SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jun 30 2009 04:28 pm

I saw this

http://www.longhornengineer.com/Projects/Neptune

and it made me began to think what Sega could have done to have kept their momentum going from the Genesis. The 32x shouldnt have been made and dare I say, even the Sega Saturn.

In all honesty, with the right marketing the Sega Neptune could have have carved out a big niche in the gaming market.

Reasons

*The 32X/Neptune was almost on par with the Saturn graphically. You didn't have CD quality music, but you still had graphics that were far superior to the Genesis/SNES

*Cartridge games were still fine in 1994, the N64 proved that you could make quality games on that format (Angel Studios proved how much you could fit on a cartridge with RE2). The Cartridge should have had its formal death when the Dreamcast/PS2 generation began.

*The cartridge games would have been higher, but the intitial cost of the system would have been good enough for the mainstream(199 to 249 max, compared to the 400 dollars Playstation and the CD format)

*In late 1994, it was getting cheaper to produce a Sega Genesis. The Model 3 proved that. The Neptune could have had backward compatability with the Genesis similiar to the converter base for the Master System/Gen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to sound like a Sega Fanboy but I really wish Sega would have held off on CD's until the Dreamcast. The Sega CD proved that the CD format didn't mean a better game.

Like the AVGN said, it should have been a standalone in the first place.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 04:35 pm

I don't think the Neptune would have caught on. CD's were just becoming the norm, as the PS1 was just around the corner. And from what I saw, the 32X didn't seem to be much of an improvement over the Genesis (and especially not the SNES) graphically.

If it went head to head against the PS1, it would have gotten raped.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 04:39 pm

32x didn't have any good games on it's own, they were all either portjobs with slightly better graphics, or Virtua Fighter. In my opinion, they should've let the Genesis lose, and focus themselves on the Saturn and give it a real marketing campaign, and none of that "Oh it's out now! Go and get it while you can!" bullcrap. It just made it out to be a cheap prototype, that was nothing compared to the PS1.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 04:46 pm

First the N64 proved that carts were a thing of the past. With better audio quality and amount of game they could fit on one disc. And the fact that it was a fraction of the costs to produce.

When your paying $70 for a new 64 game, (Yes $70, compare that to the $60 we are griping about now) the $150 price difference loses its appeal after buying 6 new games.

And of course it was cheaper to produce a Genesis! They had been out for years and parts and processors go down in price. Have you ever opened a Gen 3, there is basically nothing inside. The playstation came out shortly after the Saturn, in the same year and destroyed everyone.

We were still in an age where backwards compatibilty was not an issue. People had little desire to hold on to old systems and at the time used shops weren't as prominent as they are now. So most people that wanted to play there old games still had them.

Sega just had a bad product, with some killer games that hardly anyone knows of unless they played it. Sadly the good titles were few and far between.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 05:09 pm

I am just saying imagine

Deep Fear
Nights
Radiant Silvergun
Sonic and Knuckles 2
Shenmue

on the Neptune

It would have sold well if it had the games. Also I dont think it would have gotten raped by the PS1, the Saturn was worse than the PS1, but not by alot.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 05:12 pm

Raped...no lube and it wouldn't have even called to say "Oh by the way I have aids."

Posted: Jun 30 2009 05:20 pm

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I don't think the Neptune would have caught on. CD's were just becoming the norm, as the PS1 was just around the corner. And from what I saw, the 32X didn't seem to be much of an improvement over the Genesis (and especially not the SNES) graphically.

If it went head to head against the PS1, it would have gotten raped.

One of the great myths of our time is that the PS1 was an unstoppable juggernaut from its launch onward. This is simply not the case. The PS1 one debuted in a market cluttered with expensive, poorly designed CD-based consoles that were not widely sold. Their game libraries were small, and finding a store that actually carried games for these systems was often a chore in and of itself.

The PS1 was no exception to this. At its debut, it was expensive, poorly designed, and had an awful library. The early versions consoles were notoriously unreliable. The FMV would often skip, and the consoles often broke ouright. It wasn't until hardware revision 4.1 was released in December 1997, over two years after the console was introduced in North America, that hardware finally became reliable. And it wasn't until the release of Final Fantasy VII in January 1997 that the PSX truly established itself as a console with staying power. Up until that point, the console war was anyone's to win.

The PSX survived and eventually succeeded because Sony was willing to commit the resources to it to keep it on the market even when it not profitable for them to do so, much like what Microsoft did with the original XBox, and to a lesser extent, the 360.

It is no small leap to say that if Sega had not badly mishandled its 32-bit strategy, the PSX would have never had a chance. If Sega had skipped the 32X and Sega CD and released a well-designed 32-bit follow-up to Genesis instead of the complete mess that was the Saturn, things would have been a lot different. Sega had an established, trusted name and a lot of momentum coming off the Genesis, and if they hadn't squandered away all their goodwill and trust on two poorly supported and expensive peripherals, their 32-bit console would have owned.

Of course, if Sega had never released the Sega CD, the PlayStation would have never existed. But we all know that story, don't we?

Posted: Jun 30 2009 05:21 pm

Douche McCallister wrote:

Raped...no lube and it wouldn't have even called to say "Oh by the way I have aids."

A fat dead beat loser? Well sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

and your right Syd about the reliability factor on the PS One, I had like a November 1996 model and I had to turn my upside down for it to play games.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 30 2009 05:29 pm

A big reason why Sega was at a disadvantage, and would have been, no matter what console they brought to the table:

"$299"

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Ermac wrote:

and your right Syd about the reliability factor on the PS One, I had like a November 1996 model and I had to turn my upside down for it to play games.

Kinda reminds me about the Grandia 2 disc problem, where I had to place my Algebra book on top of my Dreamcast.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 05:59 pm

Greg the White wrote:

Ermac wrote:

and your right Syd about the reliability factor on the PS One, I had like a November 1996 model and I had to turn my upside down for it to play games.

Kinda reminds me about the Grandia 2 disc problem, where I had to place my Algebra book on top of my Dreamcast.

Grandia 2 is a great game btw, it was the best on the Dreamcast

and yes I had to turn it upside down after a while, there was this spoiled rich kid down the street that had a newer model and I would have switched it out except that the back side of the newer version was totally different. His parents would have just bought him a new one so I wouldnt have felt bad.

Shenmue on the Saturn shows that the slightly less powerful Neptune could have done great things

also the tech demo is fairly impressive if you compare it to the SNES/Genesis

Posted: Jun 30 2009 06:04 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

The PS1 was no exception to this. At its debut, it was expensive, poorly designed, and had an awful library. The early versions consoles were notoriously unreliable. The FMV would often skip, and the consoles often broke ouright. It wasn't until hardware revision 4.1 was released in December 1997, over two years after the console was introduced in North America, that hardware finally became reliable. And it wasn't until the release of Final Fantasy VII in January 1997 that the PSX truly established itself as a console with staying power. Up until that point, the console war was anyone's to win.

It was $299 as opposed to the others, it was lighter and smaller then the other systems. (Granted the first model was made rather lazily, which was later fixed), and launched with titles that went on to span very successful exclusive/semi-exclusive sequels.

All Final Fantasy VII did was make other game makers go the FMV route, most of which did so unnecessarily. Lets not forget Resident Evil, with it's live action video and how awesome it was. Saturn had the game as well but that was like bringing it out for the Neo-Geo.

Basically Sony tea-bagged everyone while they slept. I fail to remember an extended period of time when they were in financial straights. Granted I was 13 when it came out, but I can not find a reliable source of information to back your claim.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 06:09 pm

I think you right Douche, the PSOne would have won the battle, but Sega would still have been able to remain competitive with basically a cartridge based Saturn released in 1994 to get a head start on Sony.

A successful Neptune could have meant a Dreamcast with DVD technology, making the battle with the PS2 more likely to win in their favor.

The Genesis looked better than the SNES, but it still had a big market share lest we not forget and they were practically tied for most of the 16 bit wars.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 06:11 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I don't think the Neptune would have caught on. CD's were just becoming the norm, as the PS1 was just around the corner. And from what I saw, the 32X didn't seem to be much of an improvement over the Genesis (and especially not the SNES) graphically.

If it went head to head against the PS1, it would have gotten raped.

One of the great myths of our time is that the PS1 was an unstoppable juggernaut from its launch onward. This is simply not the case. The PS1 one debuted in a market cluttered with expensive, poorly designed CD-based consoles that were not widely sold. Their game libraries were small, and finding a store that actually carried games for these systems was often a chore in and of itself.

The PS1 was no exception to this. At its debut, it was expensive, poorly designed, and had an awful library. The early versions consoles were notoriously unreliable. The FMV would often skip, and the consoles often broke ouright. It wasn't until hardware revision 4.1 was released in December 1997, over two years after the console was introduced in North America, that hardware finally became reliable. And it wasn't until the release of Final Fantasy VII in January 1997 that the PSX truly established itself as a console with staying power. Up until that point, the console war was anyone's to win.

The PSX survived and eventually succeeded because Sony was willing to commit the resources to it to keep it on the market even when it not profitable for them to do so, much like what Microsoft did with the original XBox, and to a lesser extent, the 360.

It is no small leap to say that if Sega had not badly mishandled its 32-bit strategy, the PSX would have never had a chance. If Sega had skipped the 32X and Sega CD and released a well-designed 32-bit follow-up to Genesis instead of the complete mess that was the Saturn, things would have been a lot different. Sega had an established, trusted name and a lot of momentum coming off the Genesis, and if they hadn't squandered away all their goodwill and trust on two poorly supported and expensive peripherals, their 32-bit console would have owned.

Of course, if Sega had never released the Sega CD, the PlayStation would have never existed. But we all know that story, don't we?

I can't disagree with all you said, but in the end isn't it "6 of one, half a dozen of the other?"

Whether it due to was the superiority of the PS1 or the inferiority of the competitors' hardware/management, the PS1 dominated the latter half of the 90's. Sure if Sega hadn't made a series of blunders, and if Nintendo hasn't spent forever dicking around with the N64, things could have turned out differently. But alas, that didn't happen.

Out of curiousity, why do you say the Sega CD is responsible for Sony releasing the Playstation? I'm not arguing with you.....I'm just curious as to why you say that. Weren't there CD-ROM games available on PC's before the Sega CD?

Posted: Jun 30 2009 06:56 pm

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

Of course, if Sega had never released the Sega CD, the PlayStation would have never existed. But we all know that story, don't we?

Out of curiousity, why do you say the Sega CD is responsible for Sony releasing the Playstation? I'm not arguing with you.....I'm just curious as to why you say that. Weren't there CD-ROM games available on PC's before the Sega CD?

I was under the impression that had Nintendo stayed with Sony during the SNES-CD era, or had the courts ruled in Nintnedo's favor we would never have seen a Playstation, but it was my understanding that Sony was going to release a system no matter what.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 07:40 pm

I thought Nintendo teaming with Phillips instead to make the CD-i(Biggest mistake ever?), was what made Sony decide to make the PS1.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 08:15 pm

Should've gone SMS > Genesis > Saturn

None of the CD/32x abortions to muck up Sega's rep. Saturn was pretty successful in Japan, but was marketed like garbage in the US, and then the DC was as well. :shrug:

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 30 2009 09:22 pm

Ba'al wrote:

I thought Nintendo teaming with Phillips instead to make the CD-i(Biggest mistake ever?), was what made Sony decide to make the PS1.

Nintendo and Sony had a tentative agreement to make a CD add-on for the SNES. However, Nintendo went behind their back and decided to pair up with Phillips instead (without, y'know, telling Sony the deal was off).

A SNES CD add on never happened, but the result of the partnership was some Nintendo licensed games for the CDi system. Sony, on the other hand, had plans for a CD system on their hands, and made it into the PlayStation.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 09:50 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Nintendo and Sony had a tentative agreement to make a CD add-on for the SNES. However, Nintendo went behind their back and decided to pair up with Phillips instead (without, y'know, telling Sony the deal was off).

A SNES CD add on never happened, but the result of the partnership was some Nintendo licensed games for the CDi system. Sony, on the other hand, had plans for a CD system on their hands, and made it into the PlayStation.

Correct. Nintendo got nervous when they saw Sega's CD add-on and contracted Sony to develop one for them. When they saw the sales figures and lukewarm reception the Sega CD received, Nintendo pulled out of their deal with Sony, thusly fucking them over. Sony, having already spent R&D time on a CD system, eventually released the PlayStation. So no Sega CD = no PlaySation.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 10:17 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Nintendo and Sony had a tentative agreement to make a CD add-on for the SNES. However, Nintendo went behind their back and decided to pair up with Phillips instead (without, y'know, telling Sony the deal was off).

A SNES CD add on never happened, but the result of the partnership was some Nintendo licensed games for the CDi system. Sony, on the other hand, had plans for a CD system on their hands, and made it into the PlayStation.

Correct. Nintendo got nervous when they saw Sega's CD add-on and contracted Sony to develop one for them. When they saw the sales figures and lukewarm reception the Sega CD received, Nintendo pulled out of their deal with Sony, thusly fucking them over. Sony, having already spent R&D time on a CD system, eventually released the PlayStation. So no Sega CD = no PlaySation.

I'm not trying to call you out, but where do you get your facts from? If you have a book or something I would like to get it and read it. Nintendo was going to lose a lot of control to Sony with the contract. Hence why Lincoln went behind Sony's back and forged a new contract. I fail to see why lukewarm sales of the Sega CD would make them not only leave the partnership from Sony but then to turn to Sonys rival to pursue the same damn thing. None of that makes any sense.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 10:43 pm

Nintendo had NOTHING to do with the CDi. Nothing. All they did was license their characters to Phillips for use in some CDi games. They didn't fund the system or the games. If they had, the games might not have sucked quite so hard.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 10:50 pm

Even though I bought the Sega Saturn last summer and loved it since, I have to admit, as much as I'd hate to, its North American library was very limited, thanks partially to that stupid bastard, Bernie Stolar.

Staying on topic, I have to agree with you on the Sega Neptune being a different console rather than a Sega Genesis/Megadrive add-on. With the graphics capabilities being almost the same as the Saturn, and being backwards compatible with Genesis/Megadrive games, not only would the Neptune have been a bigger threat, but it could've kept Sega in the console business in the long run. As much as I'd hate to admit it, the Saturn fell far behind the Playstation and N64, forcing Sega to start the sixth generation far too early.

If only I had a time machine; Sega falling out of the console business is part of the reason I think the sixth generation, overall, was a big, fat joke.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

So someone actually made the console that even sega was too slow to produce. At least the 32x games will finally have a decent system to play them on.

Posted: Jun 30 2009 11:13 pm

Ky-Guy wrote:

If only I had a time machine; Sega falling out of the console business is part of the reason I think the sixth generation, overall, was a big, fat joke.

Playstation 2, Xbox, GC, DC...how is/was that a big fat joke. Record number of sales, one of the greatest eras to be into gaming (a system for everyone) as a consumer and retailer.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Nintendo had NOTHING to do with the CDi. Nothing. All they did was license their characters to Phillips for use in some CDi games. They didn't fund the system or the games. If they had, the games might not have sucked quite so hard.

And I wasn't saying that Nintendo and Phillips collaborated to make the CDi, I'm saying they made it abundantly clear that they were contracting with Phillips. Which would still make no sense if they were skeptical about producing a CD based system. Why leave the #1 in the industry and side with someone else, whether they made the system or not "the proof is in the doll/pudding" `~ Kevin Nash

I'm not denying that Nintendo is responsible for the PlayStation cause they are 100% the reason they were what they were. As far as backwards compatibilty keeping Sega afloat or holding them up, I still don't think it would have helped as much as everyone is suggesting. Used games were not big in the industry so geting rid of your older systems was still relatively not common practice. Games like Tekken and RE single handedly projected Sony to the top of the market.

Think about it, now that the used game and system market is so huge we EXPECT backwards compatiability. If a system didn't have it, we would all shun them and the system would flop. Playstation 2 was (correct me if I'm wrong) pretty much the standard setter in terms of backwords comp. And look when it came out, shortly before Gamestop (Barnes & Noble) bought out FuncoLand and Software Etc., Babbages, when the used game industry was hitting mainstream audiences as a normalcy.

Posted: Jul 01 2009 12:02 am

Douche McCallister wrote:

Ky-Guy wrote:

If only I had a time machine; Sega falling out of the console business is part of the reason I think the sixth generation, overall, was a big, fat joke.

Playstation 2, Xbox, GC, DC...how is/was that a big fat joke. Record number of sales, one of the greatest eras to be into gaming (a system for everyone) as a consumer and retailer.

I guess it's a personal thing for me that started growing inside of me as of late.

For starters, it was the generation that Sega, once one of the greatest and most-respected console makers, fell out of the console business after only a few years with the Dreamcast. After that, Sega started producing games for other consoles, some of which got some really negative reviews.

Secondly, I didn't see it as too revolutionary. What I really saw most of is another boost in graphics capabilities. I know some people may say that online capabilities were the revolutionary concepts in the sixth generation, but I find that argument flawed for two reasons:

1.) Online capabilities were given to consoles in previous generations, including downloadable content (Sega Channel), broadcasts (Nintendo's Japan-exclusive Satellaview), and leader boards (Tiger's Game.com).
2.) At least in my personal opinion, online gameplay didn't get into full swing until the seventh generation, what with the advent of Wi-Fi and all.

Finally, the immaturity of the console wars got into full bloom when more and more people started hitting internet forums. Somehow, I felt that the Console Wars were more mature during the days of SNES and Genesis.

I know there are a number of wonderful franchises that debuted in the sixth generation (Pikmin, Kingdom Hearts, and Devil May Cry, to name a few), I Still felt that the sixth generation had nowhere near as much revolutionary gaming to offer as previous generations.