Maybe Virtua Fighter instead of Killer Instinct
The company that get most software support is the one who usually win the biggest share in the market.The "bigger company wins" logic would have Microsoft steamroll Sony in the gaming market (and was a common argument prior to them entering). It's been proven to not mean much in isolation. Xbox wasn't bigger than Sony (or even specifically PlayStation) as an entity, and PlayStation was initially not bigger than Sega.
A) Of course Sega and Nintendo had third party support (even N64).
My point is that Sony was better equipped to attract more third-party support than Sega and Nintendo could which is what happened.
Part of the reason was that both Nintendo and Sega were the biggest gaming publishers in the world.
B) What about the advantage to use the electronic division of Sony to reduce the cost of the hardware?
The use the distribution channels already in place to sell in the fractured european markets or smaller countries?
C) Let's compare NES and PS1 shipment data:
NES
Japan: 19.3M
America: 34M
Other: 8.6M
PS1
Japan: 21.6M
America: 40.8M
Other: 40.1M
Notice anything?
D) Dreamcast failure wasn't due only to Sega financial weakness that's what I stated.
Dreamcast may have been different but Sega software output would have been the same kind and I don't think Dreamcast library was a strong library sales wise.
When PS2 came out in Japan PS1 had shipped about 73 million units (PS1 shipped about about 29% of the final total after PS2 first came out).
A) I'm saying Sega and Nintendo had every notable third-party that the PS1 had. A couple took sides (such as Square), but Sony only took the developer support away from Sega/Nintendo, they weren't attracting any new of note. The Saturn would have had Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc.. and with any success it would have had stuff like Metal Gear Solid as well. These aren't studios Sony brought to the game. They were studios that left the two companies that fucked up (either by being weak as shit, or late with crap storage).
B) Kinda like the even bigger MS did with the OG Xbox? Sega lost (significantly) more on the Saturn hardware than Sony did on the PS1, they just also didn't have the success required to make it back with software. Distribution I'll give you (which also rolls in point C).. however that effect is directly tied to their ability to succeed in the primary markets also. Plenty of the other attempted entrants had advantages in terms of global distribution. The market was "always" going to grow that generation, the games that became possible ensured it.
D) Sega's software output would have been much the same yes (kinda like Nintendo's has been much the same since the NES through to today)... but unlike what actually happened, Sega wouldn't have been attempting to essentially carry the console themselves. The PlayStation consoles sold primarily on the back of games created by other companies, not Sony themselves. Contrast something like the Master System with the Genesis... one is similar to the situation the Dreamcast was in, the other is similar to the situation the Dreamcast would have been in. It's a completely different scenario.
The state of the arcade industry and its decline throughout the 90's usually seems to be forgotten and is a really understated factor in how it affected Sega as well. No matter how their console ventures performed throughout the 80's and early 90's, their arcade division was always a very reliable source of revenue, and I don't think they fully counted on there being such a sudden and steep decline there.
Okawa dreamt for Sega to become a service provider for other hardware like PC.they would have gone mobile or 3rd party in he long run i think.
A) With software support I mean the actual games both in term of quantity and quality of the ports (which at the time were handled by different teams).
I do remember well the difference in third-party support between PS1 and Saturn in the first few years the Saturn was still in the race.
Just to cite the total number of releases in the japanese market for each console (because I have the data under hand):
PS1: 4456
Saturn: 1169
N64: 224
3DO: 214
PC-FX: 64
Jaguar: 12
C) Of course the mature markets (Japan, North America) were going to grow anyway because kids were growing up while other younger would gradually join the fry.
What I'm tell you (see data above) is that the big chunk of the growth the console industry experienced that generation wasn't due to demographic but to regional(s) expansion (Europe and other countries).
D) I don't see Sega employing a different business model between Master System and Genesis (the only noticeable difference is that Sega handled the distribution of Genesis in North America while for Master System they licensed the console to Tonka).
The latter was much more successful therefore attracted more third-party support but in both cases it was Sega with its software who was leading the console spreading.
A) I'm saying Sega and Nintendo had every notable third-party that the PS1 had. A couple took sides (such as Square), but Sony only took the developer support away from Sega/Nintendo, they weren't attracting any new of note. The Saturn would have had Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc.. and with any success it would have had stuff like Metal Gear Solid as well. These aren't studios Sony brought to the game. They were studios that left the two companies that fucked up (either by being weak as shit, or late with crap storage).
B) Kinda like the even bigger MS did with the OG Xbox? Sega lost (significantly) more on the Saturn hardware than Sony did on the PS1, they just also didn't have the success required to make it back with software. Distribution I'll give you (which also rolls in point C).. however that effect is directly tied to their ability to succeed in the primary markets also. Plenty of the other attempted entrants had advantages in terms of global distribution. The market was "always" going to grow that generation, the games that became possible ensured it.
D) Sega's software output would have been much the same yes (kinda like Nintendo's has been much the same since the NES through to today)... but unlike what actually happened, Sega wouldn't have been attempting to essentially carry the console themselves. The PlayStation consoles sold primarily on the back of games created by other companies, not Sony themselves. Contrast something like the Master System with the Genesis... one is similar to the situation the Dreamcast was in, the other is similar to the situation the Dreamcast would have been in. It's a completely different scenario.
Let's agree to disagree then.My whole point about software libraries, support etc, is that Sega screwing up is what made the difference there.
(...) The Saturn would have had Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc.. (...)
Sega's leaderships's reluctance to partner with Sony seems stupid in hindsight, but it wasn't 100% unfounded. Sony is a much, much larger company, and at some point when they firmly have their foot in their industry, they'd probably decide they don't need Sega any more and give them shittier and shittier deals.
Saturn being a 2D focused machine made more sense during its conception as well. Neither the PSX or N64 were out yet, and it was not yet a sure thing that full 3D gaming was going to take over the home console market so soon. It was only after a real hard push from Sony that it became evident that 3D was gonna be a thing at the time.
1995 was such a strong year on the software front for the Genesis as well with so many great impressive games coming out. There just wasn't any actual marketing in place to back them up. Sega pulled out of their commitment to the 16-bit market too early and let Nintendo have free reign even though the support was still there from third, second and even first party developers.
To this day it's still Sega of Japan holding the company back. Their biggest modern success has probably been their PC publishing venture which Japan just seems aloof to, and the Mega Drive & Genesis Classics Collection on Steam which sold very well in a short amount of time was purely a Sega of Europe pet project.
Going 3d wasn't a sure thing? Are you kidding me? Games like Virtua Fighter, Daytona USA, Donkey Kong Country, and Starfox made it clear as early as 1994 that the future was 3d. In America, in 1994 and 1995. When DKC came out it was enough to turn the tide for the SNES in America. Why? 3d. At that point everyone expected 3d to take over next gen and Sega made a 2d focused system despite making top of the line 3d arcade games at the time. It was ludicrous. Sega also put the Saturn out WAY too early. There are so many stupid decisions regarding the Saturn it's impossible to track them all.
It's some crazy stuff that it wasn't until the Dramcast that Sega embraced the synergy effects between arcade and console businesses.
We're talking about a hypothetical where Sega acted like Sony I guess. If the Saturn had been the PS1, well, it would have been the PS1+Saturn. Konami and Capcom and most other Japanese devs were still happy to publish on Sega, Capcom in particular gave Sega masses of love on both Saturn and DC. Sega were apparently actually easier to deal with than Sony in many cases, no anti-2D policies and better production pipelines early on (it was Sega's second CD console, after all), if you were around back then you would have seen PS1 packaging veering all over the place in design, longboxes, shortboxes etc.Let's agree to disagree then.
My point is that it wasn't just Sega screwing up that let the majority of third party support go to Sony but that Sony was better positioned to get said support also because Sony wasn't really a big gaming publishers which meant they tried their utmost to attract third-party support.
Reading Edge issues from 1995-1996 is evident how both journalists and developers were rooting for Sony, I kid you not.
You realise Sony was like the 10th console to be CD based?Sony's business model and the introduction of the CD format made the console ecosystem profitable for many devs and publishers. European dev scene is a prime example in this regard.
This is horse before the cart too.The amount of released games increased dramatically compared to the previous gen because it was often cheaper and less risky to make a PSX game than a SNES game with all the Nintendo business antics (several months lead times for cartridges, silly minimum payment clause and the high capacity modules were exclusive to Nintendo and the few important third party publishers).
Well, sort of. The Mega Drive was an arcade board variation too.It's some crazy stuff that it wasn't until the Dramcast that Sega embraced the synergy effects between arcade and console businesses.
You realise Sony was like the 10th console to be CD based?
You seemed to be saying CD was somehow a unique innovation to Sony? Probably not, now I can see they can read like two separate points.Your point?
This is wrong.
Sony's business model and the introduction of the CD format made the console ecosystem profitable for many devs and publishers. European dev scene is a prime example in this regard.
The amount of released games increased dramatically compared to the previous gen because it was often cheaper and less risky to make a PSX game than a SNES game with all the Nintendo business antics (several months lead times for cartridges, silly minimum payment clause and the high capacity modules were exclusive to Nintendo and the few important third party publishers).
Saturn had both of these games.
Saturn even had some Sony-owned games, like Wipeout.
Going 3d wasn't a sure thing? Are you kidding me? Games like Virtua Fighter, Daytona USA, Donkey Kong Country, and Starfox made it clear as early as 1994 that the future was 3d. In America, in 1994, when DKC came out it was enough to turn the tide for the SNES in America. Why? 3d. At that point everyone expected 3d to take over next gen and Sega made a 2d focused system despite making top of the line 3d arcade games at the time. It was ludicrous. Sega also put the Saturn out WAY too early. There are so many stupid decisions regarding the Saturn it's impossible to track them all.
To be honest, I think Sega's biggest downfall was the broken communication between Sega of America and Sega of Japan. The civil war that happened internally was the real killer.
Probably Sonic, VF, Sega Rally/GT, Dayotna, JetSet, Panzer Dragon and Shenmue series would have new games in 2016
To be honest, I think Sega's biggest downfall was the broken communication between Sega of America and Sega of Japan. The civil war that happened internally was the real killer.
Nintendo do NOT strongly support their systems at the tail end of a console life, it was painfully obvious with failures like GC and WiiU but even with Wii they did the same.If SEGA had kept strongly supporting the Megadrive the way Sony/MS/Nintendo do in the transition phase/end tail of a consoles life then we could be looking at a very different course in the timeline, especially they wouldn't have lost mindshare in the marketplace and would have continued earning massive profits from Megadrive sales/software.
There are interviews with Squaresoft personnel which explain clearly for what consoles FFVII was planned/considered (SNES, Ultra 64 and PS1).Like many had said Resident Evil, Tomb Raider etc... were originally going to be Saturn exclusives, even Final Fantasy VII was aiming for Saturn. So taking all of this into account with a non fumbled 16-bit tail era and strong foundation for the 32-Bit era things could have been very very different for the "new" timeline.
There are interviews with Squaresoft personnel which explain clearly for what consoles FFVII was planned/considered (SNES, Ultra 64 and PS1).
Saturn was never an option.
True, but unlike Nintendo, their best software doesn't sell. (Well not worldwide)
Ristar
Panzer Dragoon series
Nights
Burning Rangers
Phantasy Star series
Jet Set Radio
Seaman
Chu Chu Rocket
Skies of Arkadia
Shenmue
Segagaga
Samba de Amigo
Sega fishing games with gyro fishing pole to use as motion sensing tennis racket in Virtua Tennis?