Was Dreamcast more powerful than PS2? Why did it fail?

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

[QUOTE="Wings_008"]i think the ps2 was a little more powerful, but the DC had a lot more games by the time the ps2 was launched, and better games even, it's just that SEGA had a bad reputation which fended off fans and caused the console to fail so it's true after all, the Dreamcast did not fail, we failed the Dreamcast Wings_008

Nope, the dreamcast just failed.

lol nice try, its ok though, maybe in some alternate dimension teh dreamcast didnt suck ***.

I'm actually surprised there isn't more Dreamcast love in this thread. People on the net have historically seemed to have so much positivity for it and I don't get it.

AmateurCEO

well dreamcast was not more powerful then ps2 , it barely ran any of its games for us to say that

the only game i know it had was unreal tournament and that game looks better on ps2 and even more better on pc

the reason it failed is obvious

but ill tell you

1 high price

2 little third party support

3 sega already struggling since the failed cd 32x add-ons and the gamegear and the saturn , this was destined to fail

4 there was no room for 4 consoles

and 5 lets see what else was wrong

thos outdated media type they used it only held about 4 gig just about the same as gamecubes mini disc

which is pretty bad considering gc only used a mini disk

mariokart64fan

[QUOTE="Crossel777"]

Nope it failed simply because Sega lacked the money to support it any further and it was easy to pirate the hell out of. The DC had plenty of games. Even an AAAA. It would of had more if it survived any further.

myke2010

^^This.

Sony probably spent more on advertising the PS2 then Sega spent in total on the Dreamcast. It's hard to compete when your competition can outspend you 3-4 times over.

I dunno. I don't think their was anything better looking on the PS2 than Shenmue at the time. An Shenmue was ported to the XBOX and not the PS2. I wonder why. :roll:

Crossel777

[QUOTE="mr-krinkles"]

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

While I could EASILY go into specs, the answer to your question is :

PS2>>>>Dreamcast as far as Power (Polygons, Textures, etc.). The only thing the DC had was easy AA.

It failed due to the Saturn fans and earlier fans not wanting to go for it again, and early launch. They needed to hit 5 MILLION Install base to help it succeed, but people lost trust in SEGA at that point (After Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn). People that bought that Saturn felt Burned. Also, the PS2 having DVD playback, and coming off the amazing PSOne success a huge thread.

You know what, here is a fantastic series I love to watch, and it's not as detailed as I could write about, but it will help you out Mr. Krinkles.

PLAYVALUE LINK. AWESOME WATCH!

Let me know what you think of this video anyone who watches it. I dug it up for any who read my post. :)

Released too early, so too many of the games were PS1 ports as opposed to full on next gen games. Sega were going for an arcade in the home theme but too many of their games were pretty shallow as a result. Shenmue was terrific and the sonic games on there were chock full of features but things like Space Channel 5 and Crazy Taxi were not really designed to be played for hours on end and gamers pick up on that.

I blame sega overall. Good console. Bad tactics.

So much stupidity and false facts in this thread...

For example:

...

thos outdated media type they used it only held about 4 gig just about the same as gamecubes mini disc

which is pretty bad considering gc only used a mini diskmariokart64fan

What a nonsense, the GD-ROM can hold only about 1 GB of data (you can read on thewikipedia it's 1,2 GB, but that's wrong), which is less than a GC disc, which holds up to 1.36 GB.

Also, there's no way in hell Dreamcast is more powerful than Playstation 2...

[QUOTE="AmateurCEO"]

I'm actually surprised there isn't more Dreamcast love in this thread. People on the net have historically seemed to have so much positivity for it and I don't get it.

HuusAsking

No, it deffinately wasn't more powerful than the PS2. I've never seen any one who said it was...

And it failed for a couple of reasons. First of all, people had lost faith in Sega after the Saturn turned out to be a huge disappointment. And they never really had that much support. Ea didn't make any games for the Dreamcast, and that hurt Sega a lot.

Wait the DC is more powerful than the PS2? Wow i always thought it was like a PS1.5, especially the games it ran.

[QUOTE="mr-krinkles"]

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

SolidTy

While I could EASILY go into specs, the answer to your question is :

PS2>>>>Dreamcast as far as Power (Polygons, Textures, etc.). The only thing the DC had was easy AA.

It failed due to the Saturn fans and earlier fans not wanting to go for it again, and early launch. They needed to hit 5 MILLION Install base to help it succeed, but people lost trust in SEGA at that point (After Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn). People that bought that Saturn felt Burned. Also, the PS2 having DVD playback, and coming off the amazing PSOne success a huge thread.

You know what, here is a fantastic series I love to watch, and it's not as detailed as I could write about, but it will help you out Mr. Krinkles.

PLAYVALUE LINK. AWESOME WATCH!

Let me know what you think of this video anyone who watches it. I dug it up for any who read my post. :)

A lot of what they said made sense. One thing Sega could never grasp was that you need to be happy with your console for the whole gen, you can't release upgrades or different versions, no one wants it and it just splits your user base.

I remember being interested in the Dreamcast but I started reading rumors about a new version which could play DVDs so I thought i'd wait, and in that time, the console died anyway.

Not having EA on side is a big problem, because specific sports titles are crucial to success in both Europe and NA. Madden and Basketball in NA and not having Fifa in Europe is just console suicide. Dreamcast also lacked PES.

There are people who just play football games (and for some it's their main focus for games) in Europe its THAT important. If EA and Konami suddenly decided to stop supporting either the X360 or PS3 with football games in Europe, the other console could be declared the winner for that region then and there.

ps2 was superior hardware wise, it was pretty much like 2 gpus + the psone chip. Onlinewise dreamcast was even after dead more played than ps2.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="mr-krinkles"]

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

Darth_DuMas

While I could EASILY go into specs, the answer to your question is :

PS2>>>>Dreamcast as far as Power (Polygons, Textures, etc.). The only thing the DC had was easy AA.

It failed due to the Saturn fans and earlier fans not wanting to go for it again, and early launch. They needed to hit 5 MILLION Install base to help it succeed, but people lost trust in SEGA at that point (After Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn). People that bought that Saturn felt Burned. Also, the PS2 having DVD playback, and coming off the amazing PSOne success a huge thread.

You know what, here is a fantastic series I love to watch, and it's not as detailed as I could write about, but it will help you out Mr. Krinkles.

PLAYVALUE LINK. AWESOME WATCH!

Let me know what you think of this video anyone who watches it. I dug it up for any who read my post. :)

A lot of what they said made sense. One thing Sega could never grasp was that you need to be happy with your console for the whole gen, you can't release upgrades or different versions, no one wants it and it just splits your user base.

I remember being interested in the Dreamcast but I started reading rumors about a new version which could play DVDs so I thought i'd wait, and in that time, the console died anyway.

Not having EA on side is a big problem, because specific sports titles are crucial to success in both Europe and NA. Madden and Basketball in NA and not having Fifa in Europe is just console suicide. Dreamcast also lacked PES.

There are people who just play football games (and for some it's their main focus for games) in Europe its THAT important. If EA and Konami suddenly decided to stop supporting either the X360 or PS3 with football games in Europe, the other console could be declared the winner for that region then and there.

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

topgunmv

what hype? it had the better games by far? Xbox had no games, gamecube onlyhad a few.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

One thing I've never understood is why people say that the Dreamcast is better than textures. If it is, then why do almost all of it's games seem to struggle with textures in comparison with the PS2? I don't get it.

topgunmv

Look it up on wikipedia.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

Ultizer

what hype? it had the better games by far? Xbox had no games, gamecube onlyhad a few.

Being a sucessor to a critically sucessful piece of hardware does not guarantee it being superior to others in the market - the release of the N64 proved this.

Sega lost their customer base with an all-too-frequent turnover of hardware and lack of 3rd party support (mostly due to the devs being unable to keep up with the new hardware). That's why the Dreamcast failed.

Sony learned a valuable lesson with the ps2, that the home console can, and should, be more than justa game playing device. People responded that they wanted versatility, and Sony continues to cater to that.

As for which was more powerful, I have no idea. Tech aspects should surely be easy to find on the web.

The first answer is easy...... No.

The second could be harder if I cared to get into but I don't so the simple answer is......

Sony's money & influence ( no EA games for DC :evil: ) and of course the Cows !!!

:P

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

While I could EASILY go into specs, the answer to your question is :

PS2>>>>Dreamcast as far as Power (Polygons, Textures, etc.). The only thing the DC had was easy AA.

It failed due to the Saturn fans and earlier fans not wanting to go for it again, and early launch. They needed to hit 5 MILLION Install base to help it succeed, but people lost trust in SEGA at that point (After Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn). People that bought that Saturn felt Burned. Also, the PS2 having DVD playback, and coming off the amazing PSOne success a huge thread.

You know what, here is a fantastic series I love to watch, and it's not as detailed as I could write about, but it will help you out Mr. Krinkles.

PLAYVALUE LINK. AWESOME WATCH!

Let me know what you think of this video anyone who watches it. I dug it up for any who read my post. :)

HuusAsking

A lot of what they said made sense. One thing Sega could never grasp was that you need to be happy with your console for the whole gen, you can't release upgrades or different versions, no one wants it and it just splits your user base.

I remember being interested in the Dreamcast but I started reading rumors about a new version which could play DVDs so I thought i'd wait, and in that time, the console died anyway.

Not having EA on side is a big problem, because specific sports titles are crucial to success in both Europe and NA. Madden and Basketball in NA and not having Fifa in Europe is just console suicide. Dreamcast also lacked PES.

There are people who just play football games (and for some it's their main focus for games) in Europe its THAT important. If EA and Konami suddenly decided to stop supporting either the X360 or PS3 with football games in Europe, the other console could be declared the winner for that region then and there.

[QUOTE="mr-krinkles"]

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

While I could EASILY go into specs, the answer to your question is :

PS2>>>>Dreamcast as far as Power (Polygons, Textures, etc.). The only thing the DC had was easy AA.

It failed due to the Saturn fans and earlier fans not wanting to go for it again, and early launch. They needed to hit 5 MILLION Install base to help it succeed, but people lost trust in SEGA at that point (After Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn). People that bought that Saturn felt Burned. Also, the PS2 having DVD playback, and coming off the amazing PSOne success a huge thread.

You know what, here is a fantastic series I love to watch, and it's not as detailed as I could write about, but it will help you out Mr. Krinkles.

PLAYVALUE LINK. AWESOME WATCH!

Let me know what you think of this video anyone who watches it. I dug it up for any who read my post. :)

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]NO, the PS2 was more powerful.

But it was not the "10 times more powerful" that Sony claimed before it's release (we all know how Sony hypes specs). I hate that they lied, and got people to wait for the ps2 (or sell their Dreamcasts after the ps2 came out).

This coupled with:

1. The fact that the Dreamcast had way better games before it crashed. The first year of the PS2 was just as bad or worse than 1st year PS3.

2. The fact that Sony fanboys were just as annoying then as now (maybe even more)

= made me dislike Sony, something I still struggle with. I have a hard time letting go...garland51

Well, we can safely say that karma finally caught up with Sony & their fanboys for this gen.

Outside of not being able to brag about being in first place...not really. PS3 still has an impressive line up.

More powerfull than the PS2 it wasn´t,better games than the PS2 until it died,it had.

[spoiler] Damn,I sound like Yoda :P [/spoiler]

So much stupidity and false facts in this thread...

For example:

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]...

thos outdated media type they used it only held about 4 gig just about the same as gamecubes mini disc

which is pretty bad considering gc only used a mini diskWESTBLADE

What a nonsense, the GD-ROM can hold only about 1 GB of data (you can read on thewikipedia it's 1,2 GB, but that's wrong), which is less than a GC disc, which holds up to 1.36 GB.

Also, there's no way in hell Dreamcast is more powerful than Playstation 2...

it was ahead of its time for sure, but i belive the ps2 was more powerfull though. Even if the GCN and xbox where more powerfull then the ps2 though

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

A lot of what they said made sense. One thing Sega could never grasp was that you need to be happy with your console for the whole gen, you can't release upgrades or different versions, no one wants it and it just splits your user base.

I remember being interested in the Dreamcast but I started reading rumors about a new version which could play DVDs so I thought i'd wait, and in that time, the console died anyway.

Not having EA on side is a big problem, because specific sports titles are crucial to success in both Europe and NA. Madden and Basketball in NA and not having Fifa in Europe is just console suicide. Dreamcast also lacked PES.

There are people who just play football games (and for some it's their main focus for games) in Europe its THAT important. If EA and Konami suddenly decided to stop supporting either the X360 or PS3 with football games in Europe, the other console could be declared the winner for that region then and there.

Martin_G_N

[QUOTE="Crossel777"]

I wonder if the PS2 at the time could even handle Shenmue 1&2.

hakanakumono

Uhm, obviously yes? We're talking about the difference between 1998 hardware and 2000 hardware.

Actually Shenmue 2 on xbox dosn't really look any better than Shenmue 2 on Dreamcast--a testiment to dreamcast's true power, having played the game on both...I think it looked better on Dreamcast. No one knows what Dreamcast would have been able to do given more time. Soul Calubur DC still looks more amazing than Tekken tag or even 4 on PS2, maybe five is a bit better, maybe.

direct comparison between Shenmue 2 on DC vs xbox (the system said be stonger than PS2)

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

More powerfull than the PS2 it wasn´t,better games than the PS2 until it died,it had.

Arach666

This.

It launched with a AAAAe

It had the best version of MvC2

Shenmue, Skies of Arcadia, Jet Grind Radio, Crazy Taxi, Rez, Grandia 2, Sonic Adventure 1 & 2, Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena, Powerstone, PSO, and many more.

The system was loaded with AAA quality for the two years it existed.

And to people that are wondering why some games like Shenmue went to the Xbox. After the Dreamcast died Sega became a software-only developer (duh), and basically sent all their different franchises to the other systems. There's no bias, it was basically just them cutting a piece of the pie for everyone. I'm not sure of all the technicalities of it all though.

Virtua Fighter found it's home on the PS2, Gamecube got Sonic Adventure and Skies of Arcadia, and the Xbox had the best of all with Shenmue, Panzer Dragoon, and Jet Set Radio Future.

[QUOTE="myke2010"]

[QUOTE="Crossel777"]

Nope it failed simply because Sega lacked the money to support it any further and it was easy to pirate the hell out of. The DC had plenty of games. Even an AAAA. It would of had more if it survived any further.

Rockman999

^^This.

Sony probably spent more on advertising the PS2 then Sega spent in total on the Dreamcast. It's hard to compete when your competition can outspend you 3-4 times over.

The N64 wasn't the colossal failure the Saturn was. Nintendo still made a nice little profit that gen.

ps2 was more powerfull than dreamcast in terms of doing things more than once.

dreamcast games looked pretty on paper but in motion they didnt look and feel as good as ps2 games.

btw, GOW2 > anything on Dreamcast

ZoomZoom2490

MGS2, MGS3, SoTC, GT4 sure but DC only produced game for 2 years in the states 1999-2000. let's go back and try some games from that time frame and see how DC stands up. and what year did GOW 2 come out in again?

all games no later than 2000 say hello

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

mr-krinkles

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

mr-krinkles

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

topgunmv

the playstation brand did more for gaming than any other console brand, if it wasnt for sony we would still be playing side scrollers. ps1 had the best games, ps2 had the best games, and now ps3 has the best games. every1 else just copies

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

the playstation brand did more for gaming than any other console brand, if it wasnt for sony we would still be playing side scrollers. ps1 had the best games, ps2 had the best games, and now ps3 has the best games. every1 else just copies

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

jetslalom

the playstation brand did more for gaming than any other console brand, if it wasnt for sony we would still be playing side scrollers. ps1 had the best games, ps2 had the best games, and now ps3 has the best games. every1 else just copies

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

topgunmv

yeah and now people buying xbox 360 hype

Dreamcast failed for the following reasons:

1) Piracy was bliss on it. You didnt need to mod the console what so ever

2) Sega gave up far too quickly on their ideas (DreamEye)

3) Sony overhyped what the playstation 2 would be

4) Support went very fast to playstation 2 litterally destroying the DC

5) Sega themselves didnt produce enough titles fast enough

6) Sega made the Sega Satarn and Sega 32x. Both lacked support. More of a reason to think Dreamcast wouldve been the same

Its a shame, i still have my dreamcast and love it.

i remember a couple of years ago i was able to get a dreamcast for $20

to think that i was one of those that got the original dreamcast at launch for $200

to me a big thing that hurt the dreamcast was no EA games and playstation 2 had a madden game at launch that was good unlike the madden that launched with the xbox360 that lacked so many features

after EA others followed kind of like how wall mart stopped selling hd dvd's and others followed

not sure about this but also i think sega was using some technology from MS and that might have been what lead MS to join the console war and that left sega with out tech they needed for another system which is why they stopped making systems after dreamcast

one last thing that i remember the system had issues as well dreamcast was known as a easy system to develop for but yet tons of games had glitches and issues some games had to get re-released with a sticker that said "new" and i remember there was legal copy of games that would work on my dreamcast not but work on friends dreamcast

[QUOTE="Martin_G_N"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]The thing is that all the "PS2 is more powerful" fans are forgetting that the PowerVR in the Dreamcast is considerably more efficient for a given clock. Picturing them as engines, the Graphics Synthesizer may have had more horsepower, but the PowerVR had higher fuel efficiency. One of the most notable features of the PowerVR was its ability to skip parts of the rendering that would never be seen: either because they were blocked by something in front or because they were off-screen. The Graphics Synthesizer had no such ability, and the ability only reached modern PC GPUs in recent years.

HuusAsking

because graphics dont make a game

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

topgunmv

same reason ps3 is failing to the wii, casuals :/

how that console got anywhere with only 1 thumbstick is mind boggeling.

warmaster670

At that time developers didn't really know how to properly exploit the dual analog configuration anyway. Most late PS1 and early PS2 games merely used the left stick as a substitute for the d-pad and often ignored the right stick entirely.