Would you consider the PS3 the modern day Sega Saturn?

suggested retail value $399

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

No.

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

Panzer_Zwei

as a sega fanboy, if you know sega's console history, you cannot deny that there is striking similarity in the disaster that was the Saturn system to Sega as to the current PlayStation for Sony.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

c_smithii

as a sega fanboy, if you know sega's console history, you cannot deny that there is striking similarity in the disaster that was the Saturn system to Sega as to the current PlayStation for Sony.

Sega didn't dominate two generations before though, just saying....

[QUOTE="c_smithii"][QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

SOedipus

as a sega fanboy, if you know sega's console history, you cannot deny that there is striking similarity in the disaster that was the Saturn system to Sega as to the current PlayStation for Sony.

Sega didn't dominate two generations before though, just saying....

He's not talking about the predecessors to the PS3 or Saturn. But those two systems in particular. So are there similarities? You bet. Hard to program, gets bad ports due to the 360 typically being the lead system just like the PS1 was always the lead system during that gen(except for 2D games), does well in Japan but average and below average every where else, technically has a lot of hardware advantages over the 360. The Saturn technically had hardware advantages over the PS1, it could play VCDs, had internal storage, the Internet and a far superior sound system. It also had two processors that developers found hard to program for, but when taken advantage of had the potential to look better its PS1 counter part.

Another thing is the Saturn cost a lot of money when it first launched, just like the PS3 did. Then they started to do price drop after price drop while giving away free games with the system. Similar to the Sony price drops and free games and blu ray movies. In the end Saturn went out as a system thats potential was never met, sure it had some great exclusives and its 2D capabilities were unrivaled at the time. The PS3 is treading similar waters, most developers clearly favor the 360 due to its ease of programming and don't want to take the time to bring out the PS3 potential. So far it seems like it will go out as a system thats full potential was never reached and its a shame. Because like I said its technically in many ways better than 360.

Sega Saturn details -

Lasted ~ 3 years

Sold 9.5 million lifetime , highest selling game was Virtua Fighter 2 (1.7 million)

The Saturn just didn't have the third party juggernauts that sold systems and Sega didn't have enough first party games to do any kind of damage in the market.

Im wondering how many of you know the true story behind Saturn or what made it fall...

Were you active-gamers back then or just heard rumors? Well whatever,defenitly NO for 100 different reasons.

Sega sucks, Sony has money, and has actually had multiple good consoles unlike sega.warmaster670

Sega Saturn details -

Lasted ~ 3 years

Sold 9.5 million lifetime , highest selling game was Virtua Fighter 2 (1.7 million)

The Saturn just didn't have the third party juggernauts that sold systems and Sega didn't have enough first party games to do any kind of damage in the market.

Nike_Air

And on their consoles, inculding the saturn, SEGA put out more first party games than any other developer, period.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

c_smithii

as a sega fanboy, if you know sega's console history, you cannot deny that there is striking similarity in the disaster that was the Saturn system to Sega as to the current PlayStation for Sony.

Sega Saturn details -

Lasted ~ 3 years

Sold 9.5 million lifetime , highest selling game was Virtua Fighter 2 (1.7 million)

The Saturn just didn't have the third party juggernauts that sold systems and Sega didn't have enough first party games to do any kind of damage in the market.

Nike_Air

It did very poor in the American and European(I think) markets. However it did well in Japan. I use to be upset how a lot of exclusives and good games never got release state side due to it doing poor in the USA. X-Men vs Street Fighter, Marvel Super Heroes vs Street Fighter, Princess Crown, Metal Slug, KOF, Samurai Spirits, Lunar remakes and Grandia. Those are just some I can think of off the top of my head.

[QUOTE="c_smithii"][QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

SOedipus

as a sega fanboy, if you know sega's console history, you cannot deny that there is striking similarity in the disaster that was the Saturn system to Sega as to the current PlayStation for Sony.

Sega didn't dominate two generations before though, just saying....

Yeah, but I see what he means. They keep supporting PS2 like Sega did with genesis. Also Saturn was painfully difficult to develop for, not that PS3 is that bad, but it certainly is the most difficult in comparison to 360 and Wii.

[QUOTE="Nike_Air"]

Sega Saturn details -

Lasted 4 years

Sold 9.5 million lifetime , highest selling game was Virtua Fighter 2 (1.7 million)

The Saturn just didn't have the third party juggernauts that sold systems and Sega didn't have enough first party games to do any kind of damage in the market.

Panzer_Zwei

[QUOTE="Nike_Air"]

Sega Saturn details -

Lasted ~ 3 years

Sold 9.5 million lifetime , highest selling game was Virtua Fighter 2 (1.7 million)

The Saturn just didn't have the third party juggernauts that sold systems and Sega didn't have enough first party games to do any kind of damage in the market.

Panzer_Zwei

And on their consoles, inculding the saturn, SEGA put out more first party games than any other developer, period.

lol.... Guyz seems some of you just googling things or make things out of your head...

The main reason Saturn failed was 3rd party developers. PSone had all the exclusives back then. Psone stole AAAA games from its competitors as FF7 from N64. That was the only reason SEGA failed. Same for N64,failed that gen even if ppl were so hyped at start with 64bit hardware and Mario-64.

Not to mention that PSone had easyto make games architecture.Far easier than Saturn. N64 was out of competition cause of cartridge (that was the reason FF7 never make it to N64).

So,now,which console is the one that have best hardware and got ALL AAA-AAAA exclusives for itself. Noone. So no,PS3 wont be like saturn.

[QUOTE="SOedipus"][QUOTE="c_smithii"][QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

Ramadear

as a sega fanboy, if you know sega's console history, you cannot deny that there is striking similarity in the disaster that was the Saturn system to Sega as to the current PlayStation for Sony.

Sega didn't dominate two generations before though, just saying....

He's not talking about the predecessors to the PS3 or Saturn. But those two systems in particular. So are there similarities? You bet. Hard to program, gets bad ports due to the 360 typically being the lead system just like the PS1 was always the lead system during that gen(except for 2D games), does well in Japan but average and below average every where else, technically has a lot of hardware advantages over the 360. The Saturn technically had hardware advantages over the PS1, it could play VCDs, had internal storage, the Internet and a far superior sound system. It also had two processors that developers found hard to program for, but when taken advantage of had the potential to look better its PS1 counter part.

Another thing is the Saturn cost a lot of money when it first launched, just like the PS3 did. Then they started to do price drop after price drop while giving away free games with the system. Similar to the Sony price drops and free games and blu ray movies. In the end Saturn went out as a system thats potential was never met, sure it had some great exclusives and its 2D capabilities were unrivaled at the time. The PS3 is treading similar waters, most developers clearly favor the 360 due to its ease of programming and don't want to take the time to bring out the PS3 potential. So far it seems like it will go out as a system thats full potential was never reached and its a shame. Because like I said its technically in many ways better than 360.

I know that, my point dealt more with the fact that Sega was in more "trouble" with the Saturn than Sony is with the PS3.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"][QUOTE="Nike_Air"]

Sega Saturn details -

Lasted ~ 3 years

Sold 9.5 million lifetime , highest selling game was Virtua Fighter 2 (1.7 million)

The Saturn just didn't have the third party juggernauts that sold systems and Sega didn't have enough first party games to do any kind of damage in the market.

Nike_Air

And on their consoles, inculding the saturn, SEGA put out more first party games than any other developer, period.

They did had some big hitters though, specially from third party. But lack of willing publishers, sealed them to Japan only.

lol.... Guyz seems some of you just googling things or make things out of your head...

The main reason Saturn failed was 3rd party developers. PSone had all the exclusives back then. Psone stole AAAA games from its competitors as FF7 from N64. That was the only reason SEGA failed. Same for N64,failed that gen even if ppl were so hyped at start with 64bit hardware and Mario-64.

Not to mention that PSone had easyto make games architecture.Far easier than Saturn. N64 was out of competition cause of cartridge (that was the reason FF7 never make it to N64).

So,now,which console is the one that have best hardware and got ALL AAA-AAAA exclusives for itself. Noone. So no,PS3 wont be like saturn.

AzatiS

It was the lack of mass appeal of those games, but it couldn't be helped, since they became the kind of games that people were expecting for the system.

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]Sega sucks, Sony has money, and has actually had multiple good consoles unlike sega.SmashBrosLegend

that must be it, couldnt be that sega sucks.

genesis sucked compared to teh snes, saturn sucked compared to the ps1, or even teh n64, and the DC sucked as well.

maybe if it didnt have cds and had a decent controller it would have been differant

[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"][QUOTE="warmaster670"]Sega sucks, Sony has money, and has actually had multiple good consoles unlike sega.warmaster670

that must be it, couldnt be that sega sucks.

genesis sucked compared to teh snes, saturn sucked compared to the ps1, or even teh n64, and the DC sucked as well.

maybe if it didnt have cds and had a decent controller it would have been differant

What sega controller was bad besides the orignal genesis controller? Saturn's 6 button pad was godly for fighers and non analog games. And the dreamcast controller is similar to the 360 controller. I don't see the problem.

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"][QUOTE="warmaster670"]Sega sucks, Sony has money, and has actually had multiple good consoles unlike sega.Ramadear

that must be it, couldnt be that sega sucks.

genesis sucked compared to teh snes, saturn sucked compared to the ps1, or even teh n64, and the DC sucked as well.

maybe if it didnt have cds and had a decent controller it would have been differant

What sega controller was bad besides the orignal genesis controller? Saturn's 6 button pad was godly for fighers and non analog games. And the dreamcast controller is similar to the 360 controller. I don't see the problem.

it only had one thumbstick, that was crap, the little plastic crap nubs, and the fact that the spot it is coming out of isnt round, amkes it feel weird.

plus teh cord came out of the bottom, which wouldnt have been much of a problem if the cord notch at the top would actually hold the damn thing

What sega controller was bad besides the orignal genesis controller? Saturn's 6 button pad was godly for fighers and non analog games. And the dreamcast controller is similar to the 360 controller. I don't see the problem.

Ramadear

The controller also had very uncomfortable ergonomics.

it'd the modern day n64the_h_bomb

No. Where's the revolutionary controller and the amazing games?

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Not at all.

I consider the PS3 the PS3.

c_smithii

as a sega fanboy, if you know sega's console history, you cannot deny that there is striking similarity in the disaster that was the Saturn system to Sega as to the current PlayStation for Sony.

The Saturn had some amazing games though. The PS3 is still sadly lacking in quality games. Should change soon though...

No. Where's the revolutionary controller and the amazing games?

locopatho

It has (or will have) amazing games. But like the N64 it launched late, it was the first major failure for Sony, it used a crappy from of media that no-one asked for, It has supposedly the "best graphics", Developers are abandoning it like it's got a contagious disease and Sony are having to lean on first/second parties, it's black, it has the most insufferable fanboys, every big game coming up will supposedly "save" it, it had a crappy launch that relied on one title, it's the company's third console

too many similarities to ignore

Poor poor Sega...locopatho