times as many people who would agree that the PS2 is a better system than the Dreamcast ;)

What I don't understand is how you quote sales figures as evidence one moment and then the next they aren't valid anymore. "If a game is good, it will sell." you say, then a mention of a game that sold well (which I'm guessing you loosely assocaiate with >$1M), that throws off any of your statements, and suddenly it doesn't seem to mean much. And in complete contradiction to your own statements you then bring up the million-selling bomb of E.T. It sold well, so it must be good... right?

What is the explanation of that? A different time period? Wrong era? It was in fact good?? If it wasn't good, but sold well... why is it impossible for the reverse to be true? Good games that sell badly?

Apparently somebody missed the point of what I was saying, or in typical fanboy fashion, they're trying to twist my words around for their own personal gain. I made my argument rather clear. Go back and read what I said for yourself.

You brought up some nonsense about how popular games aren't necessarily good games. Which is about as stupid as the whole "iPod is a fashion statement and thats why everyone has one!" argument. Nobody is going to go throw away $50 (or $300 for that matter) on something that's popular, if it sucks. As I said before, it's very easy for somebody to get all the information about a game they could ever want, BEFORE they buy it.

You brought up the ridiculous argument of how some "good" games don't sell. That a game that doesn't sell well can be great. Which is why I was being sarcastic about ET being the best game ever.

Did I explain it clearly enough?

Do you think even half of the 7 Tomb Raider games were good? Didn't they sell well?

The Playstation games sold well. It's not that they were bad, but that they never changed. The fourth game was no different than the first game. They weren't bad, just repetitive. But apparently they were good enough to keep selling.

The Tomb Raider movie did well enough to make a sequel (and I hear a third)... did you think they were good? Fanbase possibly impacting success?

The Tomb Raider movies did well JUST because of Angelina Jolie, and her T&A. I know men AND women who went to see the movie, and liked it, just because of her. I know of women who bought both DVDs just because they were huge Jolie fans. To them, it was good.

Fanbase possibly impacting success? But that can't effect other poor/bad games selling well?

You don't get a fanbase of over 13 million for a videogame if the product is bad. As I've said many many times before, in the information age, it's all too easy for someone to go online and find out all the information they could ever want about a game before they purchase it.

Look at how the music industry has changed in the last few years, thanks to the internet. Before the internet boom, music that sold well was basically forced down our throat by MTV and Clear Channel. Now, thanks to iTunes, Myspace, and quite a few other resources, those old pop acts are all but dead and people are finding the music they want.

Half-Life 2 for PC was a blockbuster, sold fantastic, still selling. They port to Xbox and the sales bombed? Did it suck? Other console FPS games like Halo did great... what gives?

Halo is a lot like Zelda 64, in the sense that it's really all the system had. So even a mediocre game will sell well. However, the Dreamcast only had a couple of mediocre games, which explains it's very low software sales. N64 only really had Super Mario 64 and Zelda 64. Xbox really only has Halo and Halo 2. The rest are PC ports. Who in their right mind is going to play Half-Life 2 on a game console with watered down graphics? Game looked better on my old GeForce4 MX 440 than it did on the Xbox!

Overall my basic point, which you probably understood and just disagreed with, was that despite having equal or lesser quality content that was available on DC at the time, PS2 sold FAR better.

And the reason the PS2 sold far better was because of the games and support. The Dreamcast had only a couple of good games and very little 3rd party support. Most 3rd party developers, except Capcom really, were focused on the PS2. Why buy a system that has no support?

I assume, then, that after you looked at the lists you concluded that those few (well selling) games on the PS2 in its first few months, outmatched that of what was available on the DC?

That, or customers bought the PS2 not because it had better quality then the DC by end of 2000, but because they knew games in development and pending release were coming and be good/great/better... no?

But how does that work? PS2 sells like mad at it's release and breaks records all the way up until (and beyond) there blockbuster games come out, right? And it was because of the blockbuster games that people bought the PS2 for in anticpation, right? But how did they know they would actually be good!? They had never played them!

The PS2 did have better quality than the Dreamcast by the end of 2000. Anyway, who wouldn't have wanted a PS2? You can't deny the quality of MGS, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, Naughty Dog, and Insomniac. Naughty Dog and Insomniac are guaranteed to put out quality games.

Just look at the PS2 and the Dreamcast. The Dreamcast had very little 3rd party support. Probably even worse than the N64. On the Dreamcast you had a bunch of stupid games like Chu Chu Rocket, Capcom 2D fighters, Sonic Adventure, Soul Calibur, and Crazy Taxi. Nobody liked the stupid "innovative" games the Dreamcast had, like Chu Chu Rocket. By that point, all but the most hardcore people had given up on Capcom fighting games. Nobody wanted a 10th version of Street Fighter, or a game that played like Street Fighter but with different characters. But on the PS2, you had Namco's full support, Square's support, EA's support, which meant Madden at launch, Naughty Dog (the original Crash series, on the Playstation, combined for over 20 million copies sold), Insomniac (8 million across 4 Playstation games), Polyphony (makers of the most popular racing games ever), Konami, Rockstar, and hundreds of other developers that are too many to list.

Basically, developers, except for Capcom, gave the Dreamcast half-assed support thanks to Sega's track record and inferior hardware. They all gave their full support to the PS2 and people knew this. That's why the bought the PS2. They knew they would be getting the goods. Sega just didn't have it. They burned their customers and their developers too many times.

[raggedjimmi]

I gave up reading when he said he was a fanboy. I'm not putting that much effort into reading when he doesn't name who he's quoting in these epic replies. so I'll just end with something that wound him up to begin with;

I preferred the DreamCast because it had better games, in my opinion.

As for the newspaper thing, well my pop is 2nd in command at the largest newspaper printing facility in Europe and also helps run a couple of newspapers in the editing section. They do not get any money from industry mate, at least not the Manchester Evening News series, The Observer, the Guardian series and the Oldham Chronicle. Infact I even did a stint as a reviewer 2 years ago, I could say whatever I wanted. They still do. They're still giving out 1/5 stars to crap games and 5/5 to excellent games. I just don't understand this logic. Pro reviewers give games less than perfect reviews? There are games in the 14% (Superman 64) there are games in the 100% (Quake, Ocarina of Time). Sorry mate, but all this is utter BS. And I loved my Dream Cast.

[Haoshiro]

Yeah, jimmi, I hear you. I finished reading the posts, but I do tend to waste my time.

beaches:

Look, I stepped off the "main argument", if you will, simply because you are simply being unreasonable and make no attempts to qualify your arguments.

If you are going to argue, at least learn to back it up with something. You make specific and broad statements and offer nothing to back up what you say.

You offer no sources of information (besides the single site with some 2004 sales figures) nor do you give any reasons, bad or good, as to why anything you say actually has merit beyond your personal opinion. Not even a well thought out attempt to explain why what you say could possibly be true. Instead you present statements as if they are fact.

So why continue to talk, argue, or discuss with someone who's replies could be summarized with "I'm right, your wrong." in word and in attitude? I tried, but you never elevated beyond that.

* shrugs *

[Abulia]

Haoshiro, you summed it up perfectly. When the catch-all "fanboy" reply came out, that pretty much did it for me.

Plus, line-by-line replies that take statements out of context only serve to twist the original poster's words and create a highly combatative discussion. In fact, on many forums line-by-line replies are outright banned for this very reason.

But beaches doesn't want to have a discussion, he doesn't want to give any ground, and he certainly isn't willing to backup any statements with facts.

Thus, a warm welcome to the first member of my ignore list! W00t! :D

[XNine]

Haoshiro, you summed it up perfectly. When the catch-all "fanboy" reply came out, that pretty much did it for me.

Plus, line-by-line replies that take statements out of context only serve to twist the original poster's words and create a highly combatative discussion. In fact, on many forums line-by-line replies are outright banned for this very reason.

But beaches doesn't want to have a discussion, he doesn't want to give any ground, and he certainly isn't willing to backup any statements with facts.

Thus, a warm welcome to the first member of my ignore list! W00t! :D

Well, Don, normally I agree with you. You're usually one of the more common sense-based posters, but on this one, I'm going to ahve to take Beaches side again agaisnt the three of you.

First off, Beaches was right, that the comparison is completely unfair, it's biased, and really, it's a very ****** comparison, at that. Second, he gave REASONS why the comparison was completely one-sided, with Hao & Ragged all over him for not only being new to the forum, but for saying the are wrong.

Neither of which have doubled up on me, saying I'm wrong. Probably because
A: I'm not a new poster
B: I'm right.

Beaches is not breaking any forum rules by breaking the discussion and arguing point by point. Beaches has also not flamed here. And let's not forget who's thrown the term "fanboy" around here then anyone are the two who are pointlessly arguing over the FACT that this comparison is BS.

Word of Advice: When comparing two different products in technology, break it down fairly and don't give a disadvantage simply because of brand name. Sony had a larger install base. But not at the end of 2000. At that time the Dreamcast had more units than the PS 2 in living rooms.

This whole thing could have been avoided if a fair comparison was given in the first place, PERIOD.

[Abulia]

My comments are based solely on his (beaches') replies in this thread and others and his posting style; I make no position on this thread, the comparison, nor its validity.

So you can disagree with the others if you'd like, but I've not weighed in on this thread's topic so it doesn't invalidate my opinions of beaches' contribution to this forum, which I summarize as "trollish" at best.

[Haoshiro]

Onizuka:

Yes, as a direct game comparison the entirety of the lists are not directly comparable.

I included both systems launches titles as well as all games by end of 2000. These were separate lists.

This offers several comparisons besides just the system libraries over a specific time span:

- Launch to Launch comparisons
- DC offerings at the time of PS2 launch (arguably the death knoll for DC)

As well as showing there were good games even by the time PS2 launched.

I did compare the total lists, but not with intent to say "see DC had more good games then PS2". I was simply pointing out, that, upon the arrival of PS2, to me, there were more reasons to have a DC. Yes, given the same span of time PS2 had a lot more games then I have listed, I do not refute that at all.

Beaches original argument, for which this thread was created, was that Dreamcast failed because it had no good games, not because PS2 out hyped/marketed/sold them. In other words, he was saying that the DC failed on its own because there were no good games for, not because it had been bested by competition.

So I tried to demonstrate too much in the OP, I guess...

1) By launch of PS2 the DC had a great library of games (this is something he doesn't agree with).
2) PS2 succeeded in spite of having less offerings of the DC. This isn't to say the PS2 did not get some great titles, because it did, rather to say it succeeded regardless. (Beaches seems to disagree with this, saying that even at the PS2 launch the PS2 still had better games, unless I misread something)
3) If #1 is true, then the DC failed for other reasons besides games.

This makes even more sense to me, seeing as they turned into strictly a software company after DCs failure.

Am I making sense? That the lists purpose wasn't "what system had better games after 2 years on the market" but "what games did the systems have by 2000?"

The lists really benefit Sony more to me, because it shows that even though (at least in my opinion) the DC had more to offer by the PS2 launch date it failed and the PS2 emerged victorious.

I'm sure plenty would disagree, but I attribute that at least partially to Sony PR and Marketing (and when over blown, referred to as Hype). Sony rallied a lot of support and even persuaded in-development DC titles to switch to PS2. That's smart business.

So in summary I was trying to show why I do not think the DC failed because of lack of good software. I believe there was plenty of reasons but that wasn't the major contributor. Sega dropped DC before consumers stopped buying them, they made the decision to switch to software and effectively snuffed out the remaining life the DC had. It was a smart move, and I didn't mind that they did it.

[Tymmz]

I was never really interested in NES, N64, PS, DC, PS2, I'm not even interested in XBOX 360 nor PS3, but I'm really looking forward to see what the Revolution does. But since I don't own a TV I probably won't get a Revolution. If I could hook it up to my ACD, maybe.

But I think Nintendo is going the right way. It's all about the games. I'm sorry if the DC didn't make it because of the lack of marketing or what ever.

[raggedjimmi]

I was never really interested in NES, N64, PS, DC, PS2, I'm not even interested in XBOX 360 nor PS3, but I'm really looking forward to see what the Revolution does. But since I don't own a TV I probably won't get a Revolution. If I could hook it up to my ACD, maybe.

But I think Nintendo is going the right way. It's all about the games. I'm sorry if the DC didn't make it because of the lack of marketing or what ever.

A little off-topic but meh. Nintendo have said that the Rev will support monitor-output. Must be all part of their "include everyone" strategy they seem to have. So I'm guessing VGA at the least, DVI at the most.

*I'm hoping VGA or at least some adapter. VGA is the only free port on my monitor and I don't want to be flicking around with a switch box :)

[Haoshiro]

Every system should support monitors...

To bring it somewhat back to topic... ever use the VGA Box for the Dreamcast? What an amazing difference! DoA2 at 640x480 on a CRT monitor was incredible back in '99 :D

[DougTheImpaler]

Every system should support monitors...

To bring it somewhat back to topic... ever use the VGA Box for the Dreamcast? What an amazing difference! DoA2 at 640x480 on a CRT monitor was incredible back in '99 :D
Dude. Absolutely. Wow. I couldn't play the NFL 2K series on a VGA monitor though, because it was obvious then that the DC dropped to lower-detailed models when people were at farther distances, and I found it really distracting. However, on a TV, you couldn't tell the difference.

Actually the DC is how I got introduced to Unreal Tournament, along with the keyboard, mouse, and a VGA monitor. Looked really snazzy that way, too. :D

[Tymmz]

A little off-topic but meh. Nintendo have said that the Rev will support monitor-output. Must be all part of their "include everyone" strategy they seem to have. So I'm guessing VGA at the least, DVI at the most.

*I'm hoping VGA or at least some adapter. VGA is the only free port on my monitor and I don't want to be flicking around with a switch box :)

Right, a little off topic, but hey. "It's all about the games. I'm sorry if the DC didn't make it because of the lack of marketing or what ever."

I thought, i read somewhere, that the Revolution would not support DVI. And I think a VGA to DVI connector is quite expensive, isn't it.

[ReanimationLP]

They're both fun consoles with fun games, so who really cares?

The only problem the DC had was the failure of the 32x/Sega CD and the Saturn.

I swear the fanboys on this page amaze me. o.o

I love the PS2 for all the RPGs, I love the DC for all the Sonic games, and other action games.

I will admit that the DC does have a big, nice development community. www.dcemulation.com

[beachesandmusic]

They do not get any money from industry mate, at least not the Manchester Evening News series, The Observer, the Guardian series and the Oldham Chronicle. Infact I even did a stint as a reviewer 2 years ago, I could say whatever I wanted. They still do. They're still giving out 1/5 stars to crap games and 5/5 to excellent games. I just don't understand this logic. Pro reviewers give games less than perfect reviews? There are games in the 14% (Superman 64) there are games in the 100% (Quake, Ocarina of Time). Sorry mate, but all this is utter BS.

Then those publications aren't making nearly as much money as they could be. Nevermind the fact that most newspapers make a lot of their money from Classified Ads too. It's obvious that game magazines and websites survive only on advertising revenue. The more readers/subscribers you have, the more you can charge for ads. So what do you do? You write in a way that attracts readers and subscribers.

If you are going to argue, at least learn to back it up with something. You make specific and broad statements and offer nothing to back up what you say.

This means absolutely nothing coming from a person who compares two years worth of life of a console to one that has only been available for two months.

You've done nothing to backup your arguments, while everything I have said can be looked up on wikipedia or google.

You offer no sources of information (besides the single site with some 2004 sales figures) nor do you give any reasons, bad or good, as to why anything you say actually has merit beyond your personal opinion.

As I said, google or wikipedia. Your choice. I don't have to provide links when everything can be found within 5 seconds of typing in www.google.com

Not even a well thought out attempt to explain why what you say could possibly be true. Instead you present statements as if they are fact.

As opposed to your attempts? As I said, everything I stated can be found on google or wikipedia. I provided a sales link that showed sales two years after the Dreamcast "died". You can find the rest on google.

Anyway, this is just another attempt at twisting the argument around. You have absolutely nothing, except your own opinion. Your opinion is not backed up by sales or anything.

If the games you said were so good were infact that good, why didn't they sell? Why did Tomb Raider outsell most of the games that Dreamcast fans hold so dearly? Simply put, the games were bad.

Why did the Dreamcast only have ONE million seller in it's entire life span, while the PS2 had a million seller in the US after only being available for two months?


This whole thing could have been avoided if a fair comparison was given in the first place, PERIOD.

Thank you for bringing some much needed common sense into this thread :) You rock.

I included both systems launches titles as well as all games by end of 2000. These were separate lists.

Which means the Dreamcast had two years of games compared to 9 months (in Japan) of games for the PS2. The Dreamcast had over two years in the market by that point. The PS2 had 9 months.

If you want to compare the US, then the Dreamcast had well over a year and the PS2 had two months. The Dreamcast had a larger installed base and a much larger library of games. Still unfair, no matter how you look at it.

Beaches original argument, for which this thread was created, was that Dreamcast failed because it had no good games, not because PS2 out hyped/marketed/sold them. In other words, he was saying that the DC failed on its own because there were no good games for, not because it had been bested by competition.

And it did. I'll bring up sales again. A good game sells, no matter what. The Dreamcast had one million seller, according to that list. One. In two years of being available, the Dreamcast had one game surpass one million units sold. Madden 2001, available only in the US in 2000, sold over a million.

1) By launch of PS2 the DC had a great library of games (this is something he doesn't agree with).

With only one million seller, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

2) PS2 succeeded in spite of having less offerings of the DC. This isn't to say the PS2 did not get some great titles, because it did, rather to say it succeeded regardless. (Beaches seems to disagree with this, saying that even at the PS2 launch the PS2 still had better games, unless I misread something)

The PS2 succeeded because it had good games at launch, as well as many good titles that would become available in the first year.

Who is going to purchase Chu Chu Rocket instead of Gran Turismo 3? Shenmue instead of FFX?

The PS2 also had an entire library of Playstation games to play, with games like GT2 and FF8 and 9 being released in the time period that the Dreamcast had launched. The Spyro games for the original Playstation sold a few million copies each. Three Spyro games or one Sonic game?

The Dreamcast just didn't have enough good games. Good games that would appeal to everyone, not just a niche market.

3) If #1 is true, then the DC failed for other reasons besides games.

There's also the fact that Sega had scorned their customers one too many times with other pieces of hardware.

Am I making sense? That the lists purpose wasn't "what system had better games after 2 years on the market" but "what games did the systems have by 2000?"

Which is entirely unfair. The PS2 had 9 months in Japan and 2 months in the US by the end of 2000.

[Haoshiro]

You are choosing to not understand or read my posts, fair enough, that is indeed your choice.

But yes, when I say something is my opinion I say it is my opinion, I intentionally say "in my opinion" or "i think" or "i believe", I leave room for my statements to be fallable, i do not present them as cold hard facts; only the fact that they are indeed my opinion[/]. This does contrast with your approach.

I, for example, will not pretend to have seen the finances for all (or even one) game publication. So while I could take guesses, I could not state with any degree of certainty their major revenue sources. IGN, at least, has a huge amount of paid members, members that can [i]disable all ads.

Wikipedia is nice and all, but it is user contributed, it can offer some great information with little validation. You are at the mercy of the public, and if someone posts something that is wrong the theory is that someone, sometime, that is correct, will come and fix it. Hardly the best source of information out there.

I'm pretty sure, if you were to actually research, you will find there have been plenty of good/great games that have not sold. One example I can think of is River City Ransom on the NES. If you look, I bet you'll find plenty. The exact reasons they didn't sell, well that's something that probably could never be completely pinned down, but we could both come up with plenty of ideas, I'm sure.

I think LethalWolfe summed it up (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=193649) pretty well though.