Dreamcast ressurection?

I was wondering if there still was any hardcore sega fans just waiting for sega to hop back in the console war? please explain why you think they should or why they shouldn't.

i personally think they need to stay where they are and focus on making decent games before trying to jump back in the market with another console. I would however would like to see some re-releasing of some classic dreamcast games.

It would be nice, but sega arent coming back... they cant even get a new sonic game right, never mind a new console.

It would be nice, but sega arent coming back... they cant even get a new sonic game right, never mind a new console.

joesh89

yeah you're right they keep messing up on the sonic games i had so much hope for the unleashed but they had to throw in those freakin were-hog levels:x

It would be nice, but sega arent coming back... they cant even get a new sonic game right, never mind a new console.

joesh89

That most people here only know about Sonic is not really a problem to them.

[QUOTE="joesh89"]

It would be nice, but sega arent coming back... they cant even get a new sonic game right, never mind a new console.

Panzer_Zwei

That most people here only know about Sonic is not really a problem to them.

They do get things very right, but they still churn out crap sonic games year after year, which like you said "most people" know them for, that's why I used Sonic as a metaphor for how I think they could never get something like a new console right, if they cant get it right with there most famous IP.

And you never struck me as a PS3 player, its a damn shame there isn't an English version of Yakuza 3 yet.

They do get things very right, but they still churn out crap sonic games year after year, which like you said "most people" know them for, that's why I used Sonic as a metaphor for how I think they could never get something like a new console right, if they cant get it right with there most famous IP.

And you never struck me as a PS3 player, its a damn shame there isn't an English version of Yakuza 3 yet.

joesh89

But this "Sonic is crap now" thing has been going on since after Sonic Adventure 2. It's nothing new. And since then they have released many other great and successful games. But obviously people love to bash anything they can, so they love going in circles over and over. I doubt most of these people have a single clue what the company is up to besides the new bad Sonic score.

The fact of the matter is that Ryu Ga Gotoku is a million selling franchise, and probably by now has sold more than all of the Sonic games since the Dreamcast.

They shouldn't because they absolutely murdered their main mascot, Sonic. Without a right Sonic, there is no good Sega.

They shouldn't because they absolutely murdered their main mascot, Sonic. Without a right Sonic, there is no good Sega.

aryoshi

People that think Sonic is SEGA don't have a single clue what SEGA is about.

[QUOTE="aryoshi"]

They shouldn't because they absolutely murdered their main mascot, Sonic. Without a right Sonic, there is no good Sega.

Panzer_Zwei

People that think Sonic is SEGA don't have a single clue what SEGA is about.

i agree that sonic isn't Sega as a whole. Sega has a lot of games that they are publishing that are doing really well. But Sega wouldn't have been much without sonic's presence. Sonic is like their mascot and he is the face of Sega and if you don't take care of what really made you great to begin with then they don't deserve a second chance. I'm a huge fan of sega but i think that they churn out crappy sequels of the games that made them what they are for example: shining force neo, phantasy star, and sonic. If they came out with a phantasty star done right they would see a lot more support from former fans

i agree that sonic isn't Sega as a whole. Sega has a lot of games that they are publishing that are doing really well. But Sega wouldn't have been much without sonic's presence. Sonic is like their mascot and he is the face of Sega and if you don't take care of what really made you great to begin with then they don't deserve a second chance. I'm a huge fan of sega but i think that they churn out crappy sequels of the games that made them what they are for example: shining force neo, phantasy star, and sonic. If they came out with a phantasty star done right they would see a lot more support from former fans

bigmack_20_20

You know how many arcade games have been way more successful than Sonic? Yes the Mega Drive Sonics, the best selling Sonic 2. Hell if it wasn't for Space Harrier and Out Run the Mark-III/Mega Drive and etc. never would've existed. Remember the 1994 Daytona USA cabinets that you still see in a lot of arcades "today" you have an idea about how successful that game was? The consumer branch was "never" that successful, the main arcade branch always funded them all the way. Sonic and the rest of the home consoles were just the side-bussines of SEGA.

People think of Nintendo and think that SEGA is the same as Nintendo, and that Sonic holds the same weight to SEGA as Mario to Nintendo, but that's far for being the case. SEGA has never sent their best developers to makes Sonic games, they've never showcased their newest technology on any Sonic games.

Just when has Sonic been the flagship of the company in anything? While they were still doing the cute and colourful 2D graphics, the arcade branch were getting 10x times the budget to develop advanced sprote scalling and then 3D games. It was AM2 who got the Model 1-2-3 series. I also don't remember Yu Suzuki making any Sonic game, like Miyamot does with Nintendo.

Sonic may be the mascot of the company, but it's not SEGA. The company had way more successful games than Sonic before Sonic, and still have them now.

I'm probably the biggest SEGA fan here, that's not just I have this console and these few games, and I never really liked Sonic games that much. So don't tell me that Sonic is SEGA.

[QUOTE="bigmack_20_20"]

i agree that sonic isn't Sega as a whole. Sega has a lot of games that they are publishing that are doing really well. But Sega wouldn't have been much without sonic's presence. Sonic is like their mascot and he is the face of Sega and if you don't take care of what really made you great to begin with then they don't deserve a second chance. I'm a huge fan of sega but i think that they churn out crappy sequels of the games that made them what they are for example: shining force neo, phantasy star, and sonic. If they came out with a phantasty star done right they would see a lot more support from former fans

Panzer_Zwei

You know how many arcade games have been way more successful than Sonic? Yes the Mega Drive Sonics, the best selling Sonic 2. Hell if it wasn't for Space Harrier and Out Run the Mark-III/Mega Drive and etc. never would've existed. The consumer branch was "never" that successful, the main arcade branch always funded them all the way. Sonic and the rest of the home consoles were just the side-bussines of SEGA.

People think of Nintendo and think that SEGA is the same as Nintendo, and that Sonic holds the same weight to SEGA as Mario to Nintendo, but that's far for being the case. SEGA has never sent their best developers to makes Sonic games, they've never showcased their newest technology on any Sonic games.

Just when has Sonic been the flagship of the company in anything? While they were still doing the cute and colourful 2D graphics, the arcade branch were getting 10x times the budget to develop advanced sprote scalling and then 3D games. It was AM2 who got the Model 1-2-3 series. I also don't remember Yu Suzuki making any Sonic game, like Miyamot does with Nintendo.

Sonic may be the mascot of the company, but it's not SEGA. The company had way more successful games than Sonic before Sonic, and still have them now.

I'm probably the biggest SEGA fan here, that's not just I have this console and these few games, and I never really liked Sonic games that much. So don't tell me that Sonic is SEGA.

i didn't say he was i was saying that if they want any real clout with the consumer nowadays if they thought about getting in the console wars again they would have to put more work into some of their first party games.

i didn't say he was i was saying that if they want any real clout with the consumer nowadays if they thought about getting in the console wars again they would have to put more work into some of their first party games.

bigmack_20_20

The Dreamcast is a perfect example of this. After the Playstation 2 put it out of bussiness it became a fad to praise the system and most of their games almost unquestionably. Like they've been sucking for years and then came the miracle of the Dreamcast with totally brand new games. But the reality is that they've always made the same type of games. and in my opinion the Dreamcast was a total letdown after the Saturn.

EDIT: Also something that I wanted to add: Doesn't anyone find funny how everyone in every single gaming site loves the Dreamcast and say how great the system was and how they got one and launch etc. And yet the reality is that the system bombed hard into the water?

And look at the little Saturn which managed to live for 4 years in Japan alone, and which shows that the a system can stay afloat with a dedicated gaming audience.

The reality is that most of these so called "fans" didn't got the Dreamcast when it came out, and most of their games are pirated.

In a way, though, perception is reality. Because so many people associate SEGA with Sonic, and because there hasn't been a quality Sonic title in quite some time, people just think that there hasn't been a quality SEGA title in quite some time. Of course, anyone who is a faithful SEGA follower knows that just isn't true. Panzer_Zwei (as usual) has made a list of such titles (of which I'm only familiar with Virtua Fighter).There's also probably a number of quality games out right now that SEGA had a hand in bringing out that people don't realize they were a part of.

Another problem is that SEGA takes chances that other companies don't, so while titles like Mad World get considerable critical acclaim, people don't buy them because they aren't what they normally play.

It would be interesting to see what Sega would do with a console today, but I don't see it happening. Besides, alot of people that were with Sega ten years ago have moved to different companies now.

i'm still commited to my dreamcast.....just ordered acopy of rush rush rally racing from redspot games.....that's right baby a brand new dreamcast game...check out the site and youtube

http://www.redspotgames.com/rush-rush-rally-racing-official-annoucement/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i42KijPx6Vs

dreamcast was good on its own merits but for playing nintendo sony for years before i got my dc ,,

i dont think they could come back ,

not that they should not come back , they are the ones after all who put them selfs in the mess

we didnt make thier beds they did,sega should have done the following

instead of releasing failed add-ons to cash in on the genesis brand they could have just got saturn out the door at a reasonable price

so then people would buy it instead of buying more genesis stuff,

let that run its 5 yr life cycle then bring out the dream cast after that

there was no need to release the saturn in 1995 only for them to can it in 1999 (1 yr off the usual life cycle much like microsoft has done with xbox)

there was abosultely no reason for sega to push dreamcast without third party support

they just didnt have the games i was in to

theres only quite a few i am interisted into but not enough when they were chargin 300 for it

the gamecube had much more games then it it even got dreamcasts exclusives lol

so why would i buy adream cast in 2001 when gc was around the corner

and ps2 i already had

sega entered to early in the 6th gen is my oppinion

had they launched along side ps2 instead it be better off

then i got an xbox in 2003 by the way the dc mainly was alongside n64 for the most part

so i already had 2 oposing systems that offered more content

goldeneye was never on the dc i dont even recal but 2 fpses on the dreamcast the 3rd getting canned

so it wasnt in my interist at the time to actually get one

sega lost its popularity after genesis is the only thing i can think of as to why i wouldnt want them back

after all they ruined sonic already

The Dreamcast was and still is pretty sweet. For the time it had awesome graphics, but if you ask me it was maxed out with it's launch games.

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

doubutsuteki

Exactly. SEGA exists in name only, much like Atari. Sammy owns them now. And frankly, I've never understood old SEGA's "greatness." They came out swinging hard in the 80s, and their sports games on the Genesis were unquestionably superior to the SNES, but the Dreamcast? Give me a break. The games were decidedly mediocre. It died for a reason.

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

doubutsuteki

The old AM staff is still there making games. Not that you would know them.

But oh yeah, BorderBreak was released yesterday in arcades in Japan. Pretty sweet. But again not that you would know of it.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

MarcusAntonius

Exactly. SEGA exists in name only, much like Atari. Sammy owns them now. And frankly, I've never understood old SEGA's "greatness." They came out swinging hard in the 80s, and their sports games on the Genesis were unquestionably superior to the SNES, but the Dreamcast? Give me a break. The games were decidedly mediocre. It died for a reason.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

Jhawk1441

Exactly. SEGA exists in name only, much like Atari. Sammy owns them now. And frankly, I've never understood old SEGA's "greatness." They came out swinging hard in the 80s, and their sports games on the Genesis were unquestionably superior to the SNES, but the Dreamcast? Give me a break. The games were decidedly mediocre. It died for a reason.

A 56k modem was "ahead of its time?":| No, it was an idiotic design that was poorly conceived, such is the case with a company that was so shortsighted. For a piece of hardware "ahead of its time" it sure died quickly againnst a console full of mediocre release titles in the PS2. Inexcusable for a console that had a year's head start. Clearly the games weren't that appealing.

I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

Jhawk1441

Exactly. SEGA exists in name only, much like Atari. Sammy owns them now. And frankly, I've never understood old SEGA's "greatness." They came out swinging hard in the 80s, and their sports games on the Genesis were unquestionably superior to the SNES, but the Dreamcast? Give me a break. The games were decidedly mediocre. It died for a reason.

[QUOTE="Jhawk1441"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Exactly. SEGA exists in name only, much like Atari. Sammy owns them now. And frankly, I've never understood old SEGA's "greatness." They came out swinging hard in the 80s, and their sports games on the Genesis were unquestionably superior to the SNES, but the Dreamcast? Give me a break. The games were decidedly mediocre. It died for a reason.

MarcusAntonius

A 56k modem was "ahead of its time?":| No, it was an idiotic design that was poorly conceived, such is the case with a company that was so shortsighted. For a piece of hardware "ahead of its time" it sure died quickly againnst a console full of mediocre release titles in the PS2. Inexcusable for a console that had a year's head start. Clearly the games weren't that appealing.

I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Jhawk1441"] Mediocre? That is a laugh. You had games like Soul Caliber, and Phantasy Star Online on the dreamcast. If I remember correctly when the Dreamcast launched it was before the PS2 and the X-Box. The dreamcast should have lived longer than it did, but it was bad management in SEGA that made it end early. Dreamcast was too far ahead of it's time which is why it failed. Oh and it started at 200 not 300. Jhawk1441

A 56k modem was "ahead of its time?":| No, it was an idiotic design that was poorly conceived, such is the case with a company that was so shortsighted. For a piece of hardware "ahead of its time" it sure died quickly againnst a console full of mediocre release titles in the PS2. Inexcusable for a console that had a year's head start. Clearly the games weren't that appealing.

I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

By deafult since they rushed their console out, that's a disingenuous premise. Clearly the Big Three could look a little further to see that broadband was the future, a whopping year later.

By deafult since they rushed their console out, that's a disingenuous premise. Clearly the Big Three could look a little further to see that broadband was the future, a whopping year later.

MarcusAntonius

But when you say the Big Three? You mean like the GameCube's online play? But wait, what was it the only online game available for the GC? Oh yes, Phantasy Star Online, by SEGA.

SEGA also released a broadband adapter, before any of the other consoles had online games IIRC. And also, despite lasting less than the Playstation 2, I'm not sure if the Playstation 2 got as many online games as the DC.

[QUOTE="Jhawk1441"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

A 56k modem was "ahead of its time?":| No, it was an idiotic design that was poorly conceived, such is the case with a company that was so shortsighted. For a piece of hardware "ahead of its time" it sure died quickly againnst a console full of mediocre release titles in the PS2. Inexcusable for a console that had a year's head start. Clearly the games weren't that appealing.

I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

MarcusAntonius

By deafult since they rushed their console out, that's a disingenuous premise. Clearly the Big Three could look a little further to see that broadband was the future, a whopping year later.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

Panzer_Zwei

The old AM staff is still there making games. Not that you would know them.

But oh yeah, BorderBreak was released yesterday in arcades in Japan. Pretty sweet. But again not that you would know of it.

The old AM staff is hardly Sega. But you're also right that I don't care, because Sega was never that great a company at making games (with a few exceptions) - yes, I said it; heresy! Arcade gameplay is also hardly innovative these days. I don't like money-sucking game mechanics and simplistic gameplay. It would probably be OK if I was 13 or something, but not now...

The old AM staff is hardly Sega. But you're also right that I don't care, because Sega was never that great a company at making games (with a few exceptions) - yes, I said it; heresy! Arcade gameplay is also hardly innovative these days. I don't like money-sucking game mechanics and simplistic gameplay. It would probably be OK if I was 13 or something, but not now...

doubutsuteki

All of their AM divisions just kept changing names, but most of the people are still there making games. Yu Suzuki did SEGA Race TV last year, and probably will do another game this year, or early next year. SEGA is an arcade company first and foremost, you would've known that if you knew anything about them.

And you know, it would've been more acceptable that you've just said they suck, because that's your personal opinion, and I know many people don't like their type of games, instead of ignorantly stating that they don't exist. Because you wouldn't even know what is that doesn't exist to begin with.

I also used to like Konami on the same level I like SEGA. But I don't really like them anymore after the '90s. They just stopped making the games I liked them for. Nowadays they don't even bother to make their Contra and Gradius games themselves. Same with Namco, nowadays they're just Tekken and the Tales series, they also don't make the games I like anymore, and never mind their merge with Bandai. And it's the same with SNK and many other developers.

Yes, SEGA isn't as prolific as they were before, but many other companies also aren't. But as far as making games I still like, I have to say they still rare the best.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

The old AM staff is hardly Sega. But you're also right that I don't care, because Sega was never that great a company at making games (with a few exceptions) - yes, I said it; heresy! Arcade gameplay is also hardly innovative these days. I don't like money-sucking game mechanics and simplistic gameplay. It would probably be OK if I was 13 or something, but not now...

Panzer_Zwei

All of their AM divisions just kept changing names, but most of the people are still there making games. Yu Suzuki did SEGA Race TV last year, and probably will do another game this year, or early next year. SEGA is an arcade company first and foremost, you would've known that if you knew anything about them.

And you know, it would've been more acceptable that you've just said they suck, because that's your personal opinion, and I know many people don't like their type of games, instead of ignorantly stating that they don't exist. Because you wouldn't even know what is that doesn't exist to begin with.

I also used to like Konami on the same level I like SEGA. But I don't really like them anymore after the '90s. They just stopped making the games I liked them for. Nowadays they don't even bother to make their Contra and Gradius games themselves. Same with Namco, nowadays they're just Tekken and the Tales series, they also don't make the games I like anymore, and never mind their merge with Bandai. And it's the same with SNK and many other developers.

Yes, SEGA isn't as prolific as they were before, but many other companies also aren't. But as far as making games I still like, I have to say they still rare the best.

Sega was an innovative arcade developer, hardware designer, and the main home console competitor company to Nintendo. Their focus was not only on the arcades - that's just where they started out - which I hope you are enough aware of not to have to ask someone (me) who you presume know nothing about them.

Sega is a name, used by its parent company to label games made by some of the people involved with the old Sega company. Its focus is on developing sequels to the old popular Sega arcade games. Why? I wouldn't know for sure, but let me take a wild guess: That's what the people in charge believe can be profitable without much risk of loss involved, because of fanboy culture with its indulgence in old franchises and brand names - unlike the many projects that the original Sega company involved themselves in, as they tried to be on the top - and occasionally were -, extending into several markets rather than simply catering to a niche of gamers who haven't grown up. They had a broader perspective. The Mega Drive / Genesis is a good example: It was a console both with computer and arcade ports, and with titles specifically designed for it in-house (like most consoles), not to appeal only to the japanese otaku, but to take on the entire Nintendo monopoly and the world.

SNK was mainly an arcade company. The same cannot be said for Sega, even though it is true that the company started out that way and retained a focus on the arcades throughout its existence. But they were as famous for games such as OutRun as they were for Sonic the Hedgehog. So, if the console market didn't mean much to Sega, then why did they invest more in it than they could afford to lose? Why was the company bought by Sammy? Isn't it evident that Sega were not content being just one of the foremost arcade developers? Sammy however are content with things remaining that way for what remains of the old development teams they acquired from the purchase of the company.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

These kinds of topics are kinda funny, but it's really amazing that more people don't realise that Sega doesn't exist anymore.

Panzer_Zwei

The old AM staff is still there making games. Not that you would know them.

But oh yeah, BorderBreak was released yesterday in arcades in Japan. Pretty sweet. But again not that you would know of it.

Sega was an innovative arcade developer, hardware designer, and the main home console competitor company to Nintendo. Their focus was not only on the arcades - that's just where they started out - which I hope you are enough aware of not to have to ask someone (me) who you presume know nothing about them.

Sega is a name, used by its parent company to label games made by some of the people involved with the old Sega company. Its focus is on developing sequels to the old popular Sega arcade games. Why? I wouldn't know for sure, but let me take a wild guess: That's what the people in charge believe can be profitable without much risk of loss involved, because of fanboy culture with its indulgence in old franchises and brand names - unlike the many projects that the original Sega company involved themselves in, as they tried to be on the top - and occasionally were -, extending into several markets rather than simply catering to a niche of gamers who haven't grown up. They had a broader perspective. The Mega Drive / Genesis is a good example: It was a console both with computer and arcade ports, and with titles specifically designed for it in-house (like most consoles), not to appeal only to the japanese otaku, but to take on the entire Nintendo monopoly and the world.

SNK was mainly an arcade company. The same cannot be said for Sega, even though it is true that the company started out that way and retained a focus on the arcades throughout its existence. But they were as famous for games such as OutRun as they were for Sonic the Hedgehog. So, if the console market didn't mean much to Sega, then why did they invest more in it than they could afford to lose? Why was the company bought by Sammy? Isn't it evident that Sega were not content being just one of the foremost arcade developers? Sammy however are content with things remaining that way for what remains of the old development teams they acquired from the purchase of the company.

doubutsuteki

I guess it would be better for actual old guard SEGA developer to settle the actual facts:

"Of course [Sega's decision to stop Dreamcast production] was a shock, but having said that, it was not entirely a surprise. Sega is a company that really made money from arcades, not the consumer market.The money we made from arcades went to finance the consumer activity and develop another aspect of Sega. So the fact that the Dreamcast didn't have the rocket start we all hoped for was an early indication, maybe, of things to come. It is true that, as a person from the AM divisions, my view of the consumer division was a bit 'cold'. While gaming as a whole was going well, at that point we also started to see early signs of the boom fading away. I'm talking here about the entire industry, not just Sega."

Tez Okano

So yes, SEGA is first and foremost an arcade company. They have two huge amusement parks in Japan, and not to mention the 5+ floor SEGA clubs spread throughout Japan. They also develop and manufacture generic arcade cabinets for other companies to use, and also handle supply and promotion lines of other companie's games. But I guess you were unawar of that small fact.

The consumer division was just the side-business of SEGA, and it mainly served to profit even more from the own arcade games by porting them to their own systems. In fact the main division was willing to finance another SEGA console after the Dreamcast, but the consumer division (mainly SoA) said why bother?

And yes, exactly, why did they merged with Sammy of all companies? Because Sammy is the #1 arcade entertained in Japan. Not because of video games like SEGA and Namco do, but because of their pachinko machines that turn billions of yen in revenew each year. The merger itself had actually little to do with the consumer division, and the restucturation was handled for SEGA's part not Sammy. Sammy and SEGA remain separate when it comes to software and hardware developing, unlike Namco-Bandai or Square-Enix.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"]

Sega was an innovative arcade developer, hardware designer, and the main home console competitor company to Nintendo. Their focus was not only on the arcades - that's just where they started out - which I hope you are enough aware of not to have to ask someone (me) who you presume know nothing about them.

Sega is a name, used by its parent company to label games made by some of the people involved with the old Sega company. Its focus is on developing sequels to the old popular Sega arcade games. Why? I wouldn't know for sure, but let me take a wild guess: That's what the people in charge believe can be profitable without much risk of loss involved, because of fanboy culture with its indulgence in old franchises and brand names - unlike the many projects that the original Sega company involved themselves in, as they tried to be on the top - and occasionally were -, extending into several markets rather than simply catering to a niche of gamers who haven't grown up. They had a broader perspective. The Mega Drive / Genesis is a good example: It was a console both with computer and arcade ports, and with titles specifically designed for it in-house (like most consoles), not to appeal only to the japanese otaku, but to take on the entire Nintendo monopoly and the world.

SNK was mainly an arcade company. The same cannot be said for Sega, even though it is true that the company started out that way and retained a focus on the arcades throughout its existence. But they were as famous for games such as OutRun as they were for Sonic the Hedgehog. So, if the console market didn't mean much to Sega, then why did they invest more in it than they could afford to lose? Why was the company bought by Sammy? Isn't it evident that Sega were not content being just one of the foremost arcade developers? Sammy however are content with things remaining that way for what remains of the old development teams they acquired from the purchase of the company.

Panzer_Zwei

I guess it would be better for actual old guard SEGA developer to settle the actual facts:

"Of course [Sega's decision to stop Dreamcast production] was a shock, but having said that, it was not entirely a surprise. Sega is a company that really made money from arcades, not the consumer market.The money we made from arcades went to finance the consumer activity and develop another aspect of Sega. So the fact that the Dreamcast didn't have the rocket start we all hoped for was an early indication, maybe, of things to come. It is true that, as a person from the AM divisions, my view of the consumer division was a bit 'cold'. While gaming as a whole was going well, at that point we also started to see early signs of the boom fading away. I'm talking here about the entire industry, not just Sega."

Tez Okano

So yes, SEGA is first and foremost an arcade company. They have two huge amusement parks in Japan, and not to mention the 5+ floor SEGA clubs spread throughout Japan. They also develop and manufacture generic arcade cabinets for other companies to use, and also handle supply and promotion lines of other companie's games. But I guess you were unawar of that small fact.

The consumer division was just the side-business of SEGA, and it mainly served to profit even more from the own arcade games by porting them to their own systems. In fact the main division was willing to finance another SEGA console after the Dreamcast, but the consumer division (mainly SoA) said why bother?

And yes, exactly, why did they merged with Sammy of all companies? Because Sammy is the #1 arcade entertained in Japan. Not because of video games like SEGA and Namco do, but because of their pachinko machines that turn billions of yen in revenew each year. The merger itself had actually little to do with the consumer division, and the restucturation was handled for SEGA's part not Sammy. Sammy and SEGA remain separate when it comes to software and hardware developing, unlike Namco-Bandai or Square-Enix.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard that interview before. How convenient - now that we know how their console business turned out - to say that they are "foremost an arcade company". It's not like I expected them to publically state that they screwed up; it's better to try to save the company's face with understatements.

The rest of your post doesn't really concern games. The fact that Sammy and not one of the other companies ended up buying Sega only serves to further illustrate how unimportant Sega were as game developers at that point. Now, as someone who certainly doesn't always share the view of the majority of the industry of what a game should be, I still have plenty of hatred left for games that are designed around a money-sucking mechanism, such as pachinko and arcade coin-ops. Their demise outside of Japan I can only appreciate (Poker, slot-machines, etc., however, remain popular). But go on and pump money into those, amusement parks and what not, if that makes sense to you from a gaming perspective.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard that interview before. How convenient - now that we know how their console business turned out - to say that they are "foremost an arcade company". It's not like I expected them to publically state that they screwed up; it's better to try to save the company's face with understatements.

The rest of your post doesn't really concern games. The fact that Sammy and not one of the other companies ended up buying Sega only serves to further illustrate how unimportant Sega were as game developers at that point. Now, as someone who certainly doesn't always share the view of the majority of the industry of what a game should be, I still have plenty of hatred left for games that are designed around a money-sucking mechanism, such as pachinko and arcade coin-ops. Their demise outside of Japan I can only appreciate (Poker, slot-machines, etc., however, remain popular). But go on and pump money into those, amusement parks and what not, if that makes sense to you from a gaming perspective.

doubutsuteki

I don't see the point of keeping this argument, you don't even know, like or play their recent games, and yet you now try the double discourse of wanting to discuss their games as if you could.

So if you want to believe they're dead, keep believing whatever makes you happy. It really doesn't matter.